SECTION 11. CHILD PROTECTION, FOSTER CARE, AND ADOPTION ASSISTANCE
CONTENTS
Background
Federal Child Welfare Programs Today
The Title IV-B Child Welfare Services Program
The Title IV-E Foster Care Program
The Title IV-E Adoption Assistance Program
The Title IV-E Independent Living Program
Protections for Children in Foster Care
Protections Linked to Title IV-B Child Welfare Services
Funding
Mandatory Protections for Foster Children Funded Under Title
IV-E
Reasonable Efforts Requirement
State Compliance With Section 427 Child Protections
Federal Financial Review Procedures Under Title IV-E
New Conformity Review System Under Public Law 103-432
Recent Trends Affecting Child Welfare Populations and Programs
Child Abuse and Neglect
Child Abuse Fatalities
Substance Abuse
Trends in Foster Care Caseloads
Increase in ``Kinship'' Care
Family Preservation Programs
National Data on Foster Care and Adoption Assistance
Characteristics of Children in Substitute Care
Reasons for Placement in Substitute Care
Permanency Goals
Living Arrangements of Children in Substitute Care
Number and Duration of Placements While in Foster Care
Outcomes for Children Leaving Care
Characteristics of Children in Adoptive Care
Trends in Child Welfare and Foster Care Costs
Foster Care and Adoption Information System
Lack of Adequate Data
OBRA 1993 and Final Rules for AFCARS and SACWIS
Legislative History
Adoption Legislation in the 105th Congress
References
BACKGROUND
Child welfare services aim to improve the conditions of
children and their families and to improve or provide
substitutes for functions that parents have difficulty
performing. Child welfare services encompass a broad range of
activities, including protection of abused or neglected
children, support and preservation of families, care of the
homeless and neglected, support for family development, and
provision of out-of-home care. Services may help the family
cope with problems or they may protect children while the
family learns to perform appropriate parenting roles.
It is generally agreed that it is in the best interests of
children to live with their families. To this end, experts
emphasize both the value of preventive and rehabilitative
services and the need to limit the duration of foster care
placements. However, if children must be removed, a major
principle of professional social work is the provision of
permanent living arrangements, either by returning children to
their homes in a timely fashion or by moving children into
adoption or other permanent arrangements.
Many private, nonprofit and government entities work to
provide child welfare services to families in need. The primary
responsibility for child welfare services in the government,
however, rests with the States. Each State has its own legal
and administrative structures and programs that address the
needs of children. The Federal Government has also been
involved in efforts to improve the welfare of children in
specific areas of national concern since the early 1900s.
Almost 40 Federal programs were authorized to provide support
for such services as of 1994, administered by four different
Cabinet agencies and overseen by five House Committees
(Robinson & Forman, 1994). The largest of these programs are
authorized under titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security
Act. Additional programs include grants to States, local
governments and nongovernmental agencies for prevention and
treatment of child abuse and neglect, advocacy centers for
victims of sexual abuse, services for abandoned infants and
children with AIDS, promotion of adoption, child abuse-related
training for judicial personnel, federally administered
research and demonstration, Indian child welfare programs,
family violence programs, and a number of small programs. Of
these programs, a third had funding of less than $25 million in
1997. In addition, services related to child welfare may be
provided at State discretion under the Social Services Block
Grant (title XX of the Social Security Act), described in
section 10.
This section will focus specifically on Child Welfare,
Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Programs authorized under
titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act. Title IV-B
authorizes funds to States for a broad range of child welfare
services, including family preservation and family support
services; title IV-E authorizes the Foster Care, Independent
Living, and Adoption Assistance Programs. The IV-B and IV-E
programs are intended to operate in consort to help prevent the
need for out-of-home placement of children, and in cases where
such placement is necessary, to provide protections and
permanent placement for the children involved. Funding is
provided under the Foster Care Program to assist States with
the maintenance costs of low-income (AFDC-eligible) children in
foster care. The Independent Living Program is intended to help
States facilitate the transition of older children from foster
care to independent living; the Adoption Assistance Program
helps States support the adoption of AFDC- or SSI-eligible
children with ``special needs,'' such as minority status, age,
membership in a sibling group, or a mental or physical
handicap.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note: Since this chapter was substantially prepared,
legislation was enacted that significantly amended child welfare
programs under titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act.
References to major changes are included throughout the chapter;
however, a more detailed description of the Adoption and Safe Families
Act (Public Law 105-89) is included at the end of the chapter.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL CHILD WELFARE PROGRAMS TODAY
The Social Security Act contains the primary sources of
Federal funds available to States for child welfare, foster
care, and adoption activities. These funds include both
nonentitlement authorizations (for which the amount of funding
available is determined through the annual appropriations
process) and authorized entitlements (under which the Federal
Government has a binding obligation to make payments to any
person or unit of government that meets the eligibility
criteria established by law). The programs include the Title
IV-B Child Welfare Services and Promoting Safe and Stable
Families (formerly known as Family Preservation) Programs, the
Title IV-E Foster Care Program, the Title IV-E Adoption
Assistance Program, the Title IV-E Independent Living Program,
and the Title XX Social Services Block Grant Program. Table 11-
1 lists these programs, and describes their funding.
Table 11-2 provides data on the level of Federal funds
provided to States under titles IV-B and IV-E for fiscal years
1986-96, and HHS projections for fiscal years 1997-2002. Under
the Title XX Social Services Block Grant Program, States have
discretion over what portion of their allocation they spend on
child welfare activities, as well as a range of other
activities not directly focused on children.
In addition to the funds allocated to the States or
available on an entitlement basis, title IV-B authorizes funds
for research and demonstration activities and for direct
Federal grants to public and private entities for child welfare
staff training. These activities are authorized under section
426 of title IV-B. For fiscal year 1997, $4 million is
appropriated for training and no funding is appropriated for
research under section 426.
Welfare reform legislation enacted in 1996 (Public Law 104-
193) further authorized and appropriated funds for a national
longitudinal study of children at risk for abuse or neglect,
and of children who have been identified as victims of abuse or
neglect, established under a new section 429A of the Social
Security Act. For this study, the welfare reform legislation
provided $6 million for each of fiscal years 1996-2002.
Congress subsequently rescinded the appropriation for fiscal
years 1996 and 1997, with the understanding that adequate
funding was available for the study in the broader
appropriation for social services and income maintenance
research (Public Law 104-208).
Funds available to States from the Title IV-B Child Welfare
Program may be used for services to families and children
without regard to family income. Federal matching funds for
foster care maintenance payments under title IV-E are provided
only in those cases in which the child would have been eligible
for AFDC if still in the home. All children determined to have
``special needs'' related to their being adopted, as defined
under title IV-E, are eligible for reimbursement of certain
nonrecurring costs of adoption under the Title IV-E Adoption
Assistance Program. However, only AFDC- or SSI-eligible
``special needs'' children qualify for federally matched
adoption assistance payments available under title IV-E. Funds
available to States for the Title IV-E Independent Living
Program may be used for services which facilitate the
transition of children from foster care to independent living,
regardless of whether they are eligible for AFDC foster care
assistance.
TABLE 11-1.--FUNDING ENVIRONMENT OF THE FEDERAL PROGRAMS WHICH SUPPORT FOSTER CARE, CHILD WELFARE, AND ADOPTION
SERVICES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Budgetary classification Federal support of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title IV-E Foster Care Program:
Foster care assistance payments...... Authorized entitlement................. Open-ended Federal match at
Medicaid rate.
Placement services and administrative Authorized entitlement................. Open-ended Federal match of
costs. 50 percent. \1\
Training expenses.................... Authorized entitlement................. Open-ended Federal match of
75 percent.
Title IV-E Adoption Assistance Program:
Adoption assistance payments......... Authorized entitlement................. Open-ended Federal match at
Medicaid rate.
Nonrecurring adoption expenses....... Authorized entitlement................. Open-ended Federal match of
50 percent. \2\
Placement services and administrative Authorized entitlement................. Open-ended Federal match of
costs. 50 percent.
Training expenses.................... Authorized entitlement................. Open-ended Federal match of
75 percent.
Title IV-E Independent Living Program.... Authorized entitlement................. 100 percent Federal funding,
with a funding ceiling. \3\
Title IV-B Child Welfare Services
Program:
Child welfare services (subpart 1)... Nonentitlement authorization........... Federal match of 75 percent,
total capped at State
allotment.
Promoting Safe and Stable Families Authorized entitlement................. Federal match of 75 percent,
\5\ (subpart 2). with a funding ceiling. \4\
Title XX Social Services Block Grant Authorized entitlement................. 100 percent Federal funding,
Program. with a funding ceiling.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Seventy-five percent matching is available from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 1997 for certain costs
related to data collection.
\2\ The Federal Government reimburses 50 percent of up to $2,000 of expenditures for any one placement.
\3\ Beginning for fiscal year 1991, States are required to provide 50 percent matching for any Federal funding
claimed that exceeds $45 million.
\4\ Program authorized through fiscal year 1998.
\5\ The name of this program was changed from Family Preservation and Family Support in 1997, by Public Law 105-
89.
Source: Compiled by House Committee on Ways and Means staff.
TABLE 11-2.--FEDERAL FUNDING FOR CHILD WELFARE, FOSTER CARE, AND ADOPTION ACTIVITIES UNDER TITLES IV-B AND IV-E OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, 1986-2002, UNDER CURRENT LAW
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title IV- Title IV-E foster care State claims Title IV-E adoption assistance State
B-1 child Title IV-B-2 ----------------------------------------- Title IV-E claims
Fiscal year welfare Promoting Safe Independent ----------------------------------------- Total
services and Stable Total \2\ Maintenance Administration/ Living Assistance Administration/
Families \1\ payments training \3\ Program Total \4\ payments training
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1986...................................................... $198 ............... $605 $392 $214 ........... $55 $41 $14 $859
1987...................................................... 223 ............... 793 480 313 $45 74 54 20 1,134
1988...................................................... 239 ............... 891 548 343 45 97 74 23 1,273
1989...................................................... 247 ............... 1,153 646 507 45 111 86 24 1,555
1990...................................................... 253 ............... 1,473 835 638 50 136 105 31 1,912
1991...................................................... 274 ............... 1,819 1,030 789 60 175 130 45 2,328
1992...................................................... 274 ............... 2,233 1,204 1,029 70 220 161 58 2,796
1993...................................................... 295 ............... 2,547 1,365 1,182 70 272 197 75 3,184
1994...................................................... 295 $60 2,607 1,412 1,190 70 325 235 90 3,356
1995...................................................... 292 150 3,050 1,594 1,456 70 411 306 105 3,974
1996...................................................... 277 225 3,114 1,533 1,581 70 485 361 124 4,171
1997 (estimate)........................................... 292 240 3,243 1,548 1,695 70 571 427 144 4,416
1998 (estimate)........................................... 292 255 3,360 1,660 1,700 70 661 495 166 4,638
1999 (estimate)........................................... 292 (\5\) 3,551 1,781 1,770 70 772 578 194 4,685
2000 (estimate)........................................... 292 (\5\) 3,790 1,912 1,878 70 893 668 225 5,045
2001 (estimate)........................................... 292 (\5\) 4,047 2,043 2,004 70 1,022 765 257 5,431
2002 (estimate).......................................... 292 (\5\) 4,318 2,182 2,136 70 1,162 870 292 5,842
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The name of this program was changed from Family Preservation and Family Support in 1997, by Public Law 105-89.
\2\ Total includes administration, SACWIS (State Automated Child Welfare Information System), and training expenditures, as well as maintenace payments, but does not include transfers to the
Title IV-B Child Welfare Services Program. Differences in total due to rounding.
\3\ Includes regular administration, SACWIS costs, and training.
\4\ Total includes administration and training expenditures, and maintenance payments. Differences in total due to rounding.
\5\ Not authorized.
Note.--Totals may differ from sum of State amounts because of rounding.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Table 11-3 provides data on participation under the title
IV-B and IV-E programs. Table 11-4 shows the Congressional
Budget Office projections for Federal foster care and adoption
assistance for 1997-2002. Between 1997 and 2002, the federally
funded foster care caseload is projected to increase from
282,000 to 341,000 (21 percent). Total IV-E foster care outlays
are expected to increase 45 percent, from $3,272,000 in 1997 to
$4,742,000 in 2002. Over the same time period, the adoption
assistance caseload is projected to increase from 141,000 to
229,000 (62 percent), while total adoption assistance outlays
are estimated to increase from $562 million to $1,094 million
(95 percent).
TABLE 11-3.--PARTICIPATION IN CHILD WELFARE, FOSTER CARE, AND ADOPTION ACTIVITIES UNDER TITLES IV-B AND IV-E OF
THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, 1983-2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title IV-B- Title IV-B-2
1 child Promoting Title IV-E Title IV-E Title IV-E
Fiscal year welfare Safe and foster care Independent adoption
services Stable assistance Living assistance
Families \1\ payments \2\ Program \3\ payments \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1983......................................... NA ............ 97,370 ........... 5,309
1984......................................... NA ............ 102,051 ........... 11,581
1985......................................... NA ............ 109,122 ........... 16,009
1986......................................... NA ............ 110,586 ........... 21,989
1987......................................... NA ............ 118,549 20,182 27,588
1988......................................... NA ............ 132,757 18,931 34,698
1989......................................... NA ............ 156,871 44,191 40,666
1990......................................... NA ............ 167,981 44,365 44,024
1991......................................... NA ............ 202,687 45,284 54,818
1992......................................... NA ............ 222,315 57,360 68,197
1993......................................... NA ............ 232,668 57,918 78,044
1994......................................... NA NA 244,473 71,081 91,872
1995......................................... NA NA 260,737 73,137 106,880
1996......................................... NA NA 266,977 85,261 122,657
1997 (estimated)............................. NA NA 285,000 NA 131,200
1998 (estimated)............................. NA NA 296,400 NA 140,400
1999 (estimated)............................. NA ............ 308,300 NA 150,200
2000 (estimated)............................. NA ............ 320,600 NA 160,700
2001 (estimated)............................. NA ............ 333,400 NA 170,300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The name of this program was changed from Family Preservation and Family Support in 1997, by Public Law 105-
89.
\2\ Average monthly number of recipients.
\3\ Estimated.
NA--Not available.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 11-4.--CBO BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR THE FEDERAL FOSTER CARE AND ADOPTION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS, 1997-2002
[By fiscal year, In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foster care:
Title IV-E caseload
(thousands).................. 282 298 311 323 332 341
Average monthly maint. payment
(Federal share).............. $490 $509 $529 $551 $573 $596
Federal outlays (millions):
Maintenance payments........ 1,632 1,789 1,955 2,121 2,285 2,447
Administrative and child
placement services......... 1,490 1,545 1,662 1,805 1,944 2,075
Training.................... 149 161 174 188 203 220
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total outlays............. 3,272 3,495 3,791 4,114 4,432 4,742
=============================================================================
Adoption assistance:
Title IV-E caseload
(thousands).................. 141 159 177 196 213 229
Average monthly payment....... $255 $265 $275 $286 $298 $310
Federal outlays (millions):
Maintenance payments........ 421 494 574 660 747 837
Administrative and child
placement services......... 125 143 163 184 204 224
Training.................... 17 20 23 26 29 32
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total outlays............. 562 657 759 869 981 1,094
=============================================================================
Independent living: Federal
outlays.......................... 70 70 70 70 70 70
=============================================================================
Total outlays......... 3,904 4,222 4,621 5,054 5,482 5,905
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Congressional Budget Office, March 1997 baseline.
The Title IV-B Child Welfare Services Program
Grants to States for child welfare services
The Child Welfare Services Program under subpart 1 of title
IV-B permanently authorizes 75 percent Federal matching grants
to States for services that protect the welfare of children.
These services: address problems that may result in neglect,
abuse, exploitation or delinquency of children; prevent the
unnecessary separation of children from their families and
restore children to their families, when possible; place
children in adoptive families when appropriate; and assure
adequate foster care when children cannot return home or be
placed for adoption. There are no Federal income eligibility
requirements for the receipt of child welfare services.
Under legislation originally enacted in 1980 (Public Law
96-272), States are limited in the amount of their title IV-B
allotments that may be used for child day care, foster care
maintenance payments, and adoption assistance payments.
Specifically, States may use no more than their portion of the
first $56.6 million in Federal IV-B appropriations for these
three activities. The intent of this restriction is to devote
as much title IV-B funding as possible to supportive services
that could prevent the need for out-of-home placement. In
addition, the 1980 legislation required States to implement
certain foster care protections for all children in foster care
to be eligible to receive their full allotment of Federal title
IV-B appropriations. (The foster care protections are described
later in this section.)
Between 1977 and 1990, the annual authorization level for
the Child Welfare Services Program remained flat at $266
million. The authorization level was increased to $325 million
under Public Law 101-239 beginning for fiscal year 1990.
Appropriations for the program--the amount of money Congress
actually made available for spending each year--increased from
$163.6 million in fiscal year 1981 to $294.6 million in fiscal
year 1994. Appropriations have since decreased, to $292 million
in fiscal year 1995, $277.4 million in fiscal year 1996, and
$292 million in fiscal year 1997 (see table 11-2).
Child welfare services funds are distributed to States on
the basis of their under 21 population and per capita income.
Because of minimal reporting requirements under the program,
there are no reliable National or State-by-State data on the
exact number of children served, their characteristics, or the
services provided. Table 11-5 details the State-by-State
distribution of child welfare services funds for selected
fiscal years.
TABLE 11-5.--STATE-BY-STATE ALLOCATIONS FOR TITLE IV-B CHILD WELFARE SERVICES, SELECTED YEARS 1987-97
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 1987 1989 1992 1994 1995 1996 1997
actual actual actual actual actual actual allotments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................... $4,783 $5,136 $5,432 $5,623 $5,512 $5,106 $5,327
Alaska............................ 417 294 614 754 756 725 749
Arizona........................... 3,344 3,797 4,418 5,034 5,036 5,015 5,466
Arkansas.......................... 2,838 3,095 3,273 3,424 3,387 3,178 3,359
California........................ 20,445 23,100 27,289 31,732 31,575 31,049 32,760
Colorado.......................... 2,772 3,091 3,558 3,866 3,904 3,719 3,935
Connecticut....................... 2,081 2,143 1,942 2,120 2,077 2,052 2,154
Delaware.......................... 570 654 717 726 720 713 756
District of Columbia.............. 386 432 431 447 427 345 346
Florida........................... 9,105 10,361 11,773 13,146 13,096 12,781 13,708
Georgia........................... 6,622 7,301 7,737 8,426 8,418 8,032 8,502
Hawaii............................ 656 1,119 1,180 1,204 1,205 1,117 1,179
Idaho............................. 1,304 1,388 1,581 1,703 1,719 1,622 1,736
Illinois.......................... 9,932 10,773 11,338 11,773 11,634 11,067 11,684
Indiana........................... 5,572 6,064 6,709 6,952 6,832 6,367 6,697
Iowa.............................. 2,861 3,074 3,364 3,475 3,402 3,223 3,358
Kansas............................ 2,150 2,461 2,885 3,068 3,034 2,873 3,011
Kentucky.......................... 4,154 4,556 4,883 5,030 4,961 4,624 4,842
Louisiana......................... 5,106 5,657 6,350 6,527 6,412 5,910 6,195
Maine............................. 1,313 1,391 1,443 1,482 1,455 1,378 1,432
Maryland.......................... 3,440 3,798 3,924 4,343 4,291 4,156 4,358
Massachusetts..................... 2,714 4,418 4,336 4,708 4,597 4,579 4,792
Michigan.......................... 8,888 9,551 10,196 10,885 10,634 10,075 10,487
Minnesota......................... 3,937 4,206 4,753 5,092 5,070 4,785 5,022
Mississippi....................... 3,519 3,923 4,177 4,293 4,245 3,949 4,146
Missouri.......................... 4,958 5,235 5,798 6,146 6,072 5,727 5,998
Montana........................... 978 1,049 1,136 1,207 1,220 1,158 1,203
Nebraska.......................... 1,641 1,744 1,996 2,071 2,032 1,879 1,968
Nevada............................ 775 964 1,170 1,401 1,430 1,379 1,516
New Hampshire..................... 950 1,024 1,028 1,087 1,074 1,096 1,152
New Jersey........................ 5,424 5,465 4,936 5,224 5,193 5,368 5,669
New Mexico........................ 1,642 2,072 2,291 2,510 2,526 2,418 2,541
New York.......................... 13,529 14,373 14,490 15,452 15,231 14,148 14,808
North Carolina.................... 6,432 7,189 7,771 8,112 8,086 7,728 8,229
North Dakota...................... 750 849 942 945 929 858 891
Ohio.............................. 10,402 10,429 12,283 12,878 12,748 11,853 12,386
Oklahoma.......................... 3,332 3,735 4,144 4,406 4,374 4,133 4,310
Oregon............................ 2,586 2,850 3,283 3,556 3,555 3,321 3,531
Pennsylvania...................... 10,038 11,236 11,905 12,148 11,949 11,076 11,583
Rhode Island...................... 888 953 1,025 1,054 1,032 984 1,012
South Carolina.................... 4,015 4,468 4,747 4,948 4,867 4,544 4,696
South Dakota...................... 853 938 1,038 1,075 1,077 991 1,029
Tennessee......................... 5,001 5,598 5,933 6,210 6,166 5,792 6,100
Texas............................. 16,243 18,958 21,845 23,795 23,796 22,401 23,783
Utah.............................. 2,555 2,891 3,196 3,474 3,481 3,284 3,469
Vermont........................... 632 583 713 715 699 674 703
Virginia.......................... 4,907 5,463 5,891 6,373 6,323 6,114 6,408
Washington........................ 3,774 4,382 5,169 5,699 5,741 5,231 5,512
West Virginia..................... 2,226 2,397 2,454 2,486 2,417 2,189 2,251
Wisconsin......................... 4,672 5,077 5,639 6,022 5,950 5,574 5,854
Wyoming........................... 101 382 703 724 719 638 661
American Samoa.................... NA 163 175 193 190 183 188
Guam.............................. 304 342 376 351 346 329 340
Northern Marianas................. 110 118 124 142 140 136 139
Puerto Rico....................... 3,671 3,674 7,094 8,105 7,951 7,480 7,787
Virgin Islands.................... 202 295 311 280 276 263 271
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 222,500 246,679 273,911 294,624 291,989 277,389 291,989
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA--Not applicable; jurisdiction not eligible under statute.
Note: Totals may differ from sum of State amounts due to rounding.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Grants to States for promoting safe and stable families
Grants to States for family preservation and family support
services were originally authorized as a capped entitlement
under subpart 2 of title IV-B, beginning in fiscal year 1994.
States already had the flexibility to expend their child
welfare services funds available under subpart 1 of title IV-B
for family support and preservation activities, but few States
used a significant share of such funds for these two categories
of services. Entitlement funding was authorized for 5 years at
the following ceiling levels: $60 million in fiscal year 1994;
$150 million in fiscal year 1995; $225 million in fiscal year
1996; $240 million in fiscal year 1997; and either $255 million
in fiscal year 1998 or the fiscal year 1997 level adjusted for
inflation, whichever is greater. The Adoption and Safe Families
Act (Public Law 105-89), enacted in November 1997, reauthorized
and changed the name of this program to Promoting Safe and
Stable Families. Entitlement ceilings are now set at the
following levels: $275 million for fiscal year 1999, $295
million for fiscal year 2000, and $305 million for fiscal year
2001.
From these ceiling amounts, $2 million in fiscal year 1994
and $6 million in each subsequent fiscal year are reserved for
use by the Secretary of HHS to fund research, training,
technical assistance and evaluation of family preservation and
support activities. In addition, $5 million in fiscal year 1995
and $10 million in each subsequent fiscal year are reserved for
a grant program for State courts (described below). Finally, 1
percent of the family preservation and family support
entitlement is reserved for allotment to Indian tribes. Table
11-6 shows State allotments of family preservation and family
support entitlement funds in fiscal years 1995-97, and
estimated State allotments for fiscal year 1998.
After these set-asides are made, remaining entitlement
funds are allocated among States according to their relative
shares of children receiving food stamps, subject to a 25-
percent non-Federal match. States must submit a plan to HHS
that provides a detailed account of how the money will be used.
Prior to the enactment of Public Law 105-89, at least 90
percent of the funds had to be used for two categories of
services: family preservation services and community-based
family support services. Public Law 105-89 added two additional
categories: time-limited family reunification services, and
adoption promotion and support services. No more than 10
percent of funds can be used for administration.
The Federal statute does not specify a percentage or
minimum amount of funds that must be used for any single
category of service. However, in program guidance to States
issued on January 18, 1994, HHS stated that allocations of less
than 25 percent to either type of service will require a strong
rationale. HHS subsequently restated this position in proposed
regulations issued on October 4, 1994, and final regulations,
issued on November 18, 1996. However, these regulations were
developed before the Adoption and Safe Families Act established
two additional categories of service for this program.
Family preservation services are intended for children and
families, including extended and adoptive families, that are at
risk or in crisis. Services include: programs to help reunite
children with their biological families, if appropriate, or to
place them for adoption or another permanent arrangement;
programs to prevent placement of children in foster care,
including intensive family preservation services; programs to
provide follow-up services to families after a child has been
returned from foster care; respite care to provide temporary
relief for parents and other care givers (including foster
parents); and services to improve parenting skills.
TABLE 11-6.--TITLE IV-B PROMOTING SAFE AND STABLE FAMILIES: \1\ STATE-BY-STATE ALLOCATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year fiscal year
State 1995 grant 1996 grant 1997 1998
awards awards allotments allotments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................................... $2,880,911 $4,167,863 $4,298,428 $4,586,793
Alaska................................................ 186,726 300,567 343,874 366,943
Arizona............................................... 2,414,096 3,767,107 4,126,491 4,403,321
Arkansas.............................................. 1,387,105 2,023,818 2,106,230 2,247,529
California............................................ 16,631,924 25,989,033 29,852,578 31,855,278
Colorado.............................................. 1,480,468 2,184,121 2,256,675 2,408,066
Connecticut........................................... 1,067,004 1,643,100 1,805,340 1,926,453
Delaware.............................................. 253,413 400,756 451,335 481,613
District of Columbia.................................. 466,814 701,323 752,225 802,689
Florida............................................... 6,281,986 10,479,771 11,691,723 12,476,077
Georgia............................................... 3,734,514 5,891,114 6,297,197 6,719,652
Hawaii................................................ 349,853 681,285 773,717 825,623
Idaho................................................. 373,451 581,096 623,272 665,085
Illinois.............................................. 6,015,235 8,716,445 8,682,824 9,265,322
Indiana............................................... 2,254,046 3,566,729 3,890,077 4,151,048
Iowa.................................................. 1,026,991 1,462,760 1,504,450 1,605,378
Kansas................................................ 893,616 1,342,533 1,396,989 1,490,708
Kentucky.............................................. 2,600,822 3,706,994 3,696,648 3,944,642
Louisiana............................................. 4,534,767 6,392,059 6,447,642 6,880,190
Maine................................................. 586,852 901,701 924,162 986,160
Maryland.............................................. 1,827,244 2,765,217 3,030,392 3,233,689
Massachusetts......................................... 2,307,396 3,426,464 3,632,171 3,875,840
Michigan.............................................. 5,535,083 7,694,517 7,995,076 8,531,435
Minnesota............................................. 1,573,831 2,384,499 2,600,549 2,775,010
Mississippi........................................... 2,774,210 3,947,447 4,019,030 4,288,651
Missouri.............................................. 2,760,873 4,187,901 4,470,365 4,770,265
Montana............................................... 320,101 480,907 515,811 550,415
Nebraska.............................................. 560,177 841,588 924,162 986,160
Nevada................................................ 386,789 681,285 752,225 802,689
New Hampshire......................................... 226,738 380,718 429,843 458,679
New Jersey............................................ 2,720,860 3,927,410 4,212,459 4,495,057
New Mexico............................................ 1,093,679 1,723,251 1,934,292 2,064,057
New York.............................................. 9,709,736 14,046,501 15,237,926 16,260,181
North Carolina........................................ 2,787,548 4,408,317 4,814,239 5,137,208
North Dakota.......................................... 240,076 340,643 343,874 366,943
Ohio.................................................. 6,682,112 9,437,806 9,499,525 10,136,813
Oklahoma.............................................. 1,667,194 2,524,763 2,750,994 2,935,548
Oregon................................................ 1,227,055 1,903,591 2,041,753 2,178,727
Pennsylvania.......................................... 5,668,459 8,175,424 8,489,395 9,058,916
Rhode Island.......................................... 453,477 701,323 752,225 802,689
South Carolina........................................ 1,933,945 2,905,482 3,116,360 3,325,425
South Dakota.......................................... 306,764 440,832 429,843 458,679
Tennessee............................................. 3,187,674 4,929,300 5,287,066 5,641,755
Texas................................................. 12,910,748 19,617,010 21,169,757 22,589,956
Utah.................................................. 706,890 1,062,004 1,096,099 1,169,632
Vermont............................................... 253,413 380,718 429,843 458,679
Virginia.............................................. 2,227,371 3,486,578 3,933,061 4,196,916
Washington............................................ 2,254,046 3,306,238 3,481,726 3,715,302
West Virginia......................................... 1,373,768 2,364,461 2,493,088 2,660,340
Wisconsin............................................. 1,973,957 2,745,179 2,836,962 3,027,283
Wyoming............................................... 186,726 260,491 279,398 298,142
American Samoa........................................ 122,095 154,717 159,031 165,105
Guam.................................................. 219,181 264,143 274,029 287,948
Northern Mariana...................................... 96,047 119,418 121,935 125,478
Puerto Rico........................................... 3,498,785 5,618,957 5,901,525 6,299,348
Virgin Islands........................................ 188,397 214,725 222,094 232,470
---------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................ 137,383,039 206,750,000 221,600,000 236,450,000
=========================================================
Set-asides:
Indians (1 percent)............................... 1,498,773 2,250,000 2,400,000 2,550,000
Research & Eval................................... 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000
Courts............................................ 5,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000
---------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................ 12,498,773 18,250,000 18,400,000 18,550,000
=========================================================
Total......................................... \2\ 150,000,00
0 225,000,000 240,000,000 255,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The name of this program was changed from Family Preservation and Family Support in 1997, by Public Law 105-
89.
\2\ Includes $118,188 in lapsed funds.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Family support services are intended to reach families
which are not yet in crisis and to prevent child abuse or
neglect from occurring. Family support services are generally
community-based activities designed to promote the well-being
of children and families, to increase the strength and
stability of families (including adoptive, foster and extended
families), to increase parents' confidence and competence, to
provide children with a stable and supportive family
environment, and to enhance child development. Examples include
parenting skills training, respite care to relieve parents and
other care givers, structured activities involving parents and
children to strengthen their relationships, drop-in centers for
families, information and referral services, and early
developmental screening for children.
In regulations proposed on October 4, 1994, and made final
on November 18, 1996, HHS set forth a series of child and
family services ``principles'' that are intended to guide State
implementation of the program. According to HHS, these
principles emphasize the paramount importance of safety for all
family members, including victims of child abuse and neglect
and victims of domestic violence and their dependents. In the
preamble to its proposed regulations, HHS states that family
preservation ``does NOT mean that the family must stay together
or `be preserved' under all circumstances.'' The principles
also are intended to support a family-focused approach while
allowing for individual needs, and a service delivery approach
that stresses flexibility, accessibility, coordination, and
respect for cultural and community strengths.
The Secretary of HHS is required to evaluate Family
Preservation and Family Support Programs. Evaluations are
currently underway. Interim reports were expected in 1997, and
final reports in 1999. In the meantime, the General Accounting
Office (GAO) has released two reports on implementation of the
Family Preservation and Family Support Program. In June 1995,
GAO reported that States were on schedule in their
implementation of the program, and that HHS was an active
partner with the States, providing ongoing consultation and
technical assistance during the initial comprehensive planning
process (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1995). GAO identified
two related areas in which States anticipated difficulty: (1)
development of appropriate baseline information to guide them
in setting goals, making decisions, and tracking progress; and
(2) conducting comprehensive evaluations to measure program
success. GAO recommended that HHS provide additional assistance
to States in these areas. In February 1997, GAO reported that
States were using the new funds to increase the availability of
services for families, by establishing new programs and
expanding existing services (U.S. General Accounting Office,
1997). Over a 2-year period, States used 56 percent of their
Federal funds for family support activities, and 44 percent for
family preservation services. States were tracking program
participants and monitoring progress, and at least 11 States
were planning formal evaluations. GAO reported that early
results from 10 States indicated some success in preventing
child removals and continued maltreatment, and that the
collaborative planning process required by the law was having a
positive impact on the service delivery system.
As stated above, a portion of the entitlement funds is
reserved for a grant program to the highest State courts to
assess and improve certain child welfare proceedings. The court
set-aside equals $5 million in fiscal year 1995 and $10 million
in each of fiscal years 1996-98. A 25 percent non-Federal match
is required in each of the last 3 fiscal years.
Courts use their grant funds to assess their procedures and
effectiveness in determinations regarding foster care
placement, termination of parental rights, and recognition of
adoptions. Courts also can use these grant funds to implement
changes found necessary as a result of the assessments.
According to HHS, 48 States and the District of Columbia chose
to implement this program, beginning in fiscal year 1995.
Idaho, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming are not participating in the
program.
The Title IV-E Foster Care Program
The Foster Care Program under title IV-E is a permanently
authorized entitlement program. The program provides open-ended
matching funds to States for the maintenance payments made for
AFDC-eligible children in foster care family homes, private
for-profit or nonprofit child care facilities, or public child
care institutions housing up to 25 people. Welfare reform
legislation enacted in the 104th Congress (Public Law 104-193)
repealed the AFDC Program and replaced it with a block grant to
States called Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF).
All States participating in TANF must certify that they will
operate a Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Program under
title IV-E. Under Public Law 104-193, foster children will be
eligible for title IV-E subsidies if their families would have
been eligible for AFDC, as in effect on June 1, 1995. Technical
corrections enacted in 1997 changed this date to July 16, 1996
(Public Law 105-33).
The Federal matching rate for foster care maintenance
payments for a given State is that State's Medicaid matching
rate, which averages about 57 percent nationally and can range
from 50 to 83 percent. States may claim open-ended Federal
matching at a rate of 50 percent for their child placement
services and administrative costs. States also may claim open-
ended Federal matching at a rate of 75 percent to train
personnel employed by the State or by local agencies
administering the program and to train foster and adoptive
parents. During fiscal years 1994-97, States also were able to
receive Federal matching at the 75 percent rate for eligible
costs related to automated child welfare information systems.
States are required to provide foster care maintenance
payments to AFDC-eligible children removed from the home of a
relative if the child received or would have been eligible for
AFDC prior to removal from the home and if the following apply:
(1) the removal and foster care placement were based on a
voluntary placement agreement signed by the child's parents or
guardians or a judicial determination that remaining in the
home would be contrary to the child's welfare; (2) reasonable
efforts were made to eliminate the need for removal or to
return the child to his home (some exceptions to this
requirement were enacted in 1997, described later in this
chapter); and (3) care and placement of the child are the
responsibility of specified public agencies. Children in the
Title IV-E Foster Care Program are also eligible for Medicaid.
Maintenance payments under the Title IV-E Foster Care
Program are intended to cover the costs of food, shelter,
clothing, daily supervision, school supplies, general
incidentals, liability insurance for the child, and reasonable
travel to the child's home for visits.
Foster care expenditures and participation rates
The average estimated monthly number of children in title
IV-E foster care almost tripled between 1983 and 1996, from
97,370 in fiscal year 1983 to 266,977 in fiscal year 1996 (see
table 11-3). More detailed data on foster children and their
characteristics are described later in this section.
State claims for child placement services and
administrative costs for the Title IV-E Foster Care Program
have increased considerably since 1981. Current HHS regulations
give the following examples of allowable child placement
services and administrative costs for the Foster Care Program:
referral to services, preparation for and participation in
judicial determinations, placement of the child, development of
the case plan, case reviews, case management and supervision,
recruitment and licensing of foster homes and institutions,
rate setting, and a proportionate share of agency overhead. As
discussed later, many of these activities are required by the
Federal Government as foster care ``protections.''
Table 11-7 provides a State breakdown of foster care
expenditures in fiscal year 1996 for maintenance payments,
child placement and administration, data collection, and
training expenditures. Note that California, New York and
Illinois account for 48 percent of the estimated fiscal year
1996 expenditures. A more detailed discussion of growth in
child placement services and administrative costs is presented
below.
Foster care payment rates
Table 11-8 shows each State's ``basic'' monthly foster
care payment rates for children ages 2, 9, and 16, as reported
in an annual survey conducted by the American Public Welfare
Association (APWA). States are allowed to set the payments at
any level; thus, the rates vary widely. The basic monthly
foster care rates shown in the table are those paid for family
foster care, and differ from rates paid to institutions or for
group or congregate care.
APWA cautions that the family foster care rates shown in
the table are only generally comparable due to variations among
States regarding the items that are covered under the basic
rate, additional services that are provided by supplements, and
the States' administrative structures. Table 11-8 indicates
whether the basic rate includes each of the following three
items: room and board (r); supervision (s); and clothing (c).
APWA notes that 32 States include other items in their basic
rates, such as child care, respite care, transportation,
personal allowance, school supplies, recreational and community
activities, and incidentals. Forty-three States and counties in
10 States supplement their basic rates, for items such as
education, child care, respite care, level of need, clothing,
transportation, health and medical care (other than Medicaid or
State-funded medical assistance), and special emotional,
behavioral, medical, or psychological needs. According to the
APWA survey, the national average ``basic'' monthly foster care
maintenance payment in 1996 was $356 for 2-year-olds, $373 for
9-year-olds, and $431 for 16-year-olds.
TABLE 11-7.--FEDERAL FOSTER CARE EXPENDITURES UNDER TITLE IV-E, FISCAL YEAR 1996
[Estimate, dollars in millions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child State Automated Child placement
Maintenance placement Child Welfare services and
State payments services and Information Training Total administration as
administration System (SACWIS) percent of total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama....................................................... $1.44 $2.93 $0.10 $0.76 $5.23 56.02
Alaska........................................................ 2.11 4.43 1.40 0.05 7.99 55.44
Arizona....................................................... 18.15 15.19 8.01 1.62 42.97 35.35
Arkansas...................................................... 6.93 7.53 3.92 6.92 25.30 29.76
California.................................................... 326.31 296.06 36.73 34.21 693.31 42.70
Colorado...................................................... 7.31 14.20 0.35 (1.51) 20.35 69.78
Connecticut................................................... 20.81 35.38 6.52 3.43 66.14 53.49
Delaware...................................................... 1.12 3.16 2.68 0.44 7.40 42.70
District of Columbia.......................................... 8.51 11.77 1.72 0.07 22.07 53.33
Florida....................................................... 23.98 46.53 6.83 1.16 78.50 59.27
Georgia....................................................... 14.20 7.75 0.73 1.85 24.53 31.59
Hawaii........................................................ 3.95 6.72 0.00 1.10 11.77 57.09
Idaho......................................................... 0.81 3.02 2.64 0.24 6.71 45.01
Illinois...................................................... 136.09 97.51 1.25 3.48 238.33 40.91
Indiana....................................................... 33.54 10.51 6.35 0.44 50.84 20.67
Iowa.......................................................... 10.08 4.57 1.62 0.69 16.96 26.95
Kansas........................................................ 9.14 10.14 1.19 3.43 23.90 42.43
Kentucky...................................................... 21.86 17.72 6.13 5.87 51.58 34.35
Louisiana..................................................... 21.56 13.03 0.00 2.09 36.68 35.52
Maine......................................................... 15.11 1.56 0.57 1.54 18.78 8.31
Maryland...................................................... 31.10 34.49 0.04 5.41 71.04 48.55
Massachusetts................................................. 42.07 37.58 15.83 0.93 96.41 38.98
Michigan...................................................... 53.00 37.46 5.91 (0.82) 95.55 39.20
Minnesota..................................................... 23.30 10.60 5.56 5.09 44.55 23.79
Mississippi................................................... 2.98 4.85 0.92 0.31 9.06 53.53
Missouri...................................................... 22.39 15.72 1.74 6.12 45.97 34.20
Montana....................................................... 3.85 1.20 1.27 0.98 7.30 16.44
Nebraska...................................................... 7.17 6.81 2.68 3.34 20.00 34.05
Nevada........................................................ 1.82 1.10 2.10 0.13 5.15 21.36
New Hampshire................................................. 3.14 4.36 2.26 0.48 10.24 42.58
New Jersey.................................................... 18.57 11.43 7.20 0.13 37.33 30.62
New Mexico.................................................... 3.75 2.33 2.87 3.27 12.22 19.07
New York...................................................... 276.41 264.27 13.11 12.48 566.27 46.67
North Carolina................................................ 27.61 7.71 0.00 2.11 37.43 20.60
North Dakota.................................................. 2.98 4.19 0.40 0.55 8.12 51.60
Ohio.......................................................... 74.59 53.35 0.00 7.62 135.56 39.36
Oklahoma...................................................... 8.72 5.64 7.09 2.70 24.15 23.35
Oregon........................................................ 10.70 12.16 1.19 0.75 24.80 49.03
Pennsylvania.................................................. 108.53 34.11 0.01 6.96 149.61 22.80
Rhode Island.................................................. 3.95 3.63 1.56 0.34 9.48 38.29
South Carolina................................................ 7.06 4.63 5.02 2.07 18.78 24.65
South Dakota.................................................. 0.92 1.16 0.84 0.12 3.04 38.16
Tennessee..................................................... 11.72 6.66 0.01 1.15 19.54 34.08
Texas......................................................... 49.44 12.29 12.46 3.02 77.21 15.92
Utah.......................................................... 4.42 5.69 1.99 1.11 13.21 43.07
Vermont....................................................... 6.19 1.54 0.01 0.50 8.24 18.69
Virginia...................................................... 9.60 21.91 0.00 3.12 34.63 63.27
Washington.................................................... 7.88 7.33 7.90 0.48 23.59 31.07
West Virginia................................................. 4.73 1.52 1.75 0.47 8.47 17.95
Wisconsin..................................................... 20.26 24.19 0.18 1.34 45.97 52.62
Wyoming....................................................... 0.75 0.33 0.83 0.01 1.92 17.19
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 1,532.62 1,249.94 191.48 140.16 3,114.21 40.14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Totals may differ from sum of State amounts due to rounding.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 11-8.--FOSTER CARE BASIC MONTHLY MAINTENANCE RATES FOR CHILDREN AGES 2, 9, AND 16, SELECTED YEARS 1987-96
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age 2 Age 9 Age 16
State -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1987 1991 1994 1996 1987 1991 1994 1996 1987 1991 1994 1996
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..................................... 168 181 205 205rc 188 202 229 229rc 198 213 241 241rc
Alaska \1\.................................. 428 561 588 588rsc 478 499 523 523rsc 565 592 621 621rsc
Arizona..................................... 223 247 297 403rsc 223 247 286 392rsc 282 305 365 471rsc
Arkansas.................................... 175 195 300 400rsc 190 210 325 425rsc 220 240 375 475rsc
California.................................. 294 345 345 345rsc 340 400 400 400rsc 412 484 484 484rsc
Colorado.................................... 235 296 319 361rc 266 296 319 361rc 318 352 379 430rc
Connecticut................................. 268 386 567 567rsc 302 424 586 586rsc 350 478 637 637rsc
Delaware.................................... 264 301 342 350rsc 266 304 342 350rsc 342 391 440 450rsc
District of Columbia \1\.................... 304 304 431 437rsc 304 304 431 437rsc 317 317 519 526rsc
Florida..................................... 233 296 296 296rc 233 296 296 296rc 293 372 372 372rc
Georgia \1\................................. 300 300 300 325r 300 300 300 325r 300 300 300 325r
Hawaii...................................... 194 529 529 529rs 233 529 529 529rs 301 529 529 529rs
Idaho....................................... 138 198 228 228r 165 205 250 250r 204 278 338 358r
Illinois.................................... 233 268 322 343rc 259 299 358 382rc 282 325 390 415rc
Indiana..................................... 226 281 405 405rsc 245 330 462 462rsc 280 398 518 518rsc
Iowa \1\.................................... 159 198 328 375rsc 201 243 342 397rsc 285 300 405 460rsc
Kansas \1\.................................. 187 304 205 305rsc 245 304 277 305rsc 280 386 351 386rsc
Kentucky.................................... 248 265 263 300rsc 263 288 285 323rsc 300 333 330 368rsc
Louisiana................................... 199 283 298 348rc 232 316 331 331rc 265 349 364 364rc
Maine \1\................................... 244 296 296 325r 250 304 304 334r 291 353 353 389r
Maryland.................................... 285 535 535 535rsc 285 535 535 535rsc 303 550 550 550rsc
Massachusetts............................... 362 410 410 415rs 362 410 410 415rs 433 486 486 493rs
Michigan \1\................................ 315 332 383 365rsc 315 332 383 365rsc 395 416 454 433rsc
Minnesota \1\............................... 285 341 377 419rsc 285 341 377 419rsc 375 442 487 531rsc
Mississippi................................. 130 145 175 225rc 150 165 205 255rc 160 175 250 300rc
Missouri.................................... 174 209 212 216rs 212 255 259 264rs 232 281 286 292rs
Montana \1\................................. 283 307 330 345rs 283 307 330 345rs 354 384 416 435rs
Nebraska.................................... 210 222 326 326rsc 210 291 394 393rsc 210 351 461 463rsc
Nevada...................................... 275 281 281 304rs 275 281 281 304rs 330 337 337 365rs
New Hampshire............................... 200 200 314 314rs 251 251 342 342rs 354 354 404 404rs
New Jersey.................................. 203 244 272 288rs 215 259 288 339rs 253 305 340 361rs
New Mexico.................................. 236 258 308 308rsc 247 270 341 341rsc 259 281 367 367rsc
New York.................................... 312 353 367 367rs 375 424 441 441rs 434 490 510 510rs
New York City............................... 342 386 401 401rs 403 455 473 473rs 465 526 547 547rs
North Carolina.............................. 215 265 315 315rsc 215 265 365 365rsc 215 265 415 415rsc
North Dakota................................ 240 260 265 308rsc 287 312 318 349rsc 345 416 424 456rsc
Ohio........................................ 240 289 413 544rsc 270 328 413 544rsc 300 366 413 544rsc
Oklahoma.................................... 300 300 300 300rsc 360 360 360 360rsc 420 420 420 420rsc
Oregon...................................... 200 285 315 315rsc 234 295 327 327rsc 316 363 404 404rsc
Pennsylvania................................ 558 303 315 312rc 558 319 368 375rc 558 377 473 482rc
Rhode Island................................ 223 274 279 NA 223 274 279 NA 275 335 341 NA
South Carolina.............................. 138 182 212 212rsc 158 209 239 239rsc 208 275 305 305rsc
South Dakota................................ 188 237 259 353rsc 230 291 317 353rsc 276 349 382 424rsc
Tennessee................................... 139 255 336 336rsc 190 226 262 262rs 224 267 385 385rs
Texas \1\................................... 243 420 476 482rsc 243 420 476 482rsc 274 420 476 482rsc
Utah \1\.................................... 198 300 300 319rsc 198 300 300 319rsc 225 300 300 319rsc
Vermont..................................... 210 371 416 416rsc 249 371 416 416rsc 268 447 504 504rsc
Virginia.................................... 193 246 256 262rc 244 288 300 307rc 309 365 379 388rc
Washington.................................. 184 270 292 304rsc 227 332 359 374rsc 268 392 425 442rsc
West Virginia............................... 161 161 161 400rsc 202 202 202 400rsc 242 242 242 400rsc
Wisconsin................................... 163 231 276 282rsc 224 257 301 307rsc 284 324 361 365rsc
Wyoming..................................... 300 400 400 400rsc 300 400 400 400rsc 330 400 400 400rsc
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average monthly rates................... 239 294 329 356 263 314 350 373 307 365 407 431
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Indicates States that provided daily rates for 1996, which were converted to monthly rates using the following formula: [daily rate] 365
12. Monthly rates for States providing daily rates for 1994 were computed using the following formula: [daily rate] 30. Due to the
formula change, 1996 rates for these States cannot be compared with previous years. Figures are rounded to the nearest dollar.
NA--Not available.
Note.--Most States and/or counties supplement these basic rates with additional payments. To facilitate data comparability across States, 1996 figures
are coded for major items covered in the basic rate. Key: r = room and board, s = supervision, c = clothing.
Source: American Public Welfare Association.
The 1980 reform legislation stipulated that title IV-E
foster care payments could be made for children in public
institutions, whereas previously under title IV-A payments were
limited to children in private nonprofit institutions or foster
family homes. To qualify for Federal payments, these public
institutions may not accommodate more than 25 children.
Facilities operated primarily for the detention of delinquents,
including forestry camps and training schools, are ineligible
for Federal funds. Legislation enacted in 1996 (Public Law 104-
193) also allows participation of for-profit institutions. It
is generally agreed that the costs associated with
institutional care are substantially higher than the cost of
family foster care. For example, the Child Welfare League of
America in 1994 estimated that the annual cost of supporting a
child in family foster care was $4,800, compared to an
estimated annual cost of $36,500 for a child in group care
(Time, 1994).
Exclusion of foster children from AFDC assistance units
The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-369)
required that certain blood-related, adoptive parents or
siblings be included in the family unit if the family applied
for income assistance under the AFDC Program. Because there was
no statutory exclusion for foster care recipients, AFDC
operating policy required that their income be included with
the family's when the family's eligibility was determined.
However, Public Law 99-514, enacted in 1986, stated that a
foster child who was receiving IV-E maintenance payments would
not be considered a family member during the time the family
received AFDC, and that the child's income in the form of
maintenance payments, and other income and resources, would be
excluded from the family's as well.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Public Law
101-508) repealed the 1986 provision and added a new section
409 to title IV-A stipulating that foster children receiving
maintenance payments under title IV-E or under State or local
programs would not be considered family members for purposes of
AFDC. Similarly, the law specified that children receiving
adoption assistance payments under either title IV-E or State
or local law were not considered family members for AFDC
purposes, unless the family would lose AFDC benefits as a
result.
Welfare reform legislation enacted in 1996 (Public Law 104-
193) repealed the AFDC Program, including the provision
described above. The law establishes a block grant to States
for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and allows States
to determine for themselves how to define assistance units,
eligibility, and treatment of income for welfare purposes.
The Title IV-E Adoption Assistance Program
The Title IV-E Adoption Assistance Program is an open-ended
entitlement program required of States that participate in
TANF. Like the IV-E Foster Care Program, the IV-E Adoption
Assistance Program funds three distinct types of activities:
maintenance payments for qualified children who are adopted,
administrative payments for expenses associated with placing
children in adoption, and training of professional staff and
parents involved in adoptions.
Under the Adoption Assistance Program, which is permanently
authorized, States develop adoption assistance agreements with
parents who adopt eligible children with special needs. Federal
matching funds are provided to States that, under these
agreements, provide adoption assistance payments to parents who
adopt AFDC- or SSI-eligible children with special needs.
Although AFDC was repealed by welfare reform legislation in
1996 (Public Law 104-193), that law also established that
special needs adoptive children will be eligible for title IV-E
subsidies if their original families would have been eligible
for AFDC, as it was in effect on June 1, 1995. Technical
corrections enacted in 1997 subsequently changed this date to
July 16, 1996 (Public Law 105-33). In addition, the program
authorizes Federal matching funds for States that reimburse the
nonrecurring adoption expenses of adoptive parents of special
needs children (regardless of AFDC or SSI eligibility).
Definition of special needs
A special needs child is defined in the statute as a child
with respect to whom the State determines there is a specific
condition or situation, such as age, membership in a minority
or sibling group, or a mental, emotional, or physical handicap,
which prevents placement without special assistance. Before a
child can be considered to be a child with special needs, the
State must determine that the child cannot or should not be
returned to the biological family, and that reasonable efforts
have been made to place the child without providing adoption
assistance. States have discretion in defining special needs
eligibility criteria and individually determining whether a
child is eligible. For example, some States add religion or not
being able to place the child without subsidy to the definition
of special needs.
Adoption assistance agreements and payments
An adoption assistance agreement is a written agreement
between the adoptive parents, the State IV-E agency, and other
relevant agencies (such as a private adoption agency)
specifying the nature and amount of assistance to be given.
Under the adoption assistance agreement, States may make
monthly adoption assistance payments for AFDC- and SSI-eligible
children with special needs who are adopted.
The amount of adoption assistance payments to be made is
based on the circumstances of the adopting parents and the
needs of the child. No means test can be used to determine
eligibility of parents for the program; however, States do
consider the adoptive parents' income in determining the amount
of the payment. Payments may be adjusted periodically if
circumstances change, with the concurrence of the adopting
parents. However, the payments may not exceed the amount the
family would have received on behalf of the child under foster
care. Adoption assistance payments may continue until the child
is age 18, or, at State option, age 21 if the child is mentally
or physically handicapped. Payments are discontinued if the
State determines that the parents are no longer legally
responsible for the support of the child. Federally subsidized
payments may start as soon as an agreement is signed and the
child has been placed in an adoptive home. Parents who have
been receiving adoption assistance payments must keep the State
or local agency informed of circumstances that would make them
ineligible for payments, or eligible for payments in a
different amount.
The Federal matching rate for the adoption assistance
payments is based on each State's Medicaid matching rate.
States may also claim open-ended Federal matching at the rate
of 50 percent for the costs of administering the program, and
for training both staff and adoptive parents at the rate of 75
percent.
Not all families of adopted IV-E eligible children with
special needs actually receive adoption assistance payments.
The adoptive parents' circumstances may be such that an
adoption subsidy is not needed or wanted. Adopted AFDC- or SSI-
eligible children with special needs are also eligible for
Medicaid if an adoption assistance agreement is in effect,
regardless of whether adoption assistance payments are being
made.
States also have the option under the Medicaid Program to
provide Medicaid coverage for other special needs children
(those not eligible for AFDC or SSI) who are adopted under a
State-funded adoption subsidy program. All States but six
currently take this option. Pursuant to the 1985 budget
reconciliation legislation, a child for whom an adoption
assistance agreement is in effect is eligible for Medicaid from
the State in which the child resides regardless of whether the
State is the one with which the adoptive parents have an
adoption assistance agreement. (The Adoption and Safe Families
Act, enacted in November 1997, contains additional requirements
regarding health insurance coverage for special needs adopted
children who are not eligible for title IV-E adoption
assistance. See discussion at the end of this chapter about
legislation in the 105th Congress for details.)
The structure of adoption subsidy programs varies across
States. Some States offer basic maintenance payments and also
allow additional payments for certain activities (such as
family counseling) or for certain groups of children (such as
children with severe handicaps). Other States offer one level
of payment to everyone with no special allowances. Some States
allow parents to request changes in payment levels on a regular
basis if circumstances change for a child; others allow very
little change once the adoption agreement is signed. Some
States start payments as soon as placement is made; others not
until the adoption is finalized.
Table 11-9 indicates, by State, the minimum and maximum
basic monthly payment rates for adoption assistance, and the
minimum and maximum special payment rates. The ``criteria''
columns highlight the main criteria used by States for
determining when a family would receive a higher payment rate,
such as the child's level (or severity) of special needs or
age.
Not all children who receive adoption subsidies from States
are eligible for Federal IV-E funds. Data from the American
Public Welfare Association (APWA) for 1994 indicate that almost
two-thirds of children receiving adoption assistance nationwide
were eligible for title IV-E (Oppenheim, 1995). The non-IV-E
children's adoption subsidies are paid solely by the State in
which their adoption agreement was signed.
TABLE 11-9.--ADOPTION ASSISTANCE MONTHLY PAYMENT RATES, BY STATE, AS OF SEPTEMBER 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic rate Special rate
State Basic rate criteria Special rate criteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................... $205-$241......... age/foster rates.. negotiable........ ..................
.................
.............
Alaska \1\..................... $587.94-$831.57... .................. case-by-case...... ..................
.................
.............
Arizona......................... $350-$406......... age............... $458-$710......... level of special
needs
Arkansas....................... $300-$375......... age............... maximum foster ..................
care rate. .................
.............
California...................... $345-$484......... age............... $1,500 maximum.... county by county
Colorado....................... $293-$352......... age............... $371-$509......... level of special
needs/age
Connecticut..................... $567-$637......... age............... $1,000-$1,200..... medically fragile
Delaware....................... $342-$440......... age............... $464-$562......... foster rates
District of Columbia \1\........ $437.08-$526.20... age............... $512.21-$874.46... level of special
needs/age
Florida......................... $296-$372......... age............... $314-$407......... level of special
needs/age
Georgia........................ $239.68........... 75 percent of $15-$40........... 75 percent of
foster rate. foster rate
Hawaii.......................... $529.............. .................. .................. .................
.................
..............
Idaho.......................... $228-$358......... age............... $464-$598......... level of special
needs/age
Illinois........................ $290-$365......... age............... $453-$529......... special foster
rates
Indiana........................ by county......... 75 percent of by county......... 75 percent of
foster rate. foster rate
Iowa............................ $375.33-$459.89... age............... $525.59-$910.05... level of special
needs/age
Kansas......................... $386.............. .................. $786 maximum...... level of special
needs
Kentucky........................ $304-$373......... age............... $395-$464......... age
Louisiana...................... $281.04-$294.73... age............... $521-$552.70...... foster rate/age
Maine.......................... $371-$429......... age............... $1,130-$1,140..... level of special
needs/age
Maryland........................ $650.............. .................. none.............. ..................
.................
.............
Massachusetts.................. $410-$486......... age............... negotiable........ ..................
.................
.............
Michigan........................ $383-$454......... age............... $535.08-$1,001.49. foster rates/age
Minnesota...................... $247-$337......... age............... $397-$837......... level of special
needs/age
Mississippi..................... $225-$300......... age............... none.............. ..................
.................
.............
Missouri \2\................... $212-$286......... age............... $614-$1,368.72.... level of special
needs/age
Montana \3\..................... .................. foster rate minus .................. foster rate minus
$10. $10
Nebraska....................... $222-$351......... age............... $326-$576......... level of special
needs/age
Nevada \3\...................... .................. .................. .................. .................
.................
..............
New Hampshire.................. $472-$606......... age............... none.............. ..................
.................
.............
New Jersey...................... $280-$350......... age............... $320-$1,280....... level of special
needs/age
New Mexico..................... $308-$367......... age............... $487-$545......... level of special
needs/age
New York....................... $457-$600......... age/city v. $984-$1,455....... level of special
upstate. needs/age
North Carolina................. $315-$415......... age............... $800-$1,600....... HIV status
North Dakota................... $295-$437......... age............... $345-$587 and level of special
above. needs
Ohio \4\....................... $250 minimum; .................. county determined. .................
maximum is county .................
determined. ..............
Oklahoma....................... $300-$420......... age............... $350-$645......... level of special
needs/age
Oregon......................... $315-$404......... age............... negotiated........ ..................
.................
.............
Pennsylvania................... county determined. .................. county determined. ..................
.................
.............
Rhode Island................... $252-$308......... age............... case-by-case...... ..................
.................
.............
South Carolina................. $266-$393......... age............... none.............. ..................
.................
.............
South Dakota................... $266-$393......... age............... none.............. ..................
.................
.............
Tennessee...................... $335-$417......... age............... $512-$683......... level of special
needs/age
Texas.......................... $475.............. .................. none.............. ..................
.................
.............
Utah........................... $310.............. .................. $465-$775......... level of special
needs
Vermont \5\.................... $494-$600......... age............... $704-$810-$1,300.. level of special
needs/age
Virginia....................... $262-$388......... age............... none.............. ..................
.................
.............
Washington..................... $289.67-$422.89... .................. .................. ..................
.................
.............
West Virginia.................. $400.............. foster rate....... $730 maximum...... level of special
needs
Wisconsin...................... $282-$365......... .................. $2,000 maximum.... level of special
needs
Wyoming........................ $399.............. .................. negotiated, county ..................
determined. .................
.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Alaska and the District of Columbia have daily rates. Monthly rates were calculated by multiplying the daily
rate by 30.416.
\2\ Missouri has a ``career parent'' rate of $45 per day.
\3\ Nevada and Montana's are for 1995.
\4\ The State rate for adoption assistance is $250 per month. Some of the larger county agencies pay higher
rates by providing the non-Federal portion of the monthly payment.
\5\ Vermont has three maximum rates: two ``extraordinary care'' maximums based on age and a maximum
``therapeutic'' rate of $1,300.
Source: North American Council on Adoptable Children.
Nonrecurring adoption costs
The Adoption Assistance Program also authorizes Federal
matching funds for States to pay the one-time adoption expenses
of parents of special needs children (regardless of AFDC or SSI
eligibility). In order to be eligible, the child must be a
child with special needs, as defined in section 473(c) of the
Social Security Act and described above.
Through the program, parents may receive reimbursement of
up to $2,000 per child for these nonrecurring adoption
expenses, and States may claim 50 percent Federal matching for
these reimbursements. Qualified adoption expenses are defined
as reasonable and necessary adoption fees, court costs,
attorney fees, and other expenses that are directly related to
the adoption of a child with special needs. States may vary in
the maximum amount they allow parents to receive under this
provision (see table 11-10 for State-by-State data on maximum
reimbursement rates).
All 50 States have implemented the program; the District of
Columbia has not. However, the average reimbursements have not
equaled the $2,000 Federal cap, with the average payment being
$966 in 1996. According to the Association of Administrators of
the Interstate Compact on Adoption and Medical Assistance
(AAICAMA), for which the American Public Welfare Association
serves as the secretariat, in a number of States the larger
amounts of nonrecurring adoption costs are being paid for costs
incurred in the adoption of special needs children from foreign
countries and private agencies. Parents adopting children from
the public child welfare agencies are not claiming as many
expenses because many costs incurred in the adoption of these
children are already covered under the States' adoption
programs.
Adoption assistance expenditures
The number of children receiving adoption assistance
payments and the Federal expenditures for these payments have
increased significantly since the program began. In fiscal year
1981, only six States participated in the program, with
payments being made for an average of 165 children per month.
In fiscal year 1996, 50 States plus the District of Columbia
participated, and 122,657 children (see table 11-11) were
served.
Federal expenditures for adoption assistance payments have
increased from less than $400,000 in fiscal year 1981 to $427
million in fiscal year 1996, and are expected to reach $495
million in fiscal year 1997.
HHS data indicate that expenditures for child placement
services and administration for the Adoption Assistance Program
have also increased significantly in recent years. In fiscal
year 1981, claims totaled $100,000; in fiscal year 1996 they
totaled $124 million and are expected to be $144 million in
fiscal year 1997.
TABLE 11-10.--STATE REIMBURSEMENT OF NONRECURRING ADOPTION COSTS, 1991, 1992, AND 1996
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has your Estimated
State Estimated average
implemented Maximum average payment Estimated average
State the payment payment as of payment as of April Major reimbursement cost(s)
reimbursement as of May April 1996
program? 1991 1992
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................ Yes $1,000 $350 $412 $1,000 Legal fees, travel, preplacement visits.
Alaska................................. Yes 2,000 1,200 829 \1\ NA Legal fees, travel, home studies.
Arizona................................ Yes 2,000 2,000 1,596 2,000 Legal fees, agency fees, travel, home
studies.
Arkansas............................... Yes 1,500 100 500 200 Court filing, fingerprint checks.
California............................. Yes 500 400 400 500 Agency fees.
Colorado............................... Yes 800 250 250 800 Legal fees.
Connecticut............................ Yes 750 90 90 424 Legal fee.
Delaware............................... Yes 2,000 300 300 NA Agency fees.
District of Columbia................... No
Florida................................ Yes 1,000 400 400 1,000 Attorney fees.
Georgia................................ Yes 700 400 400 400 Legal fees.
Hawaii................................. Yes 2,000 NA NA NA
Idaho.................................. Yes 2,000 NA 350 \2\ 550 Agency fees, attorney fees, travel.
2,000
average = 1,275
Illinois............................... Yes 1,500 NA NA NA Legal fees, home studies.
Indiana................................ Yes 1,500 635 NA 700 Legal fees, agency fees.
Iowa................................... Yes 1,000 700 700 300 Legal fees.
Kansas................................. Yes 2,000 NA NA 700 Legal fees, home studies, travel.
Kentucky............................... Yes 1,000 378 378 476 Legal fees, agency fees.
Louisiana.............................. Yes 1,000 400 600 600 Legal fees.
Maine.................................. Yes \3\ 2,00 NA ......... NA Legal fees, travel.
0
Maryland............................... Yes 2,000 NA 2,000 2,000 Legal fees, travel, home studies by
private agencies. \4\
Massachusetts.......................... Yes 400 400 ......... 400 Legal fees, home studies.
Michigan............................... Yes 2,000 ......... ......... 170 Court fees, birth certificate cost.
Minnesota.............................. Yes 2,000 2,000 2,000 1,750 Legal fees, agency fees.
Mississippi............................ Yes 1,000 500 500 550 Legal fees.
Missouri............................... Yes 2,000 NA \5\ 45 625--legal Legal fees, agency fees.
910--other
average = 1,535
Montana................................ Yes 2,000 1,000 1,000 200 Legal fees, home studies, private agency
fees.
Nebraska............................... Yes 1,500 NA NA 1,500 Legal fees, private agency fees, travel.
Nevada................................. Yes 250 250 250 NA Legal fees, travel, home studies.
New Hampshire.......................... Yes 2,000 2,000 2,000 1,556 Legal costs, agency fees, travel.
New Jersey............................. Yes 2,000 NA 850 NA Home studies, legal fees.
New Mexico............................. Yes 2,000 500 500 NA Legal fees, travel.
New York............................... Yes 2,000 500 500 600 Legal fees.
North Carolina......................... Yes 2,000 NA 176 NA Legal fees.
North Dakota........................... Yes 2,000 350 540 NA Legal fees.
Ohio................................... Yes 2,000 761 672 2,000 Legal fees, travel.
Oklahoma............................... Yes 2,000 2,000 350 \6\ domestic--275 Legal fees, agency fees.
tribal, foreign--
2,000
private
average = 1,138
Oregon................................. Yes 2,000 300 450 NA Legal fees.
Pennsylvania........................... Yes 2,000 NA 700 811 Legal fees, agency fees.
Rhode Island........................... Yes 1,000 NA 902 1,000 Legal fees, home studies, preadoption
supervision.
South Carolina......................... Yes 1,500 750 750 1,500 Legal fees.
South Dakota........................... Yes 1,500 650 650 440 Legal fees.
Texas.................................. Yes 1,500 NA NA 875 Legal fees, agency fees.
Utah................................... Yes 2,000 327 327 650 Legal fees, home studies, travel.
Vermont................................ Yes 2,000 1,500 1,500 \7\ 2,000 Legal fees, home studies, agency
placement fees.
Virginia............................... Yes 2,000 280 396 884 Legal fees.
Washington............................. Yes 1,500 655 780 636 Legal fees.
West Virginia.......................... Yes 2,000 ......... ......... 1,400 Legal fees, private agency home studies.
Wisconsin.............................. Yes 2,000 655 780 468 Legal fees home studies.
Wyoming................................ Yes 2,000 350 350 NA Legal fees.
-------------------------------------------------------
Average.......................... 1,651 682 664 \8\ 966
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Alaska: Indicated that the maximum amount was being paid primarily for the adoption of special needs children from foreign countries.
\2\ Idaho: For domestic adoptions, the average payment is $500; For foreign (China & Haiti) adoptions, the average payment is $2,000. This differential
is due to the fact that most expenses are paid for by the public agency when a child is adopted from the public agency.
\3\ Maine: The program was not implemented until 1996.
\4\ Maryland: Bills submitted are often over $5,000, many of which are for children adopted from foreign countries.
\5\ Missouri: The low cost of this number is due to the fact that at the time the State was able to secure a lot of pro bono legal representation.
\6\ Oklahoma: The average payment for children adopted from the Department of Human Services is $275; For special needs children adopted from foreign
countries, private agencies, and tribal adoptions, the average payment is $2,000.
\7\ Vermont: Most payments made for nonrecurring adoption costs are for children adopted from foreign countries; nonrecurring adoption costs are paid
for the adoption of special needs children being adopted from foreign countries. There are few, if any, costs for adopting children from the public
agency.
\8\ This number accounts for the total average payment of nonrecurring adoption costs in 36 States.
NA--Not available.
Source: Special survey conducted in spring 1996 by the American Public Welfare Association.
TABLE 11-11.--ADOPTION ASSISTANCE STATE CLAIMS, FISCAL YEARS 1991-96, AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF CHILDREN RECEIVING
ADOPTION ASSISTANCE, FISCAL YEAR 1996
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996
State Average
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 monthly
Claims Claims Claims Claims Claims Claims number of
children
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..................... $1,054 $1,070 $1,195 $1,830 $1,866 1,786 282
Alaska...................... 360 590 839 1,070 1,286 1,562 448
Arizona..................... 1,338 1,660 3,117 3,960 5,522 6,856 1,403
Arkansas.................... 582 670 1,241 1,960 1,541 2,387 458
California.................. 27,747 30,230 36,623 43,590 48,235 52,281 15,087
Colorado.................... 1,177 1,120 1,961 3,230 3,315 4,361 1,551
Connecticut................. 1,529 2,640 3,652 6,310 7,028 6,661 1,163
Delaware.................... 330 380 413 430 536 556 198
District of Columbia........ (191) 820 1,269 1,970 1,846 1,987 342
Florida..................... 5,357 7,980 8,257 10,580 16,824 19,612 5,233
Georgia..................... 1,341 2,070 3,146 3,320 4,365 4,864 1,653
Hawaii...................... 47 160 243 480 606 980 108
Idaho....................... 330 360 570 580 753 982 269
Illinois.................... 4,376 6,300 7,558 13,060 16,802 19,362 6,697
Indiana..................... 2,540 4,020 5,711 6,710 7,338 8,692 2,302
Iowa........................ 2,878 2,750 2,923 3,870 4,976 6,591 1,207
Kansas...................... 725 880 1,576 2,240 2,740 3,180 1,609
Kentucky.................... 2,692 2,930 3,052 3,320 3,539 3,835 902
Louisiana................... 2,746 5,830 7,656 9,320 11,043 12,180 1,551
Maine....................... 1,229 2,300 2,646 2,960 2,794 3,669 598
Maryland.................... 1,219 1,680 2,385 2,880 3,633 4,491 1,322
Massachusetts............... 5,010 6,230 7,134 8,380 9,604 11,147 3,395
Michigan \1\................ 14,202 17,540 21,868 26,840 31,917 36,550 9,469
Minnesota................... 1,462 1,710 4,003 4,620 5,224 5,861 1,326
Mississippi................. 398 410 410 390 667 795 267
Missouri.................... 2,470 5,450 4,674 5,190 6,743 6,270 2,480
Montana..................... 603 530 631 760 905 1,330 274
Nebraska.................... 767 1,000 1,179 1,560 1,771 2,062 696
Nevada...................... 204 250 333 460 669 870 240
New Hampshire............... 438 620 600 740 842 834 336
New Jersey \1\.............. 4,157 5,000 6,009 6,700 8,869 8,074 2,286
New Mexico.................. 1,609 1,810 1,798 1,890 2,438 2,722 804
New York \1\................ 39,200 44,400 57,520 72,590 89,816 101,975 24,508
North Carolina.............. 836 1,090 1,748 2,550 4,228 5,257 1,765
North Dakota................ 250 350 466 500 461 554 132
Ohio........................ 14,167 18,860 22,964 30,300 35,007 56,331 9,056
Oklahoma.................... 1,161 1,630 1,960 2,240 2,950 4,030 770
Oregon...................... 1,547 2,370 2,804 3,300 4,020 4,936 2,529
Pennsylvania................ 4,263 5,440 6,820 8,090 10,273 12,385 2,760
Rhode Island................ 3,353 3,610 4,399 4,610 4,194 3,101 737
South Carolina.............. 1,766 2,070 2,235 2,910 3,915 4,454 925
South Dakota................ 492 540 555 630 649 666 270
Tennessee................... 2,010 2,100 3,573 3,240 3,620 5,771 1,262
Texas....................... 5,233 6,750 9,142 14.520 17,160 17,308 4,682
Utah........................ 447 660 748 1,240 1,158 2,021 465
Vermont..................... 1,248 1,740 2,009 1,860 1,947 2,080 458
Virginia.................... 1,655 1,970 2,291 2,590 2,997 4,568 1,341
Washington.................. 2,055 4,000 1,987 3,940 3,013 4,441 2,880
West Virginia............... 230 260 285 440 492 542 115
Wisconsin................... 4,565 5,290 6,171 7,730 9,056 10,339 2,030
Wyoming..................... 79 110 60 60 23 51 16
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................. 175,283 220,230 272,409 344,540 411,216 484,196 122,657
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fourth quarter data is estimated.
Note.--Totals may differ from sum of State amounts because of rounding.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The Title IV-E Independent Living Program
In 1986, title IV-E was amended by Public Law 99-272
(Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985) to
include section 477, which established the Independent Living
Program to assist youth who would eventually be emancipated
from the foster care system. Several surveys conducted during
the mid-1980s showed that a significant number of homeless
shelter users had been recently discharged from foster care,
prompting Congress to establish a program to help youngsters in
foster care establish their independence.
An annual entitlement amount of $45 million was established
for 1987 and 1988 to provide States with the resources to
create and implement independent living services. These
services are designed to assist IV-E-eligible children age 16
and over make a successful transition from foster care to
independent adult living when they become ineligible for foster
care maintenance payments at age 18. In 1988, the program was
expanded under Public Law 100-647, which permitted States to
provide independent living services to all youth in foster care
aged 16 to 18 (not just title IV-E-eligible youth); States
could also provide follow-up services to youth up to 6 months
after their emancipation from substitute care. Under Public Law
101-508, States have the option of serving individuals up to
age 21 in the Independent Living Program. Funds are allocated
on the basis of each State's share of children receiving IV-E
foster care in 1984.
Public Law 101-239 increased the amount of Federal
entitlement funds available to the States for the Independent
Living Program to $50 million for fiscal year 1990, $60 million
for fiscal year 1991, and $70 million for fiscal year 1992.
Beginning in fiscal year 1991, States are required to provide
50 percent matching for any Federal funding claimed that
exceeds the original $45 million funding level. In 1993,
Congress permanently extended the authority for independent
living under Public Law 103-66. Table 11-12 shows State
allotments under the Independent Living Program in fiscal year
1996.
TABLE 11-12.--TITLE IV-E INDEPENDENT LIVING FEDERAL AWARDS, FISCAL YEAR
1996
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
State awards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.................................................... $1,044
Alaska..................................................... 13
Arizona.................................................... 272
Arkansas................................................... 350
California................................................. 12,551
Colorado................................................... 830
Connecticut................................................ 759
Delaware................................................... 204
District of Columbia....................................... 927
Florida.................................................... 993
Georgia.................................................... 1,105
Hawaii..................................................... 18
Idaho...................................................... 108
Illinois................................................... 2,833
Indiana.................................................... 1,020
Iowa....................................................... 452
Kansas..................................................... 721
Kentucky................................................... 792
Louisiana.................................................. 1,358
Maine...................................................... 569
Maryland................................................... 1,245
Massachusetts.............................................. 639
Michigan................................................... 4,195
Minnesota.................................................. 1,148
Mississippi................................................ 517
Missouri................................................... 1,302
Montana.................................................... 244
Nebraska................................................... 438
Nevada..................................................... 154
New Hampshire.............................................. 322
New Jersey................................................. 2,311
New Mexico................................................. 208
New York................................................... 11,650
North Carolina............................................. 1,051
North Dakota............................................... 193
Ohio....................................................... 2,877
Oklahoma................................................... 624
Oregon..................................................... 936
Pennsylvania............................................... 4,664
Rhode Island............................................... 317
South Carolina............................................. 583
South Dakota............................................... 193
Tennessee.................................................. 782
Texas...................................................... 1,852
Utah....................................................... 203
Vermont.................................................... 297
Virginia................................................... 1,362
Washington................................................. 830
West Virginia.............................................. 335
Wisconsin.................................................. 1,563
Wyoming.................................................... 45
------------
Total................................................ 70,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Section 477 of title IV-E instructed HHS to carry out a
study of the program's effectiveness. Under contract with HHS,
Westat, Inc. completed the first phase of the study in 1989
(Cook, 1990) and the second phase in 1992 (Cook, 1992). The
first phase is a purely descriptive assessment of the needs of
youth emancipated from foster care between January 1, 1987 and
July 31, 1988, States' development of Independent Living
Programs to serve these youth, and the proportion of youth
served.
The first report found that independent living services
offered by the States generally fell into the following
categories: basic skills training (including health promotion,
housekeeping, money management, decisionmaking, and food and
nutrition management); education initiatives (including private
tutoring, and GED and college preparation); and employment
initiatives (including job training and placement, and personal
presentation and social skills). In addition, 14 States held
teen conferences designed to bring these foster care youth
together to provide them with supportive contacts, teach them
independent living skills, focus on self-esteem building, and
help prepare them for their impending emancipation from foster
care.
The report concluded that emancipated youth were a troubled
population. In the study population, two-thirds of 18-year-olds
did not complete high school or a GED and 61 percent had no job
experience. In addition, 38 percent had been diagnosed as
emotionally disturbed, 17 percent had a drug abuse problem, 9
percent had a health problem, and 17 percent of the females
were pregnant. The group also lacked placement stability.
During the time they were in foster care, 58 percent
experienced at least three living arrangements and
approximately 30 percent had been in substitute care for an
average of 9 years.
Of the total 34,600 youth emancipated from foster care
during the study period, 31 percent received services through
their State's formalized Independent Living Program, 29 percent
received nonformalized (but related) services, and 40 percent
received no independent living services at all.
The second phase of the Westat report, released in 1992,
followed up on youths who had been emancipated from foster care
during the period from January 1987 to July 1988. Interviews
conducted with these youths about their experiences after
leaving foster care revealed several notable results. First,
many of the skills encouraged by the Independent Living Program
were positively related to good outcomes once the adolescents
left foster care. These skills included money management,
consumer education, and job training. Westat also found that
2\1/2\ to 4 years after leaving foster care, many of the youths
were encountering problems adjusting to life as an adult. Only
about half had completed high school, a little less than half
had jobs and only about 40 percent had had a job for at least 1
year, 60 percent of the females had given birth, 25 percent of
the youth had been homeless for at least one night, and fewer
than 1 in 5 were completely self-supporting.
PROTECTIONS FOR CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE
Protections Linked to Title IV-B Child Welfare Services Funding
To encourage State use of IV-B funds to help keep families
together and prevent the placement of children in substitute
care, the 1980 legislation required that if the title IV-B
appropriation for any year exceeds the Federal appropriation in
1979 ($56.5 million), States may not use any funds in excess of
their portion of the $56.5 million for foster care maintenance
payments, adoption assistance, or work-related child care.
Appropriations for title IV-B have consistently exceeded this
amount.
Further, under the 1980 legislation as originally enacted,
States were not eligible for all of their Federal IV-B funds
unless the following protections had been implemented: (1) a
one-time inventory of children in foster care more than 6
months to determine the appropriateness of and necessity for
the current foster care placement, whether the child should be
returned to his parents or freed for adoption, and the services
necessary to achieve this placement goal; (2) a statewide
information system from which the status, demographic location,
and placement goals of every child in care for the preceding 12
months could be determined; (3) a case review system to assure
procedural safeguards for each child in foster care, including
a 6-month court or administrative review and an 18-month
dispositional hearing to assure placement in a setting that is
the least restrictive (most familylike) setting available, in
close proximity to the original home, and in the best interest
of the child; and (4) a reunification program to return
children to their original homes.
These provisions were contained in section 427 of the act.
Effective for fiscal years beginning after April 1, 1996,
however, these protections are required of States as a
component of their State plans, under section 422 of the act.
This change was enacted under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-66). In addition, the Adoption and
Safe Families Act (Public Law 105-89) made significant changes
in the case review system, including dispositional hearings
(renamed permanency hearings) at 12 months after placement and
requiring States to initiate procedures to terminate parental
rights after a child has been in foster care for a certain
period of time. (See discussion at the end of this chapter on
legislation in the 105th Congress for more details.)
In addition to the protections specified above, States were
required to implement a preplacement preventive service program
if the title IV-B appropriation amount was at least $325
million for 2 consecutive years. The amount appropriated for
title IV-B was never sufficient to trigger this provision.
However, effective April 1, 1996, States are required to
implement preplacement preventive services as a component of
their State plans. In addition, under Public Law 103-66, States
are required to review their policies and procedures related to
abandoned children and to implement any changes necessary to
enable permanent placement decisions to be made expeditiously
for such children.
Mandatory Protections for Foster Children Funded Under Title IV-E
The 1980 legislation strengthened the State plan
requirements under title IV-E to emphasize protections for
foster children originating from families eligible for AFDC at
the time of placement. By law, for children receiving payments
under the title IV-E State plan, States must establish specific
goals as to the maximum number of children in care more than 24
months, and a description of the steps the State will take to
meet these goals. In addition, State IV-E plans must include
the same case review provisions for IV-E-eligible children as
are required for all foster children under the title IV-B
protections (described above). The case review must be
conducted every 6 months and include:
1. A written document describing the child's placement and its
appropriateness;
2. A plan, if necessary, for compliance with requirements made
by judicial determination;
3. A plan of services to be provided to improve family
conditions and facilitate the reunification of the
child with her family, or--if reunification is not
possible--to provide for a permanent placement and to
serve the needs of the child during the time she is
placed in foster care; and case plans showing that
reasonable efforts have been made prior to placement to
prevent the need for placement or to return the child
home if removed.
As a result of Public Law 101-239, foster children's case
records must include their health and education records. The
names and addresses of the child's health and educational
providers must be recorded as well as the child's grade level
performance, school record, and assurances that the child's
placement takes into account the proximity of the school in
which the child was enrolled at the time of placement. In
addition, a record of the child's immunizations, medical
problems, required medications, and other relevant information
must be included.
The 1980 law provided sanctions for noncompliance with
these State plan requirements and mandated an independent audit
of States' title IV-E programs (including adoption assistance)
and an administrative review (see below).
Reasonable Efforts Requirement
The 1980 legislation required that ``reasonable efforts''
must be made to prevent the placement of a child in foster
care, and to reunify a foster child with his parents. The
Adoption and Safe Families Act (Public Law 105-89), enacted in
November 1997, established exceptions to this requirement, such
as in cases of murder or extreme child abuse, when States will
not be required to make efforts to reunify a foster child with
his parents. (See the discussion at the end of this chapter
about legislation in the 105th Congress for more details of the
new provisions.) The Social Security Act specifies the
``reasonable efforts'' requirement in two separate provisions.
First, in order for a State to be eligible for title IV-E
funding, its plan must specify that reasonable efforts will be
made prior to the placement of a child in foster care to
prevent the need for foster care or to help the child return
home (sec. 471 (a)(15)). Second, every IV-E-eligible child
placed in foster care must have a judicial determination that
reasonable efforts were made to prevent out-of-home placement
in that particular case (sec. 472(a)(1)).
The term ``reasonable efforts'' is not defined in the law,
nor has it been defined by HHS in Federal regulations. For
States to comply with the plan requirement on reasonable
efforts, HHS regulations have required State plans to include a
description of the services offered and provided to prevent
removal of children from their homes and to reunify the family.
The regulations further provide an illustrative list of the
types of preplacement preventive and reunification services
that may be offered. This list includes: 24-hour emergency
caretaker and homemaker services, day care, crisis counseling,
emergency shelters, access to available emergency financial
assistance, respite care, home-based family services, self-help
groups, services to unmarried parents, provision of or
arrangement for mental health, drug and alcohol abuse
counseling, vocational counseling or vocational rehabilitation,
and postadoption services. The actual services to be provided
in specific cases depends on State, and in some cases,
individual judicial interpretations of the Federal law.
Research conducted by the American Bar Association in the mid-
1980s (Ratterman, Dodson & Hardin, 1987) and anecdotal reports
since then indicate that the interpretation of reasonable
efforts varies widely among States.
As a result of the lack of definition of ``reasonable
efforts,'' Federal courts have become a source of direction for
defining reasonable efforts in individual cases. Nationwide,
foster children, parents, and advocacy groups have brought
suits against State and local child welfare systems challenging
their failure, in whole or in part, to make reasonable efforts
to preserve or reunify families. In deciding these cases,
courts are defining what State actions would fulfill the
reasonable efforts criterion. Federal courts have also become
involved in the overall child welfare system, although this has
traditionally been an area of exclusive State jurisdiction.
On March 25, 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Suter
v. Artist M., an Illinois case, that the reasonable efforts
requirement of Public Law 96-272 does not confer a private
right on the child beneficiaries of the act. The plaintiffs,
abused and neglected children in State custody, brought suit
under the act and under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that the State
social services agency failed to: (1) make ``reasonable
efforts'' to prevent the removal of children from their homes;
(2) make ``reasonable efforts'' to reunify children who were
removed from their homes with their families; (3) notify
appropriate agencies when a child was mistreated while placed
in another home; and (4) develop case plans to assure proper
services were provided to children while in placement. State
officials questioned the appropriateness of involvement by the
Federal judiciary in the resolution of child welfare disputes
and in the operation of child welfare systems.
Both the district court and the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals held that the ``reasonable efforts'' requirements
conferred enforceable rights on the child beneficiaries which
were sufficiently specific to be enforceable in an implied
cause of action directly under Public Law 96-272 or in an
action brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Supreme Court
reversed, and construed the ``reasonable efforts'' requirement
to impose only a generalized duty on the State, to be enforced
not by the child beneficiaries, but by the Secretary of Health
and Human Services in monitoring and enforcing compliance with
State plan requirements. The Court found that Public Law 96-272
does not create any rights, privileges, or immunities within
the meaning of section 1983, and fails to provide the
``unambiguous notice'' that is necessary before States
receiving Federal grants can be subjected to suit.
As a result of the Court's decision in Suter, Congress
enacted legislation in 1994 (Public Law 103-432) adding a new
section 1130A to the Social Security Act. The provision
establishes that, in any action brought to enforce a provision
of the Social Security Act, the provision is not to be deemed
unenforceable because of its inclusion in a section of the act
requiring a State plan. Congress explicitly stated in section
1130A that it does not intend to limit or expand any grounds
for determining the availability of private actions to enforce
State plan requirements. The provision also is not intended to
alter the Court's decision in Suter that the reasonable efforts
requirement in Public Law 96-272 is not enforceable in a
private right of action.
In response to a congressional request, HHS in 1994
directed two of its child welfare resource centers to gather
information and make recommendations regarding implementation
of the reasonable efforts requirement. The National Resource
Center for Legal and Court Issues (part of the American Bar
Association's Center on Children and the Law) and the National
Child Welfare Resource Center for Organizational Improvement
(University of Southern Maine) convened an interdisciplinary
advisory panel on April 21, 1995, and released a summary of the
panel's discussion. Among the panel's findings and
recommendations:
1. Despite its varied implementation, the reasonable efforts
requirement in Public Law 96-272 has had a positive
impact overall for children and families. The
reasonable efforts concept is most effective in
communities with strong Family Preservation Programs.
However, reasonable efforts are appropriate only when
consistent with the child's health and safety, and
activities must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
2. Reasonable efforts requirements in Federal law should be
continued and actively enforced. However, in some
cases, it is appropriate not to offer family
preservation or reunification services, and the Federal
Government should clarify to States when such inaction
is proper. Further, child welfare workers need training
in making these decisions.
3. The Federal Government should support and guide States as
they identify and incorporate services into their State
plans, but there was little support among the panel for
a federally mandated set of core services.
4. Judicial oversight of reasonable efforts is effective and
should be continued, including as a component of
determining eligibility for Federal reimbursement.
However, judges need proper training and should be
assigned to regular child welfare caseloads. Likewise,
agency personnel need training in adequately educating
the court with regard to specific cases. In the case of
a judicial determination that reasonable efforts have
not been made, there should be a short grace period for
appropriate efforts to be made before Federal financial
assistance is denied.
5. Reasonable efforts determinations should be made at every
critical step in a case, from removal from home through
the case review, rather than on a one-time basis.
State Compliance With Section 427 Child Protections
As described earlier, section 427 of title IV-B, as
originally enacted, specified the child protections that had to
be in place in order for a State to receive its allotment of
certain appropriated title IV-B funds. Effective for fiscal
years beginning after April 1, 1996, however, these protections
are required of States as part of their title IV-B plan, under
section 422(b)(9) of the Social Security Act (table 11-13).
TABLE 11-13.--SECTIONS 427 [422] AND 475 REQUIRED PROTECTIONS FOR FOSTER
CHILDREN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirement Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventory, sec. 427(a)(1)........ Includes all children in foster
[422(b)(9)(A)] care under State responsibility
for 6 months preceding the
inventory;
State determines appropriateness
of and necessity for current
foster placement;
Whether a child can or should be
returned to parents or be freed
for adoption;
Services necessary to facilitate
either the return of a child or
the child's placement for
adoption or legal guardianship.
Statewide information system, Includes status, demographic
sec. 427(a)(2)(A). characteristics, location, and
[422(b)(9)(B)(i)] placement goals of foster children
in care the preceding 12 months.
Service program, sec. To help children where
427(a)(2)(C). appropriate, return to families or
[422(b)(9)(B)(iii)] be placed for adoption or legal
guardianship.
Case plan, sec. 427(a)(2)(B)..... A written document that includes:
[422(b)(9)(B)(ii)] a plan to achieve placement in
and sec. 475(1) (A) and (C) and the least restrictive (most
475(5)(A). familylike) setting available;
a plan for placement in close
proximity to the parents home
consistent with the best interest
and special needs of the child,
including additional protections
for children placed out of their
home State (sec. 475(5)(A));
a description of type of home or
institution in which a child is
to be placed;
a discussion of appropriateness
of placement;
a statement of how the
responsible agency plans to carry
out the voluntary placement
agreement or judicial
determination made in accordance
with sec. 472(a)(1);
a plan for ensuring that the
child will receive proper care;
a plan for providing services to
the parents, child, and foster
parents to improve conditions in
the parents home and facilitate
the return of the child home or
permanent placement;
a plan for services to address
the needs of a child while in
foster care;
a discussion of appropriateness
of services provided:
where appropriate for a child 16
or over, a description of
programs and services to prepare
for transition to independent
living;
to the extent available and
accessible the health and
educational records of the
child.
Case reviews, sec. 427(a)(2)(B).. Status of each child is reviewed
[422(b)(9)(B)(ii)] periodically but not less
frequently than once every 6
months by a court or
administrative review to
determine:
continuing necessity for and
appropriateness of placement;
extent of compliance with case
plan;
extent of progress made toward
alleviating or ``mitigating''
causes of foster placement;
likely date child may be returned
home or placed for adoption or
provided legal guardianship.
Administrative review means:
open to participation of the
parents;
conducted by panel or appropriate
persons, at least one of whom is
not responsible for the case
management of, or the delivery of
services to, the child or parents
(sec. 475(6)).
Dispositional hearing, sec. To be held:
427(a)(2)(B) and sec. 475(5)(C). in family or juvenile court or
[422(b)(9)(B)(ii)] other court of competent
jurisdiction or by administrative
body approved by the court;
no later than 18 months \2\ after
the original placement (and not
less frequently than every 12
months thereafter);
to determine future status of the
child (return to parent, continue
foster care for special period on
permanent or long-term basis,
placement for adoption);
to determine transition services
needed for a child 16 or older.
Procedural safeguards, sec. Applied to:
427(a)(2)(B) and sec. 475(5)(C). parental rights pertaining to
[422(b)(9)(B)(ii)] removal of child from parent's
home;
a change in child's placement;
any determination of parents'
visitation privileges.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The sections enclosed in brackets were effective October 1, 1996 as
mandated in Public Law 103-432; section 427 is repealed.
\2\ Public Law 105-89 changed this requirement to 12 months and renamed
the hearing ``permanency'' hearing.
Source: U.S. General Accounting Office (1989), and U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
In 1980, following the enactment of Public Law 96-272, HHS
identified a total of 18 child protections required by section
427 of title IV-B. In what came to be known as ``427 reviews,''
the caseload of each State receiving incentive funds was
examined to determine compliance with these child protections.
The HHS reviews required the following:
A. That the case plan for each child include a:
1. Description of the type of home or institution in which
the child is to be placed;
2. Discussion of the appropriateness of the placement;
3. Plan to achieve placement in the least restrictive (most
familylike) setting;
4. Plan for placement in close proximity to the parents'
home, consistent with the best interest and special
needs of the child;
5. Statement of how the responsible agency plans to carry
out the voluntary placement agreement or judicial
determination;
6. Plan for ensuring that the child will receive proper
care;
7. Plan for providing services to the parents, child, and
foster parents to improve conditions in the
parents' home and facilitate the return of the
child to the home, or into a permanent placement;
8. Plan for services to address the needs of the child while
in foster care;
9. Discussion of the appropriateness of services provided;
B. That the status of each child in foster care be reviewed
periodically but no less frequently than every 6 months
by a court or administrative review to determine the:
10. Continuing necessity for and appropriateness of
placement;
11. Extent of compliance with the case plan;
12. Extent of progress made toward alleviating or
``mitigating'' the causes of foster placement;
13. Likely date the child may be returned home or placed for
adoption or provided legal guardianship;
C. That all administrative reviews must:
14. Be open to participation by parents;
15. Be conducted by a panel of appropriate persons, at least
one of whom is not responsible for the case
management of, or the delivery of services to, the
child or parents;
D. That procedural safeguards that pertain to parental rights
are followed when:
16. The child is removed from the parents' home;
17. A change is made in the child's placement;
18. Any determination of the parents' visitation privileges
is made.
Table 11-13 identifies child protections in section 427,
the new section 422(b)(9), and section 475 of the Social
Security Act.
Under the old section 427, Federal review of a State's
foster care system consisted of two phases: (1) the
administrative review, and (2) the survey of case records. The
process was initiated when a State ``self-certified'' after
determining that it was in compliance with the 18 protections
outlined above. An administrative review was then conducted to
determine if all policy and procedural systems necessary to
implement the child protections were in place on a statewide
basis.
If the State had fully implemented these administrative
components, the review process proceeded to the case record
survey stage. Three separate case record surveys were conducted
in each State (an initial, subsequent, and triennial review) by
a team composed of Federal and State personnel. Each of these
reviews demanded a higher level of compliance, and a State had
to pass the preceding review before moving to the next one. If
a State was found out of compliance, HHS issued a disallowance
against the State's allotment of incentive funds for the coming
fiscal year. States could appeal the disallowance to the HHS
Departmental Appeals Board.
According to HHS, virtually all funding disallowances
occurred as a result of States not holding periodic reviews and
dispositional hearings within the timeframe specified in the
statute. Between 1981 and 1991, about $21 million in
disallowances were issued against 18 States and the District of
Columbia.
Federal Financial Review Procedures Under Title IV-E
In addition to the child protection reviews described above
to assure compliance with section 427, HHS reviewed
expenditures made under the Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption
Assistance Programs. The title IV-E statute requires, as a
component of State plans, that States arrange for independent
audits of their activities under both titles IV-B and IV-E at
least once every 3 years. In addition, section 471(b) allows
the Secretary of HHS to withhold or reduce payments to States
upon finding that a State plan no longer complies with State
plan requirements, or, in the State's administration of the
plan, there is substantial failure to comply with its
provisions. The Secretary must first provide reasonable notice
and opportunity for a hearing.
In practice, the Secretary has disallowed expenditures for
Federal reimbursement under title IV-E as a result of several
review procedures, including audits conducted pursuant to
section 471(a)(13). Disallowances may result from audits
conducted by the HHS inspector general, regional office reviews
of quarterly expenditure reports submitted by States as part of
the claims reimbursement process, or Federal financial reviews.
During fiscal year 1996, $128 million in disallowances were
issued against 7 States, compared with $275 million in
disallowances against 5 States in fiscal year 1995, and $222
million in disallowances against 4 States in fiscal year 1994.
Although the actions were taken in the years specified, the
disallowed expenditures may have occurred in a prior year.
New Conformity Review System Under Public Law 103-432
In 1994, Congress enacted legislation (Public Law 103-432)
adding a new section 1123 to the Social Security Act. This
section establishes a child welfare conformity review system to
replace the various title IV-B and IV-E review methods
described above. This legislation also changes the enforcement
mechanism for the child protection requirements originally
contained in section 427. As mentioned earlier, States were
required to comply with section 427 child protections in order
to qualify for their full allotment of title IV-B funds.
Effective for fiscal years beginning after April 1, 1996,
however, this incentive funding mechanism is eliminated and
States are instead required to comply with the child
protections as a component of their State plans, under a new
section 422(b)(9).
HHS is currently pilot-testing the new conformity review
system. As of October 1997, a notice of proposed rulemaking was
under review within HHS. In the interim, reviews are no longer
being conducted under the old systems described above and
disallowances are not being made. The new system is intended to
be more comprehensive and streamlined, and to provide technical
assistance in addition to financial penalties to help States
comply with Federal requirements.
Specifically, Public Law 103-432 requires the new review
system to determine whether State programs conducted under
titles IV-B and IV-E are in substantial conformity with State
plan requirements contained in Federal law, implementing
regulations, and approved State plans. The system will provide
for an initial review of each State program, a timely
subsequent review of any program found to be out of substantial
conformity, and less frequent reviews for States that are in
substantial conformity. Federal regulations must specify the
requirements subject to review and the criteria that will be
used to measure conformity. The regulations also must specify a
method for determining the amount of any Federal matching funds
to be withheld due to a State's failure to substantially
conform. States will be given an opportunity to develop and
implement a corrective action plan, subject to Federal
approval, and financial penalties may be suspended and
ultimately rescinded if a State successfully completes the
corrective action plan. States must be notified within 10 days
after any determination that they are not in conformity, and
may appeal the determination to the Departmental Appeals Board.
Decisions of the Appeals Board may be subject to judicial
review.
RECENT TRENDS AFFECTING CHILD WELFARE POPULATIONS AND PROGRAMS
Data on social problems that are a common focus of child
welfare services--such as incidence and causes of child abuse
and neglect and trends in foster care caseloads--are sometimes
used to show the need for both child protection and preventive
services for families. Although these data do not represent the
absolute number of children or families in need of services,
they are often used to suggest trends in the need for services.
Child Abuse and Neglect
Between 1963 and 1967, every State and the District of
Columbia enacted some form of child abuse and neglect reporting
law. The model reporting law disseminated by the U.S.
Children's Bureau facilitated the States' rapid adoption of
these laws; after 1974 reporting laws were modified to conform
to the standards established by the Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act of 1974 (CAPTA).
Reporting of abuse and neglect
The trend in child abuse and neglect reporting, in terms of
numbers of reports and rates, has been one of steady growth
with more than a fourfold increase in reporting between 1976
and 1996, although the rate of growth has slowed in the 1990s.
In 1976, there were 669,000 child abuse and neglect reports
received by the 50 States and the District of Columbia, for a
rate of 10 per 1,000 children. By 1996, there were 3,126,000
children reported for maltreatment, for a rate of 47 per 1,000
children (see chart 11-1).
CHART 11-1. REPORTS OF CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT AND CHILD FATALITIES,
SELECTED YEARS
Source: McCurdy and Daro (1993).
Increased reporting does not necessarily mean that there
has been a corresponding increase in child abuse and neglect.
As noted below, not all reports are substantiated. Increased
reporting may be as much an indicator of how many cases of
suspected abuse come to professional attention as an indicator
of the true extent of child maltreatment. Public awareness
campaigns, increased training of professionals, and increases
in child protective service staff may result in more cases of
child maltreatment coming to professional attention. On the
other hand, researchers and professionals agree that even with
more than 3 million reports, not all maltreated children are
reported.
Substantiated cases
In 1996, 31 percent of the children reported were either
substantiated or indicated as abused and neglected. \2\ The
remaining reports were either unsubstantiated, no finding was
made, there was an unknown disposition, or some other
disposition of the report was made. There has been a decline in
the rate of substantiation of child maltreatment reports from
65 percent in 1976 to 31 percent in 1996 (McCurdy & Daro, 1993;
Wang & Daro, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Substantiated means that the allegation of maltreatment or risk
of maltreatment is supported or founded on the basis of State law.
Indicated means that maltreatment cannot be substantiated, but there is
reason to believe that the child was maltreated or at risk of
maltreatment (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Types of maltreatment
In 1996, of the child victims for whom maltreatment was
substantiated or indicated and for whom there were data on the
type of maltreatment, 60 percent experienced neglect, 23
percent experienced physical abuse, 9 percent sexual abuse, 4
percent emotional abuse, and 5 percent other forms of
maltreatment.
Child Abuse Fatalities
The U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect (1995)
estimated that 2,000 children under the age of 18 are killed by
parents or caretakers each year. The Board suggests that this
is a low estimate. Philip McClain and his colleagues (1993)
report that abuse and neglect kills 5.4 to 11.6 children per
100,000 children under 4 years of age (see chart 11-1).
Substance Abuse
There is widespread belief that a significant portion of
the increase in child abuse and neglect and foster care
placements resulted from the introduction of crack cocaine
during the mid-1980s. The availability of crack has been linked
to the abuse of children of all ages. According to a 1990
publication by the House Committee on Ways and Means, New York
City officials blame the introduction of crack for the
threefold increase in that city's child abuse and neglect cases
involving parental substance abuse between 1986 and 1988.
Perhaps the biggest impact that crack has had on the child
welfare system is the large increases in very young infants
entering the foster care system at birth as a result of
prenatal drug use, drug toxicity at birth, or abandonment at
the time of birth in the hospital (boarder babies). Drug-
exposed infants also often enter substitute care shortly after
they are born as a result of a diagnosed failure to thrive or
of parental abuse and neglect.
The National Association for Perinatal Addiction Research
and Education estimated in 1988 that 11 percent of all pregnant
women use illegal drugs. A 1990 General Accounting Office (GAO)
study reported that the actual number of drug-exposed infants
born each year is unknown, although the study noted that the
two most widely cited estimates are 100,000 and 375,000. An HHS
Office of the Inspector General (OIG) 1989 survey of 12 cities
found that 30 to 50 percent of drug-exposed infants enter
foster care. New York City reported a 268 percent increase
between 1986 and 1989 in referrals of drug-exposed infants to
the child welfare system (Office of the Inspector General,
1990a).
More recently, the National Pregnancy and Health Survey,
sponsored by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, surveyed a
nationally representative sample of 2,613 women who delivered
babies between October, 1992 and August, 1993. These survey
results were used to estimate the drug, alcohol, and cigarette
use of the approximately 4 million women who gave birth in the
United States during 1992. The survey estimated that 221,000 or
5.5 percent of the women used some illicit drug during
pregnancy. At some time during their pregnancy, 119,000 women,
or 2.9 percent, reported using marijuana; 45,000 women, or 1.1
percent, used cocaine, and 34,800, or 0.9 percent, used crack.
The survey also estimated that 757,000 women, or 18.8 percent,
used alcohol and 820,000, or 20.4 percent, smoked cigarettes at
some time during their pregnancy (National Institute on Drug
Abuse, 1995).
Data from a five State foster care archive show how
increasing numbers of drug-exposed infants are stretching State
child welfare systems to their limits (Goerge, Wulczyn, &
Harden, n.d.). Data for California, Illinois, Michigan, New
York, and Texas indicate that the most striking change in the
characteristics of children entering foster care in the mid to
late 1980s was the increase in the number of infants who were
admitted into care.
Researchers conducting the five State study divided the
period from 1983 to 1992 into 3 periods: 1983-86 (the period
before admissions began to surge); 1987-89 (the period of most
rapid growth); and 1990-92 (when caseloads in several States
began to decline). Between 1983 and 1986, about 16 percent of
first admissions into foster care were of children younger than
1 year of age. By contrast, between 1987 and 1989 children
under the age of 1 represented almost 23 percent of first
admissions. Fortunately, the rate increased only slightly to 24
percent from 1990 to 1992.
Looking at individual States, researchers found that the
proportion of infants entering foster care nearly doubled in
New York, from 16 percent of first admissions in 1983-86 to 28
percent in 1990-92. Infants entering foster care in Illinois
increased as a percentage of first admissions from 16 percent
in 1983-86 to 28 percent in 1990-92, and in Michigan, from 17
percent to 20 percent during the same time periods.
This rise in infant admissions is likely to result in
larger foster care caseloads in the future, regardless of
whether overall admissions begin to decline. Researchers in the
five State data archive found that infants who are placed in
foster care tend to remain in care longer than children placed
at older ages. Data for each of the five States indicated that
duration of care generally decreased with age of placement.
Not only do younger children spend the longest time in
foster care, but many children discharged from foster care
eventually reenter care. During 1989, 15 percent of New York's
admissions into foster care was comprised of children
reentering care. A 1988 Illinois study by Mark Testa and Robert
Goerge found that nearly 40 percent of the earliest cohorts of
foster children that are reunified with their parents
eventually reenter substitute care.
In a 1994 report, GAO reported that most of the young
children who entered foster care in 1991 were prenatally
exposed to drugs, and that 58 percent of young foster children
had serious health-related problems, compared to 46 percent in
1986 (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1994). Young foster
children at high risk for problems resulting from prenatal drug
exposure increased from 29 percent in 1986 to 62 percent in
1991. Cocaine was the most prevalent drug that children were
exposed to in both years. Documented prenatal cocaine exposure
rose from 17 percent in 1986 to 55 percent in 1991.
Trends in Foster Care Caseloads
The incidence of all children in the United States who are
in foster care has increased from 3.9 per 1,000 in 1962 to an
estimated 6.9 per 1,000 in 1996. The incidence of children in
foster care increased slowly during the 1960s, climbed sharply
in the 1970s, and then deceased until 1982. In fact, the
incidence of childen in foster care in 1982 was 3.9 per 1,000-
exactly the same as twenty years earlier. However, since 1982,
the incidence has risen steadily each year. In just 2 years
between 1987 and 1989, the incidence rose from 4.5 per 1,000 to
5.7 per 1,000. The incidence has continued to rise to an
estimated 6.9 per 1,000 on 1996, the most recent year for which
data are available on the total number of children in foster
care.
The number of children in federally assisted foster care
has grown significantly in the years since funding first became
available under AFDC in the early 1960s. The number grew from
1962 to 1976, then decreased from 1976 to 1983. Since 1983, the
number of foster care children funded under title IV-E has
increased steadily. In 1980, when title IV-E was first enacted,
33 percent of the total foster care population was funded under
title IV-E. By 1996, this proportion increased to an estimated
53 percent (see table 11-14).
TABLE 11-14.--U.S. FOSTER CARE AND IV-E FOSTER CARE POPULATION, TOTAL AFDC CHILDREN, AND U.S. POPULATION AGES 0-
18, 1962-2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. foster
U.S. foster IV-E foster Total AFDC children
care care children children per 1,000
Year population (average (average in U.S.
(end of monthly monthly number) population
fiscal number) \2\ \3\ \6\ ages 0-18
year) \1\ \4\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1962................................................. 272,000 989 2,781,000 3.9
1963................................................. 276,000 2,308 2,921,000 3.9
1964................................................. 287,000 4,081 3,075,000 4.0
1965................................................. 300,000 5,623 3,243,000 4.1
1966................................................. 309,400 7,385 3,369,000 4.2
1967................................................. 309,600 8,030 3,558,000 4.2
1968................................................. 316,200 8,500 4,013,000 4.3
1969................................................. 320,000 16,750 4,591,000 4.3
1970................................................. 326,000 34,450 5,494,000 4.4
1971................................................. 330,400 57,075 6,963,000 4.5
1972................................................. 319,800 71,118 7,698,000 4.4
1973................................................. NA 84,097 7,965,000 NA
1974................................................. NA 90,000 7,824,000 NA
1975................................................. NA 106,869 7,928,000 NA
1976................................................. NA 114,962 8,156,000 NA
1977................................................. NA 110,494 7,818,000 NA
1978................................................. NA 106,504 7,475,000 NA
1979................................................. NA 103,771 7,193,000 NA
1980................................................. 302,000 100,272 7,320,000 4.4
1981................................................. 274,000 104,851 7,615,000 4.1
1982................................................. \5\ 262,000 97,309 6,975,000 3.9
1983................................................. \5\ 269,000 93,360 7,051,000 4.0
1984................................................. \5\ 276,000 102,051 7,153,000 4.1
1985................................................. \5\ 276,000 109,122 7,165,000 4.1
1986................................................. \5\ 280,000 110,749 7,294,000 4.2
1987................................................. \5\ 300,000 118,549 7,381,000 4.5
1988................................................. \5\ 340,000 132,757 7,326,000 5.0
1989................................................. \5\ 383,000 156,871 7,370,000 5.6
1990................................................. \5\ 400,000 167,981 7,755,000 5.9
1991................................................. \5\ 414,000 202,726 8,515,000 6.0
1992................................................. \5\ 427,000 224,507 9,225,000 6.1
1993................................................. \5\ 445,000 231,048 9,539,000 6.3
1994................................................. \5\ 468,000 244,473 9,590,000 6.6
1995................................................. \5\ 483,000 260,737 9,275,000 6.7
1996 (estimate)...................................... \5\ 502,000 266,977 8,673,000 6.9
1997 (estimate)...................................... NA 285,000 NA NA
1998 (estimate)...................................... NA 296,400 NA NA
1999 (estimate)...................................... NA 308,300 NA NA
2000 (estimate)...................................... NA 320,600 NA NA
2001 (estimate)...................................... NA 333,400 NA NA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data from Child Welfare Research Notes #8 (July 1984), published by Administration for Children, Youth, and
Families at HHS. This note cites as sources of data for the foster care population: annual reports from 1962
to 1972 of the Children's Bureau and the National Center for Social Statistics, Social and Rehabilitation
Services; National Study of Social Services to Children and their Families, published by ACYF in 1978, for
1977 data; and the Office of Civil Rights, HHS, report, ``1980 Children and Youth Referral Survey: Public
Welfare and Social Service Agencies'' for 1980 data.
\2\ Incomplete data based on voluntary reporting to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, prior to
1975.
\3\ Includes foster children 1971-81.
\4\ Based on data from U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, unpublished data (1962-80); U.S. Bureau of the
Census, Current Population Reports, Series 1095 (1980-89), PPL-41 (1990-95), and 1130 (1996-2001).
\5\ American Public Welfare Association.
\6\ Effective in 1997, AFDC is repealed and replaced with a block grant to States.
NA--Not available.
Source: Compiled by staff of the House Committee on Ways and Means.
More detailed information is available on these trends from
a number of State data systems. Currently, some of the most
interesting data are from the multistate data archive mentioned
above, in which California, Illinois, Michigan, New York and
Texas are participating. According to the most recent report
from the archive, a total of 208,011 children were in foster
care in these 5 States as of December 31, 1993 (of which
California and New York accounted for 70 percent) (Goerge,
Wulczyn, & Harden, n.d.). The five State figure represented
almost half of the nation's total number of foster children, as
estimated by the American Public Welfare Association's
voluntary data collection system.
All five States saw tremendous growth in their foster care
populations during the period from 1983 to 1993. In fact, in
every State except Michigan, the number of children in care had
doubled during this period. Specific growth rates were:
California, 154 percent; Illinois, 158 percent; Michigan, 67
percent; New York, 120 percent; and Texas, 123 percent. The
most intense growth in the five States combined was between the
years 1987-89, when the caseload grew by almost 40 percent.
However, since then the growth rate in foster care caseloads
has returned to the lower levels observed prior to 1987, except
in Illinois and Texas. In Illinois, the foster care population
grew by an additional 65 percent during the period from 1990 to
1993.
When researchers separated the primary urban area in each
of the five States from the balance of the State, they
determined that 75 percent of the caseload growth between 1983
and 1992 occurred in urban areas. New York City and Chicago
were responsible for virtually all of the foster care caseload
growth in New York State and Illinois. Both of these urban
areas experienced a tripling of their foster care populations
during the time period. Since 1990, the growth rate in New York
City has slowed, but there has not been a similar decline in
the Cook County growth rate.
Total caseload size is a function of both the number of
children entering care (admissions) and the number of children
leaving care (discharges). When examining admissions and
discharges, researchers in the five State data archive found
somewhat different patterns in each of the States. For example,
the number of Illinois' admissions had been stable during the
period from 1983 to 1986, but increased by 42 percent from 1987
to 1993. Throughout this entire period, the number of children
discharged in Illinois stayed constant; therefore, the number
of discharges did not offset the increase in admissions,
resulting in overall growth in the total caseload.
In New York, both admissions and discharges grew from 1983
to 1985, but discharges somewhat outnumbered admissions so that
overall caseload size declined slightly during that period.
However, from 1985 to 1987, discharges decreased by almost 10
percent while admissions grew by 38 percent, resulting in
significant caseload growth. Admissions grew by an additional
29 percent from 1987 to 1989. During this period, discharges
also grew but only by 17 percent so that the overall caseload
continued to increase. Since 1989, the number of admissions in
New York has declined and discharges have grown, so that by
1993, the total size of the foster care population declined.
Texas and Michigan experienced growth in both their number
of admissions and discharges during the decade from 1983 to
1993. However, admissions exceeded discharges in both States
during most of the period, resulting in overall growth.
Michigan saw a slight decrease in its caseload in 1992 and
1993. In California, admissions declined in 1990 and 1991 and
have since increased, along with the overall caseload.
Researchers in the five State data archive also examined
the length of time children stayed in foster care and found
that, for children placed between 1988 and 1993, the median
duration was almost 3 years (34.8 months) in Illinois, 2 years
in New York, 1\1/2\ years in California, 1 year in Michigan,
and almost 9 months in Texas. However, certain groups are more
likely to stay in care longer. Specifically, children from
urban areas in four of the five States had significantly longer
durations and black children in four of the five States stayed
longer than all other racial or ethnic groups. Further,
children placed as infants generally stayed in care longer than
older children.
Increase in ``Kinship'' Care
In recent years, States appear to have increased their use
of ``kinship'' foster care in which foster children are placed
with their own relatives. Little reliable national data are
available to document this trend, but some State reporting
systems and national surveys support the conclusion that
kinship care is growing.
In its annual survey of State foster care reimbursement
rates, the American Public Welfare Association (APWA) asked a
series of questions about kinship care in late 1992. While many
States could not distinguish relative placements from other
foster care placements, at least 26 States indicated that they
had experienced an increase in their use of kinship care during
the previous 3 years.
Children placed with relatives grew from 18 percent to 31
percent of the total foster care caseload during the period
from 1986 through 1990 in 25 States that supplied information
to the Inspector General of HHS (Office of Inspector General,
1992). This percentage increase is especially notable because
it occurred during a period of rapid overall caseload growth.
Kinship care is growing most rapidly in urban areas; for
example, almost half of New York City's foster care population
is children in kinship care. It appears that most of the recent
growth in foster care in some parts of the country may actually
have been growth in kinship care.
State policies and practices governing the implementation
of Federal programs vary widely. Particularly with regard to
kinship families, these differences in State policies have a
direct impact on family income and Federal costs. For example,
eligibility for federally subsidized foster care payments is
limited to licensed foster care providers. However, some States
routinely license relatives as foster care providers, making
them eligible for Federal foster care subsidies, while other
States do not usually license relatives, leaving them eligible
only for welfare payments, which are usually lower than foster
care subsidies.
Recent studies on children in kinship care suggest that
children placed with relatives are similar in many respects to
children in traditional foster care (Berrick, Barth & Needell,
1992; Dubowitz, Feigelman & Zuravin, 1993). One difference
found in both studies was racial composition; children in
kinship care were more likely to be black than foster children
living with nonrelatives. Further, children placed with
relatives tend to remain in care longer than children placed in
nonrelative foster care.
HHS released a report on kinship care in June 1997 that
had been prepared by the Urban Institute and Chapin Hall Center
for Children at the University of Chicago (U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, 1997). The report confirmed that the
kinship care population is growing nationwide, but not among
all groups. Researchers found no evidence of any increase in
kinship care among white non-Hispanic children in recent years,
and said that all of the observed growth had occurred among
white Hispanic and nonwhite children. African-American children
are the most likely to live in kinship care settings. Kinship
care also is more prevalent in the South, among nonurban
children, and for older children.
The report also found that two-thirds of kinship care
givers are grandparents, about half are married, and more than
85 percent of single kinship care givers are female. Kinship
care givers are generally older than parents who live with
their own children, are less educated, and are more likely to
be unemployed, poor, and to receive government benefits.
In California, Illinois, New York and Missouri, informal
kinship care is far more common than formal foster care
placements with relatives. Less than 16 percent of kinship
children in the four States combined were in formal kinship
care placements. Younger children were more likely than older
children to be in formal kinship care.
Family Preservation Programs
In response to the rising foster care caseloads of the
late 1980s, States have shown great interest in family
preservation services, which are intended to prevent the need
to remove children from families where child abuse or neglect
has been identified. In particular, interest has developed in
recent years in ``intensive'' family preservation services,
which differ from traditional services in several important
ways. First, the services are intensive. That means that
caseworkers provide services to families as many as three to
five times each week. The services are available at any time of
day or week. Caseworkers have much smaller caseloads than
traditional child welfare caseworkers, often only 2 or 3
families as compared with as many as 60 families. Intensive
family preservation services are provided for a limited period
of time, usually between 6 and as many as 30 weeks. They are
designed to identify and work with family strengths so that,
for example, if a family had a strong network of relatives,
caseworkers would use this network to help with family
stressors or crises.
The initial evaluations of intensive family preservation
services were generally enthusiastic. The programs were claimed
to have reduced placement of children, while at the same time
assuring the children's safety. Foundation program officers and
program administrators claimed that families receiving
intensive family preservation services had low rates of
placement and ``100 percent safety records'' (Barthel, 1991;
Forsythe, 1992). However, there were major methodological and
design limitations of these early evaluations. The vast
majority of evaluations either employed no control or
comparison group, or used a comparison group that was not an
appropriate match for the group receiving treatment. Moreover,
there were questions raised about whether ``placement
avoidance'' was the appropriate outcome measure for the
evaluations. Peter Rossi cautioned that placement avoidance was
not the proper outcome variable, since it was itself the
treatment. In his 1992 review, Rossi concluded that the
evaluation studies did not convincingly demonstrate that
intensive family preservation services reduced placement rates
or reduced child welfare costs (Rossi, 1992).
There have been at least 46 evaluations of Intensive Family
Preservation Programs, of one form or another (Heneghan,
Horwitz & Leventhal, 1996; Lindsey, 1994). Of these 46
evaluations and of 802 published articles on intensive family
preservation, only 10 studies actually evaluated an Intensive
Family Preservation Program, included outcome data in the
report, and used a control group. In California, New Jersey,
and Illinois, the studies had large samples and randomized
control groups, thus allowing for a rigorous evaluation. In all
three studies, there were either small or insignificant
differences between the group receiving intensive family
preservation services and the group receiving traditional
casework services. Even in terms of placement avoidance, there
were no differences between the two groups, thus suggesting
that earlier claims that Intensive Family Preservation Programs
were successful in reducing placement obtained those results
because of the low overall rate of placement in child welfare
agencies. These results also point to how difficult it is for
caseworkers to accurately classify a family as at high risk of
being placed, since 80-90 percent of the children in the
control groups were not placed.
In 1993, Congress authorized Federal funding for family
preservation and family support services under a new subpart 2
of title IV-B of the Social Security Act, and directed HHS to
evaluate these activities. This evaluation, conducted by
Westat, the Chapin Hall Center for Children, and James Bell
Associates, will examine a range of family preservation and
family reunification activities at a number of sites across the
country. The study is scheduled for completion in 1999, and
will use a randomized trial design with a variety of outcome
measures, including placement, cost, and family functioning. As
part of this national evaluation, the contractors prepared a
literature review of existing research on Family Preservation
and Family Reunification Programs, which found little solid
evidence that programs designed to prevent child removal have
actually achieved this goal (U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, 1995). Nonexperimental studies have produced
misleading results, and the few controlled studies that have
been conducted have produced mixed findings. The research also
indicated that family preservation services have very modest
effects on child and family functioning, although the
contractors suggested that it would be unrealistic to expect
dramatic results in this area, given the scope of problems
facing child welfare clients and the short-term nature of
family preservation services.
National Data on Foster Care and Adoption Assistance
The primary source of national data on foster care, until
recently, has been the Voluntary Cooperative Information System
(VCIS) conducted by the American Public Welfare Association
(APWA). This voluntary survey was begun by APWA with support
from HHS in 1982. Detailed VCIS data are available for fiscal
years 1982-90 (Tatara, 1993). In addition, data are available
from the VCIS on the total numbers of children in care through
fiscal year 1995 and rough estimates are available for 1996.
For fiscal year 1990, 41 States and Puerto Rico responded
to the voluntary survey. However, not all States and
jurisdictions were able to respond to every question in the
survey; therefore, the data are incomplete for many items, and,
according to APWA, should be considered ``rough'' national
estimates. It also should be noted that definitions of some
terms varied and that reporting periods were not identical
among States.
The VCIS contains information on all children in substitute
care under the management and responsibility of the State child
welfare agency, including: foster family care (relative and
nonrelative), group homes, residential child care facilities,
emergency shelter care, supervised independent living,
nonfinalized adoptive placements, and any other arrangement
considered 24-hour substitute care by the State agency. No
distinctions are made among these different forms of substitute
care. Finalized adoptions are not included in the VCIS data.
As a result of Federal legislation enacted in 1986, States
now are required to participate in a mandatory data collection
system known as the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and
Reporting System (AFCARS). Once fully operational, AFCARS will
replace the VCIS. Currently, limited data are available from
AFCARS from fewer than half the States. All States must be in
compliance with AFCARS by October 1997 or they will face
financial penalties. AFCARS requires States to collect and
submit to HHS key information on all children in foster care,
and on adoptions when the State child welfare agency was
involved in the placement or financial support of the adopted
child. The legislative history and development of this data
collection system are described later in this section.
Number of children in substitute care
The following table shows the number of children in
substitute care, by year, based on VCIS data collected by APWA.
These numbers indicate dramatic increases starting in the
second half of the 1980s, from 270,000 children at the end of
1985 to 483,000 children by the end of 1995 (see table 11-15).
This trend is also illustrated in chart 11-2. APWA has further
calculated 502,000 as a rough national estimate for the number
of children in foster care at the end of 1996. In addition to
the number of children reported as being in care on the first
and last days of the fiscal year, the numbers of children who
entered and left care during the year and a cumulative total
number of children served throughout the year also were
estimated by APWA, as shown below.
TABLE 11-15.--NUMBER AND MOVEMENT OF SUBSTITUTE CARE CHILDREN, 1982-95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start of Entered Total End of
Year year care served Left care year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1982..................................................... 273,000 161,000 434,000 172,000 262,000
1983..................................................... 263,000 184,000 447,000 178,000 269,000
1984..................................................... 272,000 184,000 456,000 180,000 276,000
1985..................................................... 270,000 190,000 460,000 184,000 276,000
1986..................................................... 273,000 183,000 456,000 176,000 280,000
1987..................................................... 280,000 222,000 502,000 202,000 300,000
1988..................................................... 312,000 199,000 511,000 171,000 340,000
1989..................................................... 347,000 222,000 565,000 182,000 383,000
1990..................................................... 379,000 238,000 617,000 217,000 400,000
1991..................................................... 400,000 224,000 624,000 210,000 414,000
1992..................................................... 414,000 238,000 652,000 225,000 427,000
1993..................................................... 427,000 230,000 657,000 212,000 445,000
1994..................................................... 444,000 254,000 698,000 230,000 468,000
1995..................................................... 455,000 255,000 710,000 227,000 483,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: American Public Welfare Association.
CHART 11-2. CHILDREN IN SUBSTITUTE CARE, END OF YEAR
Source: American Public Welfare Association.
Under AFCARS, States are required to submit data reports
twice yearly. Data from the fourth reporting period (April 1,
1996, through September 30, 1996), are included in some of the
following tables. For this reporting period, a total of 38
States submitted foster care data; however, the reports of up
to 22 States were excluded from each table, because of data
quality issues or requests from the States not to have their
data included. A total of 33 States submitted adoption data;
the reports of up to 17 States were excluded from each adoption
table. HHS cautions that many States extracted their data from
old information systems or new systems that were still under
development, and that differing State policies may also affect
the way information is categorized and reported. In addition,
data on children exiting care are particularly sensitive to
undercounts because of delays associated with entering
information into the data collection systems. The complete set
of tables for the fourth reporting period and previous periods
are available at the following web site: http://
www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/stats.
Table 11-16 shows the number of foster children by State,
including the percent male and female, for the jurisdictions
that submitted data under AFCARS that met HHS' selection
criteria.
TABLE 11-16.--CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 BY STATE
AND GENDER
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In percent
State Number -----------------
Males Females
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska.................................... 1,310 60 40
Arkansas.................................. 1,745 50 50
California................................ 102,963 51 49
Idaho..................................... 937 48 52
Illinois.................................. 53,493 50 50
Louisiana................................. 6,016 49 51
Maine..................................... 2,546 47 53
Massachusetts............................. 14,617 51 49
Mississippi............................... 2,901 48 52
New Jersey................................ 7,591 53 47
North Carolina............................ 11,468 51 49
Oklahoma.................................. 4,118 50 50
Puerto Rico............................... 1,659 51 49
Rhode Island.............................. 3,099 57 43
South Carolina............................ 6,492 49 51
Utah...................................... 2,034 51 49
Vermont................................... 1,782 55 45
Washington................................ 10,313 51 49
-----------------------------
Total............................... 235,084 51 49
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Table 11-17 lists the average monthly number of children in
foster care who received Federal funding under title IV-E for
the years 1986, 1990, 1994, and 1996. These figures are lower
than VCIS and AFCARS estimates of the total number of children
in foster care because they do not include the substantial
number of children who were not eligible for Federal funding
(primarily because they were not from AFDC-eligible homes).
TABLE 11-17.--TITLE IV-E FOSTER CARE AVERAGE MONTHLY NUMBER OF CHILDREN, SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1986-96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Percent change
State -----------------------------------------------------------
1986 1990 1994 1996 1990-96 1986-96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................................. 1,450 965 957 977 1 -33
Alaska.............................................. 8 347 271 291 -16 3,538
Arizona............................................. 481 866 2,697 3,181 268 561
Arkansas............................................ 434 323 773 995 208 129
California.......................................... 23,901 40,286 52,646 61,805 53 159
Colorado............................................ 1,440 2,011 2,274 2,709 35 88
Connecticut......................................... 1,104 2,006 1,971 3,667 83 232
Delaware............................................ 289 125 221 334 168 16
District of Columbia................................ 928 593 1,248 1,405 137 51
Florida............................................. 1,374 3,454 4,070 6,147 78 347
Georgia............................................. 1,893 2,647 3,426 3,945 49 108
Hawaii.............................................. 46 41 530 1,017 2,365 2,111
Idaho............................................... 435 138 280 334 142 -23
Illinois............................................ 4,378 9,340 16,808 25,225 170 476
Indiana............................................. 1,310 1,822 3,123 4,766 162 264
Iowa................................................ 940 1,189 1,547 1,881 58 100
Kansas.............................................. 1,076 1,113 1,326 1,060 -5 -1
Kentucky............................................ 1,613 1,536 1,928 2,603 69 61
Louisiana........................................... 2,274 2,618 2,792 3,034 16 33
Maine............................................... 655 774 1,126 1,399 81 114
Maryland............................................ 1,511 803 3,553 3,861 381 156
Massachusetts....................................... 1,018 3,695 12,223 9,335 153 817
Michigan............................................ 6,823 8,218 8,244 8,897 8 30
Minnesota........................................... 1,574 2,100 3,063 3,696 76 135
Mississippi......................................... 627 723 836 917 27 46
Missouri............................................ 2,114 2,410 4,421 4,826 100 128
Montana............................................. 281 364 615 730 101 160
Nebraska............................................ 799 1,036 1,170 1,458 41 82
Nevada.............................................. 222 462 696 657 42 196
New Hampshire....................................... 249 414 532 577 39 132
New Jersey.......................................... 3,840 2,816 3,715 4,749 69 24
New Mexico.......................................... 601 729 719 764 5 27
New York............................................ 17,188 31,036 51,310 44,082 42 156
North Carolina...................................... 1,411 3,561 3,550 4,437 25 214
North Dakota........................................ 256 308 528 478 55 87
Ohio................................................ 4,166 5,164 6,358 7,017 36 68
Oklahoma............................................ 885 894 1,447 1,658 86 87
Oregon.............................................. 1,313 2,218 2,155 2,752 24 110
Pennsylvania........................................ 7,058 8,823 14,346 13,763 56 95
Rhode Island........................................ 434 433 670 846 95 95
South Carolina...................................... 946 1,209 1,364 1,726 43 82
South Dakota........................................ 302 219 196 200 -9 -34
Tennessee........................................... 1,031 1,876 5,150 2,233 19 117
Texas............................................... 2,917 3,595 5,461 6,034 68 107
Utah................................................ 283 385 515 751 95 165
Vermont............................................. 500 860 907 1,054 23 111
Virginia............................................ 1,795 1,878 2,335 2,842 51 58
Washington.......................................... 983 2,751 1,989 1,997 -27 103
West Virginia....................................... 759 1,166 1,515 3,095 165 308
Wisconsin........................................... 2,620 5,562 4,780 4,640 -17 77
Wyoming............................................. 53 85 96 130 52 145
----------------------------------------
Totals........................................ 110,586 167,981 244,473 266,977
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Characteristics of Children in Substitute Care
Much of the demographic data collected on children in
substitute care through the VCIS reflect three different
groupings: children entering care during the study period
(i.e., fiscal year 1990), all children remaining in care at the
end of the period, and children who left care during the
period. AFCARS data reported below reflect children in foster
care as of September 30, 1996.
Age
Table 11-18 shows the age breakdown of children entering
care, in care, and leaving care during fiscal year 1990. APWA's
analysis of these data with comparable information from
previous years shows gradual increases in the percentages of
younger children entering foster care from fiscal year 1982
through fiscal year 1990.
TABLE 11-18.--AGES OF CHILDREN ENTERING, IN, AND LEAVING SUBSTITUTE
CARE, FISCAL YEAR 1990
[In percent]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age range Entering In care Leaving
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under 1 year........................... 16.1 4.9 5.2
1-5 years.............................. 26.1 31.1 26.5
6-12 years............................. 26.2 32.3 25.6
13-18 years............................ 31.1 29.7 39.3
19 years and older..................... 0.4 1.7 3.2
Age unknown............................ 0.1 0.3 0.02
Median age (years)..................... 7.8 8.6 10.3
Number of States reporting............. 22 23 23
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: American Public Welfare Association.
Table 11-19 shows the age breakdown in 1996 in the 18
jurisdictions that submitted useable data to HHS under the new
AFCARS system.
TABLE 11-19.--CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1996, BY SELECTED STATE AND AGE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age distribution
---------------------------------------------------------
In percent
------------------------------------------
State Number 19 Mean Median
Under 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-18 years years years
1 years years years years and
year older
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska...................................... 1,311 4 20 18 30 28 ..... 11.20 13.29
Arkansas.................................... 1,744 3 24 23 31 18 1 10.34 10.94
California.................................. 102,902 4 29 28 26 13 ..... 9.27 8.99
Idaho....................................... 934 3 29 27 28 12 1 9.32 9.12
Illinois.................................... 53,392 4 32 28 22 11 3 9.03 8.33
Louisiana................................... 6,016 3 27 28 30 12 ..... 9.50 9.57
Maine....................................... 2,545 2 22 27 30 17 2 10.53 10.64
Massachusetts............................... 14,671 3 25 25 30 17 1 10.14 10.36
Mississippi................................. 2,880 3 28 28 27 12 2 9.63 9.38
New Jersey.................................. 7,584 7 32 22 24 14 1 8.84 8.22
North Carolina.............................. 11,384 4 29 26 27 13 1 9.38 9.08
Oklahoma.................................... 4,115 4 31 29 25 10 ..... 8.73 8.28
Puerto Rico................................. 1,653 6 32 30 24 7 1 8.28 7.92
Rhode Island................................ 3,081 5 24 18 24 25 5 10.93 11.86
South Carolina.............................. 6,473 4 27 24 27 16 1 9.76 9.91
Utah........................................ 2,035 4 21 23 33 18 1 10.56 11.43
Vermont..................................... 1,471 1 13 17 37 30 3 12.71 14.39
Washington.................................. 10,273 5 32 25 24 12 1 8.94 8.38
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 234,464 4 29 27 26 13 1 9.51 9.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Race/ethnicity
Black children are significantly overrepresented in the
foster care population. Table 11-20 indicates the racial
composition of children who entered substitute care during
fiscal year 1990, who were in care at the end of fiscal year
1990, and who left substitute care during fiscal year 1990.
These data indicate that white children made up almost half of
the children who entered and left foster care in 1990, while
black children comprised less than third of these children.
However, among children who remained in care at the end of
1990, black children slightly outnumbered white children. APWA
has additional data from 38 States on the racial composition of
children who remained in foster care at the end of 1995, (see
table 11-21; Tatara, 1997). These data indicate that the
proportion of white children in foster care has decreased, and
that African-American and Hispanic children now comprise more
than half of the children in care.
TABLE 11-20.--RACE/ETHNICITY OF CHILDREN ENTERING, IN, AND LEAVING CARE,
FISCAL YEAR 1990
[In percent]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race/ethnicity Entering In care Leaving
------------------------------------------------------------------------
White.................................. 47.2 39.3 49.9
Black.................................. 30.8 40.4 29.4
Hispanic............................... 13.7 11.8 12.8
Other.................................. 4.6 4.3 4.7
Unknown................................ 3.7 4.2 3.2
Number of States reporting............. 23 31 25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--According to the Census Bureau, in 1990 whites were 75.6 percent
of the population, blacks were 11.8 percent, and Hispanics were 9.0
percent.
Source: American Public Welfare Association.
TABLE 11-21.--RACE/ETHNICITY OF CHILDREN IN CARE, FISCAL YEAR 1995
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race/ethnicity Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
African-American............................................. 45.1
White........................................................ 36.5
Hispanic.................................................... 11.3
Unknown..................................................... 2.3
Other........................................................ 2.2
American Indian/Alaskan Native.............................. 1.6
Asian/Pacific Islander...................................... 1.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: American Public Welfare Association.
Table 11-22 shows the racial composition of foster children
in care at the end of 1994 in the 18 jurisdictions that
submitted data to HHS under AFCARS.
Disability/health status
Based on reports from 16 States, APWA found that 13 percent
of children in substitute care at the end of fiscal year 1990
had one or more disabling conditions.
TABLE 11-22.--CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1996, BY STATE AND RACE/ETHNICITY, IN PERCENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Hispanic
State Number Hispanic ------------------------------------------ Unable to Total
White Black Asian/PI AI/AN determine
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska...................... 1,311 3 47 11 1 43 3 100
Arkansas.................... 1,745 1 59 39 ........ .......... 1 100
California.................. 103,009 26 35 35 2 1 .......... 100
Idaho....................... 937 ........ 88 2 ........ 3 8 100
Illinois.................... 53,493 4 17 78 ........ .......... 1 100
Louisiana................... 6,016 1 32 67 ........ .......... 1 100
Maine....................... 2,546 1 95 2 ........ 2 .......... 100
Massachusetts............... 14,368 20 52 24 1 .......... 3 100
Mississippi................. 2,968 1 38 56 1 .......... 3 100
New Jersey.................. 7,591 10 23 65 ........ .......... 2 100
North Carolina.............. 11,468 ........ 43 54 ........ 2 1 100
Oklahoma.................... 4,098 2 54 26 ........ 16 2 100
Puerto Rico................. 1,659 100 ........ ........ ........ .......... .......... 100
Rhode Island................ 3,099 13 54 24 2 1 6 100
South Carolina.............. 6,492 ........ 36 62 ........ .......... 2 100
Utah........................ 2,035 12 75 4 ........ 6 2 100
Vermont..................... 1,782 1 96 2 1 .......... .......... 100
Washington.................. 10,321 6 62 17 2 13 .......... 100
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................. 234,938 15 35 46 1 2 1 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Reasons for Placement in Substitute Care
For fiscal year 1990, the VCIS data report the reasons
children were placed in substitute care in 19 States. The
majority of children--71.1 percent--were placed in substitute
care either for their protection or because their parent was
unable or unavailable to care for them (table 11-23).
TABLE 11-23.--REASONS CHILDREN ENTERED SUBSTITUTE CARE, FISCAL YEAR 1990
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protective service........................................... 50.2
Parent condition or absence.................................. 20.9
Status offense/delinquent.................................... 11.3
Relinquishment of parental rights............................ 0.8
Handicap of child............................................ 1.9
Other........................................................ 12.5
Unknown...................................................... 2.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: American Public Welfare Association.
Permanency Goals
Table 11-24 indicates the permanency planning goals for
substitute care children in fiscal year 1990, according to
reports from 26 States. As the table shows, family
reunification was the permanency goal for more than half the
children in care.
TABLE 11-24.--PERMANENCY PLANNING GOALS FOR CHILDREN IN CARE, FISCAL
YEAR 1990
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family reunification......................................... 60.1
Long-term foster care........................................ 12.0
Adoption..................................................... 15.1
Independent living........................................... 5.2
Guardianship................................................. 3.1
Care and protection in substitute care....................... 2.2
Unknown...................................................... 2.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: American Public Welfare Association.
Comparing the data in table 11-24 with earlier years shows
a significant increase in family reunification as a permanency
goal. Family reunification was the goal for 39.2 percent of
children in fiscal year 1982, according to VCIS data, compared
with 60.1 percent of substitute care children in fiscal year
1990.
Table 11-25 indicates permanency planning goals for
children in foster care as of September 30, 1996, in States
submitting data included in AFCARS. In these States, family
reunification was the goal for 54 percent of the children.
However, unlike VCIS, AFCARS shows ``live with relatives''
separately from family reunification, and this was the goal for
another 6 percent of the children.
TABLE 11-25.--MOST RECENT PERMANENCY GOAL FOR CHILDREN IN CARE ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
[In percent; 283,679 total cases]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long-
Live with term Not yet
State Reunify relatives Adoption foster Emancipation Guardianship established
care
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska \1\.................... 88 2 4 1 1 3 1
Arizona \2\................... 59 8 19 9 5
Arkansas...................... 75 3 9 6 7
California \3\................ 62 ......... 8 21 1 8
Florida \4\................... 69 2 18 9 2
Georgia \5\................... 61 5 17 11 4 1 1
Illinois \6\.................. 27 21 27 ........ 10 15
Louisiana..................... 55 6 17 17 4
Maine......................... 55 ......... 21 7 18
Massachusetts \7\............. 44 ......... 29 11 7 5 3
Mississippi................... 42 29 20 5 4 1
New Jersey.................... 52 9 29 8 3
North Carolina................ 41 11 20 14 3 ............ 11
Oklahoma \8\.................. 56 4 18 16 6
Puerto Rico................... 53 13 15 13 4 1 1
South Dakota.................. 60 ......... 11 9 1 3 16
Tennessee \9\................. 67 1 6 4 3 ............ 20
Utah.......................... 61 ......... 20 15 4
Vermont....................... 20 3 12 13 11 1 40
Washington.................... 61 3 15 6 1 5 10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... 54 6 16 12 4 6 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data may include juvenile justice children not defined by the AFCARS population. Data were extracted from an
outdated (legacy) information system which is being replaced. Therefore, one should exercise caution in using
the data.
\2\ Arizona is currently reviewing its data extraction methodology for probable changes.
\3\ California has estimated that 5 percent of their AFCARS population are juvenile justice children on
supervised probation.
\4\ Florida extracted case records based on actual dates in care. Florida's placement records for children in
``relative'' home settings are selected based on the child's living arrangement at the date of extraction
since history is not available; these values could vary from those during the reporting period. Florida's code
for custody on a permanent basis to a foster parent is coded as long-term foster care; relative and
nonrelative care (short term) and guardianship cannot be distinguished from reunification.
\5\ Georgia went online with a new information system 2 months into the AFCARS reporting period (April 1, 1996
through September 30, 1996) the period from which the table's data are based. Georgia's AFCARS submission for
the period includes 2 months of data from their ``old'' reporting system and 4 months of data from their
``new'' system. Due to the mix of data, ``old and new'' and the learning process experienced by county staff
in utilizing their new system, one should exercise caution in using the data. Subsequent submissions (all from
the ``new'' system) are expected to more accurately reflect activity in Georgia's child welfare system.
\6\ The lack of any responses to the case plan goal ``long-term foster care'' and ``case plan goal not yet
established'' is due to technical difficulties which Illinois is currently rectifying.
\7\ Massachusetts indicated that their AFCARS population does not include any children in the juvenile justice
system. Massachusetts extracted case records based on actual dates in care.
\8\ Oklahoma indicated that its higher than expected number of missing cases is due to its information system
and is instituting additional quality assurance features to rectify the problem.
\9\ Tennessee extracted case records based on actual dates in care.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Living Arrangements of Children in Substitute Care
The VCIS data for fiscal year 1990 contain information on
the living arrangements of substitute care children in 28
States. Table 11-26 shows that the majority of substitute care
children were living in foster family homes, although a
significant percentage were living in either group homes,
residential treatment centers, or emergency shelters. Table 11-
27 shows current living arrangements for children who were in
foster care as of September 30, 1996, in those States whose
data were included in AFCARS. Unlike VCIS, AFCARS distinguishes
between foster placements with relatives and those with
nonrelatives. According to these data, more than a third (37
percent) of foster children in these States were actually
living with relatives, while 42 percent were in foster homes
with nonrelatives.
TABLE 11-26.--LIVING ARRANGEMENTS OF CHILDREN IN CARE, FISCAL YEAR 1990
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foster family homes.......................................... 74.5
Nonfinalized adoptions....................................... 2.7
Group homes/residential treatment/emergency shelters......... 16.4
Independent living........................................... 0.5
Other........................................................ 5.6
Unknown...................................................... 0.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: American Public Welfare Association.
Number and Duration of Placements While in Foster Care
The VCIS collected data on the number of placements during
the preceding 3 years experienced by children in care at the
end of fiscal year 1990. More than half the children in care at
the end of fiscal year 1990 had experienced more than one
placement, according to data from 15 States (table 11-28).
A comparison of these data with data from previous years
suggests a trend toward more multiple placements between fiscal
years 1982 and 1990. Specifically, a total of 43.1 percent of
children in care at the end of fiscal year 1982 had been in
more than one placement, compared with 57.2 percent at the end
of 1990.
Table 11-29 indicates the length of time in continuous care
experienced by children who remained in care at the end of
1990. A comparison with 1982 data on length of stay for
children remaining in care at the end of the year indicates
that the percentage of children in care for 5 or more years had
decreased from 18.2 to 10.2 percent, and the percentage of
children in care 6 months or less was somewhat less in 1990
than it was in 1982 (21.7 percent). Table 11-30 shows length of
stay data for children in foster care on September 30, 1996, in
those States whose data were included in the AFCARS reports.
These data suggest that the percentage of children in care for
5 or more years has increased since 1990. As the table shows,
18 percent of children in foster care in the States listed had
been in care for 5 years or longer.
TABLE 11-27.--CURRENT LIVING ARRANGEMENT OF CHILDREN IN CARE ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
[In percent; 283,679 total cases]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial
State Preadopt Foster Foster Group Institution Indep. Runaway home
home (relative) (nonrelative) home living visit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska \1\................................................ 1 14 31 8 16 .......... 2 28
Arizona \2\............................................... 14 21 43 8 15
Arkansas.................................................. 3 12 64 8 9 1 1 1
California \3\............................................ ........ 43 35 21 1
Florida \4\............................................... 5 50 37 6 1 1 1
Georgia \5\............................................... 4 24 59 5 5 .......... 1 1
Illinois \6\.............................................. 1 52 33 1 7 2 2 2
Louisiana \7\............................................. ........ 13 70 5 7 .......... 1 4
Maine..................................................... 3 5 62 1 19 4 1 5
Massachusetts \8\......................................... 6 16 48 12 1 1 3 13
Mississippi............................................... 2 24 48 18 5 .......... .......... 4
New Jersey................................................ 2 2 72 10 12 2
North Carolina............................................ 6 19 50 6 9 .......... 5 5
Oklahoma.................................................. 1 9 77 4 7 .......... 1 1
Puerto Rico............................................... 1 36 50 1 7 1 .......... 2
South Dakota.............................................. ........ 18 69 ........ 13
Tennessee \9\............................................. ........ 18 56 ........ ........... .......... .......... 26
Utah...................................................... 4 2 59 24 2 2 2 5
Vermont................................................... 3 16 47 13 5 11 .......... 5
Washington \10\........................................... 1 24 66 6 2 .......... 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 2 37 42 11 4 1 1 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data may include juvenile justice children not defined by the AFCARS population. Data were extracted from an outdated (legacy) information system
which is being replaced. Therefore, one should exercise caution in using the data.
\2\ Arizona is currently reviewing its data extraction methodology for probable changes.
\3\ California has estimated that 5 percent of their AFCARS population are juvenile justice children on supervised probation.
\4\ Florida extracted case records based on actual dates in care. Florida's placement records for children in ``relative'' home settings are selected
based on the child's living arrangement at the date of extraction since history is not available; these values could vary from those during the
reporting period. Relatives licensed as foster or shelter parents cannot be distinguished, therefore all family home settings are coded as
nonrelative. Trial home visits are not captured by the State's information system. delinquency, alcohol, drug abuse and mental health residential
programs are coded as institutions because the majority would meet that definition although a few would qualify as group homes; hospitals are coded as
institutions.
\5\ The missing cases (1,865) are due to a logistics issue in that counties are not required to enter data about placement type if they are legally
responsible for the child but the child is not placed in their county. this practice has been eliminated and the county legally responsible for the
child enters placement data. Georgia went online with a new information system 2 months into the AFCARS reporting period (April 1, 1996 through
September 30, 1996) the period from which the table's data are based. Georgia's AFCARS submission for the period includes 2 months of data from their
``old'' reporting system and 4 months of data from their ``new'' system. Due to the mix of data, ``old and new'' and the learning process experienced
by county staff in utilizing their new system, one should exercise caution in using the data. Subsequent submissions (all from the ``new'' system) are
expected to more accurately reflect activity in Georgia's child welfare system.
\6\ Illinois utilizes relative care as a first choice for child's living arrangement when applicable. Illinois ``supervised independent living''
includes college/university scholarship students and a very small number of youths in the military.
\7\ Louisiana indicated that the percentages for preadopted and family foster home (relative) appears too low and is reevaluating the codiing and
definitions used in their information system to resolve the problem.
\8\ Family foster homes (relative) include blood relatives and ``kinship'' relationships; persons significantly attached to a child's family with the
same intensity as a blood relative. Massachusetts indicated that their AFCARS population does not include any children in the juvenile justice system.
Massachusetts extracted case records based on actual dates in care. The Department of social Services (DSSD) area offices are licensed by the State of
Massachusetts ``Office for Children'' to qualify foster homes. the qualifications of a foster home requires the same standards as teh licensing of a
foster home--a home study and background records check. DSS plans to revise this process into a biannual foster home license and annual foster home
reevaluation in 1998.
\9\ Tennessee extracted case records based on actual dates in care.
\10\ Of the children identified as being in institutional care settings (17 percent), it is estimated that more than 95 percent of them are in CRC
(crisis residential centers) of which the majority are group and family foster home type settings and generally the duration of stay is 5 days or
less.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 11-28.--NUMBER OF PLACEMENTS DURING PREVIOUS 3 YEARS FOR CHILDREN
IN CARE AT END OF FISCAL YEAR 1990 \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 placement.................................................. 42.6
2 placements................................................. 27.5
3-5 placements............................................... 23.6
6 or more placements......................................... 6.1
Unknown...................................................... 0.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes current placement.
Source: American Public Welfare Association.
TABLE 11-29.--LENGTH OF TIME IN CONTINUOUS CARE, FISCAL YEAR 1990
[In percent]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children
in care
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-6 months.................................................. 17.8
6-12 months................................................. 14.8
1-2 years................................................... 23.9
2-3 years................................................... 15.8
3-5 years................................................... 16.9
5 years or more............................................. 10.2
Unknown..................................................... 0.6
Median (years).............................................. 1.7
Number of States............................................ 22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: American Public Welfare Association.
Outcomes for Children Leaving Care
Data are available from the VCIS from 24 States on the
outcomes for children who left care in 1990. Table 11-31
indicates that two-thirds of children were reunified with their
families. A comparison of these data with earlier years
indicates that family reunification significantly increased
from 49.7 percent in fiscal year 1982 to 66.6 percent in fiscal
year 1990. Adoption, on the other hand, decreased as an outome
for children leaving care from 10.4 percent in fiscal year 1982
to 7.7 percent in fiscal year 1990.
Unlike VCIS, AFCARS distinguishes between family
reunification and placement with relatives as an outcome for
children upon discharge from foster care. Table 11-32 shows
outcomes for children who left foster care during the period
from April 1, 1996, through September 30, 1996, and indicates
that 63 percent of the children who left care in the listed
States were reunited with their families, while another 9
percent left to live with relatives. At the same time, 11
percent of children who left foster care during that period
were adopted.
TABLE 11-30.--LENGTH OF STAY OF CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
[In percent; 288,726 total cases]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less More
State than 1 1-5 6-11 12-17 18-23 24-29 30-35 3-4 than 5 Mean Median
month months months months months months months years years months months
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska \1\............................ 9 28 18 14 9 7 3 7 5 17.45 10.09
Arizona \2\........................... 6 24 12 12 11 8 5 12 10 24.24 15.64
Arkansas.............................. 7 25 17 9 9 8 6 12 7 20.83 12.58
California \3\........................ 2 13 13 11 9 7 6 16 25 39.86 26.64
Florida \4\........................... 3 18 18 13 10 8 6 14 10 24.80 16.53
Georgia \5\........................... 3 16 16 12 9 8 6 15 15 31.17 20.01
Idaho................................. 6 19 15 13 10 8 6 13 9 23.75 16.03
Illinois.............................. 1 8 8 9 10 10 9 23 21 40.17 31.84
Louisiana............................. 3 15 14 10 9 8 6 15 19 35.61 22.98
Maine................................. 2 12 13 12 10 8 7 20 16 33.25 24.11
Massachusetts \6\..................... 4 16 13 12 10 8 6 16 15 29.81 20.34
Mississippi........................... 3 16 11 12 10 7 5 18 18 35.37 23.06
New Jersey............................ 4 17 13 12 11 8 6 13 15 30.61 19.68
North Carolina........................ 5 27 17 13 8 7 5 11 8 20.98 12.55
Oklahoma.............................. 6 21 17 13 9 7 4 13 10 25.23 14.59
Puerto Rico........................... 6 42 5 2 2 5 2 14 20 31.24 6.80
South Carolina........................ 2 12 13 12 10 10 6 17 18 34.80 24.49
South Dakota.......................... 8 42 17 11 5 4 3 7 3 13.43 5.98
Tennessee \7\......................... 4 18 19 14 9 8 6 13 10 25.18 15.64
Utah.................................. 5 24 20 16 10 8 4 9 4 17.63 12.39
Vermont............................... 3 12 12 9 8 7 6 13 30 51.20 29.37
Washington............................ 4 16 14 14 11 8 7 14 12 28.21 18.83
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................... 3 15 13 11 9 8 6 16 18 34.25 23.20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data may include juvenile justice children not defined by the AFCARS population. Data were extracted from an outdated (legacy) information system
which is being replaced. Therefore, one should exercise caution in using the data.
\2\ Arizona is currently reviewing its data extraction methodology for probable changes.
\3\ California has estimated that 5 percent of their AFCARS population are juvenile justice children on supervised probation.
\4\ Florida extracted case records based on actual dates in care. Florida's placement records for children in ``relative'' home settings are selected
based on the child's living arrangement at the date of extraction since history is not available; these values could vary from those during the
reporting period.
\5\ The percentages of children in care in the ``3-4 years'' and ``5 years +'' (30 percent) is skewed due to the fact that prior to the addition of an
edit check for this element there were many records that did not have a date of original placement. The edit check necessary to address this problem
has been added to the information system. Georgia went online with a new information system 2 months into the AFCARS reporting period (April 1, 1996
through September 30, 1996) the period from which the table's data are based. Georgia's AFCARS submission for the period includes 2 months of data
from their ``old'' reporting system and 4 months of data from their ``new'' system. Due to the mix of data, ``old and new'' and the learning process
experienced by county staff in utilizing their new system, one should exercise caution in using the data. Subsequent submissions (all from the ``new''
system) are expected to more accurately reflect activity in Georgia's child welfare system.
\6\ Massachusetts indicated that their AFCARS population does not include any children in the juvenile justice system. Massachusetts extracted case
records based on actual dates in care.
\7\ Tennessee extracted case records based on actual dates in care.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 11-31.--OUTCOMES FOR CHILDREN WHO LEFT CARE, FISCAL YEAR 1990
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reunified.................................................... 66.6
Adopted...................................................... 7.7
Reached age of majority/emancipated.......................... 6.5
Other \1\.................................................... 15.7
Unknown...................................................... 3.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Other'' includes such reasons as running away, marriage,
incarceration, death, discharge to another agency, or legal
guardianship established.
Source: American Public Welfare Association.
When evaluating data on outcomes for children leaving care,
it should be remembered that a portion of the children will
likely return to substitute care at some point. For example, 15
percent of children entering care in fiscal year 1990 were
reentrants, according to VCIS.
Characteristics of Children in Adoptive Care
As with foster care, national data on the characteristics
of children for whom adoption assistance payments are made are
sketchy. Thus far, the only available data has been from the
VCIS reports. Once AFCARS is fully operational, data on
adoptive children will become available from this source as
well. Some limited data are available from AFCARS now.
VCIS collects information on adoptions related to
substitute care children only. VCIS divides children in
adoptive care into those with finalized adoptions, those
awaiting adoptive placement, and those residing in nonfinalized
adoptive homes. Children in the latter two categories are
included in VCIS' definition of substitute care. VCIS collects
data on the age, race/ethnicity, special needs status, and
relation to adoptive parents of these children. The numbers
below represent national estimates calculated on data received
from reporting States. Not all of the children described below
were adopted with subsidies. AFCARS collects data on adoptions
where the public child welfare agency was involved.
As shown in table 11-33, VCIS reported that 17,000 children
had their adoption finalized in fiscal year 1990, and another
18,000 were placed in nonfinalized adoptive homes. In addition,
20,000 were still in substitute care and awaiting adoptive
placement at the end of fiscal year 1990. Of the adoptions that
were finalized in fiscal year 1990, the two largest age groups
of children were between 1 and 5 years of age (49.7 percent)
and between 6 and 12 years of age (37.4 percent). About half of
these children (50.8 percent) were white, while 29.2 percent
were black. Two-thirds had one or more special needs.
TABLE 11-32.--OUTCOMES FOR CHILDREN WHO LEFT CARE APRIL 1, 1996 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
[In percent; 41,966 total cases]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live with Child's
State Reunify relatives Adoption Emancipation Guardianship Transfer Runaway death
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska \1\................................................. 85 ......... 8 4 3
Arizona \2\................................................ 86 ......... ........ 4 8 .......... 2
Arkansas................................................... 50 50
California \3\............................................. 62 2 11 8 5 .......... 12
Florida \4\................................................ 31 45 11 7 ............ 6
Georgia \5\................................................ 46 16 17 5 1 13 1 1
Idaho...................................................... 78 13 3 4 ............ 2
Illinois \6\............................................... 67 4 20 6 ............ 2 .......... 1
Louisiana.................................................. 60 24 11 1 2 1 1
Maine...................................................... 65 4 ........ 28 5
Massachusetts \7\.......................................... 61 ......... 17 2 5 15
Mississippi................................................ 54 26 9 6 2 .......... 2
New Jersey................................................. 77 ......... 14 3 ............ 2 4
North Carolina............................................. 84 ......... 12 4
Oklahoma \8\............................................... 59 20 10 3 1 2 6
Rhode Island \9\........................................... 29 14 57
Tennessee \10\............................................. 84 ......... 3 11 1 1
Utah....................................................... 64 ......... 10 5 21 2
Vermont.................................................... 59 3 12 13 1 1 10
Washington................................................. 82 ......... 6 6 5 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................ 63 9 11 6 3 3 4 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data may include juvenile justice children not defined by the AFCARS population. Data were extracted from an outdated (legacy) information system
which is being replaced. Therefore, one should exercise caution in using the data.
\2\ Arizona is currently reviewing its data extraction methodology for probable changes.
\3\ California has estimated that 5 percent of their AFCARS population are juvenile justice children on supervised probation.
\4\ Florida extracted case records based on actual dates in care. Florida's placement records for children in ``relative'' home settings are selected
based on the child's living arrangement at the date of extraction since history is not available; these values could vary from those during the
reporting period. Placement with legal guardian (not a relative) cannot be distinguished from reunification with parents. Transfer to another agency
includes juvenile justice, adult corrections, other Florida Department of Children and Families Programs (not child welfare), private agencies and
closure of interstate cases.
\5\ The missing cases (252) are due to the lack of an online edit checking utility at the time of data extraction, however, enhancements have been made
to address the problem. Georgia went online with a new information system 2 months into the AFCARS reporting period (April 1, 1996 through September
30, 1996) the period from which the table's data are based. Georgia's AFCARS submission for the period includes 2 months of data from their ``old''
reporting system and 4 months of data from their ``new'' system. Due to the mix of data, ``old and new'' and the learning process experienced by
county staff in utilizing their new system, one should exercise caution in using the data. Subsequent submissions (all from the ``new'' system) are
expected to more accurately reflect activity in Georgia's child welfare system.
\6\ A number of deaths in foster care come from medically complex children taken into the system; substance exposed infants (SEI), and older child
deaths attributable to accidents or gang-related violence. Illinois children can exit foster care for the following reasons: (1) the case is closed;
(2) the child(ren) have been in a ``home of parent'' living arrangement for more than 6 months; (3) no legal status in place; (4) child resides in an
``other'' living arrangement that does not have a ``provider ID''; (5) child has been in ``unknown'' living arrangement for more than 30 days.
\7\ Massachusetts indicated that their AFCARS population does not include any children in the juvenile justice system. Massachusetts extracted case
records based on actual dates in care.
\8\ Oklahoma indicated that its higher than expected number of missing cases is due to its information systems and is instituting additional quality
assurance features to rectify the problem.
\9\ Data has been extracted from an information system under development, therefore one should exercise caution in utilizing the data.
\10\ Tennessee extracted case records based on actual dates in care.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TABLE 11-33.--FINALIZED ADOPTIONS AND CHILDREN AWAITING ADOPTIVE
PLACEMENT, FISCAL YEAR 1990
[In percentages]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children
Finalized awaiting
adoptions \1\ adoptive
placement \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age:
0-1 year.............................. \3\ 4.5 \3\ 4.0
1-5 years............................. 49.7 36.2
6-12 years............................ 37.4 43.2
13-18 years........................... 7.7 15.8
19 years and older.................... 0.2 0.7
Unknown............................... 0.5 0.1
Race/ethnicity:
White................................. \4\ 50.8 \5\ 44.3
Black................................. 29.2 42.8
Hispanic.............................. 13.3 7.0
Other................................. 4.5 3.7
Unknown............................... 2.2 2.2
Special needs status:
1 or more special needs............... \6\ 66.7 \7\ 71.7
No special needs...................... 33.3 27.9
Unknown............................... 0.0 0.4
Time awaiting adoptive placement: \8\
0-6 months............................ ............. 19.4
6-12 months........................... ............. 12.4
1-2 years............................. ............. 21.4
2 years or more....................... ............. 46.3
Unknown............................... ............. 0.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data reported on the number of finalized adoptions which took place
during fiscal year 1990.
\2\ Data reported on the number of children awaiting placement at the
end of fiscal year 1990.
\3\ Data provided by 20 States.
\4\ Data provided by 27 States.
\5\ Data provided by 25 States.
\6\ Data provided by 19 States.
\7\ Data provided by 18 States.
\8\ Data provided by 16 States.
Source: American Public Welfare Association.
Less than half (41.5 percent) of the children whose
adoptions were finalized in fiscal year 1990 were adopted by
people unrelated to them, i.e., people who were neither foster
parents nor relatives of the children. Another 47.2 percent of
the children were adopted by nonrelative foster parents. Seven
percent were adopted by relatives. The characteristics of
children awaiting adoptive placement are somewhat different
from children whose adoptions were finalized. These children
are generally older and include a greater percentage of black
children (42.8 percent versus 29.2 percent of finalized
children). In addition, of the children awaiting adoptive
placement, 46.3 percent had been waiting for 2 or more years.
Table 11-34 shows the special needs status of foster children,
including foster children awaiting adoption and those with
finalized adoptions.
TABLE 11-34.--PROPORTION OF SPECIAL NEEDS \1\ CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE,
AWAITING ADOPTION, AND ADOPTED, SELECTED YEARS 1984-90
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year
Status ---------------------------------------
1984 1985 1988 1990
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of children in foster
care........................... 276,000 276,000 340,000 406,000
(Percent with special needs).... 22 18 22 13
Number of foster children
awaiting adoption.............. 17,000 16,000 18,000 20,000
(Percent with special needs).... 43 51 64 72
Number of foster children
adopted........................ 20,000 16,000 19,000 17,000
(Percent with special needs).... 57 62 59 67
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Special needs are determined by the States and may include a child's
age, minority status, membership in a sibling group, or medical,
emotional, or physical disability.
Source: Maximus (1987); American Public Welfare Association (1993).
Trends in Child Welfare and Foster Care Costs
As a result of the trends in foster care caseloads and the
Federal requirements of Public Law 96-272, funding for the
Title IV-E Foster Care Program has increased significantly from
1981 to 1997. Based on Administration estimates for fiscal year
1997, Federal title IV-E expenditures have increased tenfold,
from $308.8 million to $3,243 million, between 1981 and 1997.
Similarly, funding for the Title IV-B Child Welfare Services
Program increased by almost 80 percent from 1981 to 1997
($163.6 million to $292 million). Funding for the Title XX
Social Services Block Grant, which States may use for child
welfare services, has actually fallen in nominal terms.
In recent years, an increasing proportion of title IV-E
costs has been expended on child placement services,
administration, and training. Table 11-35 shows HHS and CBO
estimates of title IV-E expenditures through fiscal year 2002.
Expenditures for administration include child placement service
expenditures on behalf of children who are ``candidates'' for
foster care, as well as children who are actual recipients of
foster care maintenance benefits. In other words, funds are
expended on behalf of certain children before and during the
time a title IV-E eligibility determination is made; as a
result, Federal reimbursement is provided for administration
and services for some children who, ultimately, are determined
not eligible for title IV-E maintenance payments.
Table 11-36 shows Federal foster care expenditures by State
in 1984, 1988, 1993, and 1996. Between 1984 and 1996, total
foster care expenditures increased by 610 percent. Between 1988
and 1996, total foster care expenditures increased by 249
percent. Over this latter time period, foster care maintenance
costs increased by 180 percent. Because of the large increase
in administrative and placement costs relative to maintenance
costs, the share of total cost represented by maintenance costs
decreased between 1988 and 1996.
TABLE 11-35.--PROPORTION OF TITLE IV-E FOSTER CARE EXPENDITURES SPENT ON ADMINISTRATION AND TRAINING, FISCAL
YEARS 1983-2002 \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Federal Administration Administration
title IV-E and training and training
Fiscal year expenditure expenditures proportion of
(in (in millions) total
millions) \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual:
1983......................................................... $394.8 $117.9 0.30
1984......................................................... 445.2 147.4 0.33
1985......................................................... 546.2 190.9 0.35
1986......................................................... 605.4 213.8 0.35
1987......................................................... 792.6 312.9 0.39
1988......................................................... 891.1 342.8 0.38
1989......................................................... 1,153.1 507.1 0.44
1990......................................................... 1,473.2 638.2 0.43
1991......................................................... 1,819.2 788.8 0.43
1992......................................................... 2,232.8 1,029.0 0.46
1993......................................................... 2,547.0 1,182.0 0.46
1994......................................................... 2,606.5 1,190.5 0.46
1995......................................................... 3,050.2 1,455.7 0.48
1996......................................................... 3,114.0 1,580.0 0.51
HHS estimate:
1997......................................................... 3,243.0 1,695.0 0.52
1998......................................................... 3,360.0 1,700.0 0.51
1999......................................................... 3,551.0 1,770.0 0.50
2000......................................................... 3,790.0 1,878.0 0.49
2001......................................................... 4,047.0 2,004.0 0.49
2002......................................................... 4,318.0 2,136.0 0.49
CBO estimate:
1997......................................................... 3,272.0 1,639.0 0.50
1998......................................................... 3,495.0 1,706.0 0.49
1999......................................................... 3,791.0 1,836.0 0.48
2000......................................................... 4,114.0 1,993.0 0.48
2001......................................................... 4,432.0 2,147.0 0.48
2002......................................................... 4,742.0 2,295.0 0.48
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include transfer to title IV-B.
\2\ Includes regular administration, training, and for fiscal years 1994-2002, State Automated Child Welfare
Information System (SACWIS) costs.
Source: Compiled by House Committee on Ways and Means staff based on data from U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services and Congressional Budget Office.
TABLE 11-36.--FEDERAL FOSTER CARE EXPENDITURES BY STATE, SELECTED YEARS 1984-96
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year total expenditures (dollars in Maintenance costs Maintenance costs Percentage
millions) (dollars in as a percentage of growth in
State -------------------------------------------- millions) total total
1996 \2\ ---------------------------------------- expenditures,
1984 \1\ 1988 \1\ 1993 \2\ \3\ 1988 1996 \2\ 1988 1996 \3\ 1988-96 \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................................. $2.20 $1.96 $4.68 $5.23 $1.79 $1.44 91.3 27.5 167
Alaska.............................................. 0.08 0.59 4.41 7.99 0.59 2.11 100.0 26.4 1,254
Arizona............................................. 0.12 3.78 17.97 42.97 1.40 18.15 37.0 42.2 1,037
Arkansas............................................ 0.55 1.11 9.75 25.30 0.65 6.93 58.6 27.4 2,179
California.......................................... 99.74 196.95 478.06 693.31 123.63 326.31 62.8 47.1 252
Colorado............................................ 1.60 4.59 20.27 20.35 3.19 7.31 69.5 35.9 343
Connecticut......................................... 2.93 6.86 15.90 66.14 5.08 20.81 74.1 31.5 864
Delaware............................................ 0.42 0.53 1.34 7.40 0.52 1.12 98.1 15.1 1,296
District of Columbia................................ 7.15 2.79 11.20 22.07 0.52 8.51 18.6 38.6 691
Florida............................................. 2.92 9.66 45.88 78.50 6.03 23.98 62.4 30.5 713
Georgia............................................. 7.39 11.35 24.50 24.53 5.88 14.20 51.8 57.9 116
Hawaii.............................................. 0.04 0.09 2.91 11.77 0.07 3.95 77.8 33.6 12,978
Idaho............................................... 0.25 0.64 2.15 6.71 0.59 0.81 92.2 12.1 948
Illinois............................................ 6.30 26.95 117.59 238.33 18.12 136.09 67.2 57.1 784
Indiana............................................. 1.10 1.79 37.65 50.84 1.50 33.54 83.8 66.0 2,740
Iowa................................................ 1.84 4.64 13.66 16.96 2.30 10.08 49.6 59.4 266
Kansas.............................................. 3.45 4.61 19.37 23.90 3.65 9.14 79.2 38.2 418
Kentucky............................................ 2.19 7.78 34.06 51.58 6.32 21.86 81.2 42.4 563
Louisiana........................................... 10.51 15.07 28.56 36.68 7.48 21.56 49.6 58.8 143
Maine............................................... 2.97 5.09 9.44 18.78 3.20 15.11 62.9 80.5 269
Maryland............................................ 3.06 22.27 44.60 71.04 5.29 31.10 23.8 43.8 219
Massachusetts....................................... 5.12 10.65 57.40 96.41 6.49 42.07 60.9 43.6 805
Michigan............................................ 33.32 46.34 103.27 95.55 29.28 53.00 63.2 55.5 106
Minnesota........................................... 6.38 20.59 33.00 44.55 7.30 23.30 35.5 52.3 116
Mississippi......................................... 0.97 0.93 4.09 9.06 0.91 2.98 97.8 32.9 874
Missouri............................................ 4.35 14.51 29.07 45.97 6.43 22.39 44.3 48.7 217
Montana............................................. 1.53 2.16 4.58 7.30 1.82 3.85 84.3 52.7 238
Nebraska............................................ 2.29 5.28 10.16 20.00 2.52 7.17 47.7 35.9 279
Nevada.............................................. 0.36 1.06 2.88 5.15 0.68 1.82 64.2 35.3 386
New Hampshire....................................... 1.21 2.83 7.37 10.24 1.75 3.14 61.8 30.7 262
New Jersey.......................................... 5.87 15.05 25.30 37.33 7.16 18.57 47.6 49.7 148
New Mexico.......................................... 0.63 3.91 5.46 12.22 2.21 3.75 56.5 30.7 213
New York............................................ 128.61 255.27 779.23 566.27 177.57 276.41 69.6 48.8 122
North Carolina...................................... 2.11 2.36 17.63 37.43 2.15 27.61 91.1 73.8 1,486
North Dakota........................................ 0.79 1.33 5.41 8.12 1.06 2.98 79.7 36.7 511
Ohio................................................ 5.80 32.16 91.98 135.56 14.11 74.59 43.9 55.0 322
Oklahoma............................................ 3.68 4.21 8.19 24.15 2.20 8.72 52.3 36.1 474
Oregon.............................................. 6.26 13.12 14.08 24.80 5.92 10.70 45.1 43.1 89
Pennsylvania........................................ 29.19 45.28 180.46 149.61 39.25 108.53 86.7 72.5 230
Rhode Island........................................ 1.24 5.45 8.08 9.48 2.26 3.95 41.5 41.7 74
South Carolina...................................... 1.34 4.42 8.82 18.78 1.92 7.06 43.4 37.6 325
South Dakota........................................ 0.52 1.63 2.57 3.04 0.67 0.92 41.1 30.3 87
Tennessee........................................... 1.68 2.71 15.77 19.54 2.65 11.72 97.8 60.0 621
Texas............................................... 10.18 31.21 72.18 77.21 8.92 49.44 28.6 64.0 147
Utah................................................ 0.81 1.68 5.96 13.21 1.22 4.42 72.6 33.5 686
Vermont............................................. 1.93 3.83 6.65 8.24 1.91 6.19 49.9 75.1 115
Virginia............................................ 3.09 4.64 13.39 34.63 3.33 9.60 71.8 27.7 646
Washington.......................................... 4.36 7.58 19.89 23.59 3.77 7.88 49.7 33.4 211
West Virginia....................................... 5.56 7.50 4.27 8.47 5.31 4.73 70.8 55.8 13
Wisconsin........................................... 10.32 13.61 42.58 45.97 9.43 20.26 69.3 44.1 238
Wyoming............................................. 0.14 0.76 1.05 1.92 0.34 0.75 44.7 39.1 153
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................................... 438.45 891.16 2,524.72 3,114.21 548.34 1,532.82 61.5 49.2 249
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include transfers from title IV-E foster care to title IV-B (child welfare services).
\2\ Does not include disputes and reconciliations.
\3\ For fiscal year 1995 and 1996, includes State Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) expenditures.
Note.--Totals may differ from sum of State amounts because of rounding.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Some have argued that foster care and adoption assistance
became more expensive for the Federal Government after
enactment of Public Law 96-272 because a growing number of
States transferred costs they had traditionally paid with State
dollars to the Federal Government as administrative expenses.
During an April 1987 hearing of the House Select Committee on
Children, Youth, and Families, Dodie Livingston, Commissioner
of the Administration for Children, Youth, and Families,
testified that ``States are finding ways to refinance existing
services through these entitlements and the growth in
administrative cost does not reflect increases in services or
improved management.'' She also expressed concern that the
open-ended entitlement of title IV-E was being exploited by
States that were hiring consultants to help them ``capture''
more available Federal funds. As evidence, the Assistant
Secretary pointed to the high variability of title IV-E
administrative and cost claims among States.
In October 1987, the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG)
published a report on the high absolute levels of title IV-E
administrative and training costs and the wide variation of
claims among States. The report found that the administrative
costs associated with the Foster Care Program were much higher
than those associated with similar programs such as AFDC, and
the Medicaid and Food Stamp Programs. However, the additional
spending was attributed to the fact that regulations
implementing Public Law 96-272 expressly defined many
activities as allowable administrative costs that were not
reimbursed by the Federal Government when foster care was part
of AFDC. By regulation, claimable title IV-E administrative
costs include:
1. Referral to services at time of intake;
2. Preparation for, and participation in, judicial
determinations;
3. Placement in foster care;
4. Development of a case plan;
5. Case reviews;
6. Case management and supervision;
7. Recruitment and licensing of foster homes and institutions;
and
8. Foster care rate setting.
The 1987 report also found that much of the variation of
States' administrative cost claims was linked to the degree of
sophistication of each State's accounting practices. The report
concluded that although HHS had uncovered some random
accounting errors ``there was no evidence found to demonstrate
patterns of abuse.'' In fact, OIG did an audit of the State of
Missouri, in which claimed administrative costs had risen
``precipitously'' and found no serious State violations of
Federal guidelines or regulations.
In addition, the report noted that the decision by the HHS
Departmental Appeals Board concerning Missouri's title IV-E
allowable administrative costs, which was issued shortly before
the OIG's report, would further expand the allowable expenses
that could be charged as administration and training. The
Office of Inspector General issued another report in August
1990 with the following specific findings, which are generally
consistent with the findings made in the 1987 report:
1. The term ``administrative costs'' is a misnomer. Most of
the activities being funded are not traditional
administrative costs, but are ``important child
placement services.'' Administrative costs grew from
$143 million in 1985 to $400 million in 1988. However,
only 20 percent of the cost increase is attributable to
administration of the program; nearly 80 percent
relates to direct service activities that the IG
classified as ``child placement services.''
2. The current procedure used to account for costs does not
allow for examining any correlation between increased
administrative costs and increased services to foster
children.
3. Cost increases occurred for two primary reasons: the
expanded definition of allowable administrative
activities provided in Public Law 96-272, and a broad
interpretation of that definition by the Departmental
Appeals Board. Other factors contributing to the
increases were the States' use of consultants, an
increase in the number of title IV-E children,
increases in the number of caseworkers, and cost-of-
living increases for State employees.
4. Variations in costs among States resulted from using
nonhomogeneous cost indicators, a lack of uniformity in
defining and allocating allowable costs, a gradual
trend by States to use consultants for identifying
opportunities to maximize Federal funding sources, and
States' revision of cost allocation plans to capture
costs for children who are ``candidates'' for IV-E
foster care (but who may not ultimately receive foster
care maintenance payments) (see Office of Inspector
General, 1990b).
The report concluded that legislative and administrative
measures were necessary for containing escalating
administrative costs.
During the second session of the 101st Congress,
legislation was enacted as part of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508) designed to
provide better information on State reimbursement for
administrative costs. Under the provisions of Public Law 101-
508, ``child placement services'' was added as a separate
category for which States may claim reimbursement, in addition
to administrative costs. Prior to this provision, States
claimed reimbursement for child placement services as
administrative costs. The amendment, while not changing the
type of services for which States may claim reimbursement, was
designed to provide more specific information on how Federal
matching funds are used. HHS reports that of claims filed for
child placement and administrative costs in fiscal year 1996,
47 percent were for case planning and management activities, 26
percent were for preplacement activities, 9 percent were for
eligibility determinations, and the remaining 18 percent were
for other activities, including traditional administrative and
overhead costs. These percentages are based on claims submitted
for nonvoluntary placements only, and also include adjustments
made by some States from claims submitted for previous years.
FOSTER CARE AND ADOPTION INFORMATION SYSTEM
Lack of Adequate Data
Historically, there has been a lack of reliable data on
foster care and adoption. In fact, not every State even
reported its average monthly foster care caseload under the
federally assisted program until 1975. Moreover, States have
never been required to collect data on nonfederally-assisted
foster care, which in a typical State constitutes about half
the cases in foster care. This lack of data was one of several
concerns that Congress hoped to address with enactment of the
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (Public Law
96-272).
The 1980 law imposed several requirements on States as a
condition for incentive funds under the Title IV-B Child
Welfare Services Program, including a one-time inventory of
children in foster care and a statewide information system for
tracking children in foster care. Shortly after enactment of
Public Law 96-272, HHS wrote detailed guidelines for the
implementation of these requirements, which were published as
an interim final rule on December 31, 1980. However, HHS
withdrew these regulations the following March, stating that
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had not reviewed and
approved certain sections. In 1982, the Department issued a
policy information question (ACYF-PIQ-82-06) which restated the
law's requirement that States have an information system, but
did not specify the system's content. The 1980 regulations were
never reissued.
As we have seen, since 1982 HHS has funded the American
Public Welfare Association (APWA) to conduct a voluntary annual
survey of States, known as the Voluntary Cooperative
Information System (VCIS). Until now, VCIS has been the only
source of national data on the number and characteristics of
children in foster and adoptive care. However, the VCIS is of
limited use for several reasons: (1) not all States participate
fully in the survey; (2) reporting periods are not consistent
among States; (3) there is a serious time lag between data
collection and publication; and (4) data are available only in
an aggregated, State-specific format, preventing the type of
analysis that could be conducted with case-specific data. VCIS
data were presented earlier in this section.
In response to the need for better data collection,
Congress in 1986 approved an amendment to title IV-E (section
479) requiring that an advisory committee be established and
submit a report to Congress and HHS with recommendations for
establishing, administering, and financing a system for
collecting data on adoption and foster care. This amendment,
contained in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, Public Law
99-509, required that the Secretary of HHS issue final
regulations for the new data system by December 31, 1988, and
that mandatory data collection be fully implemented no later
than October 1, 1991.
The advisory committee submitted its final report in 1987,
and in May 1989, HHS submitted an implementation plan to
Congress.
On September 27, 1990, HHS proposed regulations to
implement the data collection system known as the Adoption and
Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS). The
population to be covered was children under the responsibility
of the State child welfare agency and financing was to come
from the title IV-E administrative cost match. States were to
claim only that portion of their costs that related to children
eligible for title IV-E, although the system would have
required States to collect data on non-IV-E children as well.
OBRA 1993 and Final Rules for AFCARS and SACWIS
In 1993, as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
(Public Law 103-66), Congress amended section 479, the title
IV-E provision added in 1986 that required establishment of a
foster care and adoption data collection system.
The 1993 amendment authorized an enhanced Federal matching
rate to States for certain costs related to data collection for
fiscal years 1994-96. Welfare reform legislation enacted in
1996 (Public Law 104-193) extended this enhanced match through
fiscal year 1997. The statute specifies that this enhanced
match of 75 percent is available for costs of planning, design,
development and installation of statewide mechanized data
collection and information retrieval systems, including costs
of hardware, as long as the systems do the following: comply
with HHS regulations; to the extent practicable, interface with
State child abuse and neglect data collection systems and with
AFDC data collection systems; and provide more efficient,
economical, and effective administration of State Child Welfare
Programs, as determined by HHS. The law also provides that
ongoing operational costs of State data collection and
information retrieval systems will be matched at the 50 percent
Federal rate available for administrative expenses under title
IV-E. After fiscal year 1997, the enhanced match will expire
and all data collection costs will be matched at the 50 percent
rate. Further, the amendment specifies that States may claim
reimbursement for data collection systems without regard to
whether they are used for foster and adoptive children who are
not eligible for title IV-E assistance.
On December 22, 1993, HHS published two sets of rules in
the Federal Register: interim final rules for State Automated
Child Welfare Information Systems (SACWIS), issued in response
to enactment of Public Law 103-66; and final rules implementing
AFCARS. Under the interim final rules for SACWIS, States must
develop ``comprehensive'' child welfare data collection
systems, of which AFCARS will be a component, in order to
qualify for Federal funding, including the 75 percent enhanced
match. According to HHS, ``comprehensive'' means that a State
SACWIS system must include child welfare services, foster care
and adoption assistance, family preservation and support
services, and independent living.
Under the interim final rules, State SACWIS systems must do
the following, at a minimum:
1. Meet the AFCARS data collection and reporting requirements;
2. Provide for intrastate electronic data exchange with data
collection systems operated under AFDC, Medicaid, child
support enforcement, and the National Child Abuse and
Neglect Data System (unless not practicable for certain
reasons);
3. Provide for automated data collection on all children in
foster care under the responsibility of the State child
welfare agency to support implementation of section 427
protections and requirements;
4. Collect and manage information necessary to facilitate
delivery of child welfare services, family preservation
and family support services, family reunification
services, and permanent placement;
5. Collect and manage information necessary to determine
eligibility for the Foster Care, Adoption Assistance,
and Independent Living Programs and to meet case
management requirements for these programs;
6. Monitor case plan development, payment authorization and
issuance, and review and management including
eligibility determinations and redeterminations; and
7. Ensure confidentiality and security of information.
In addition, optional SACWIS functions could include (if
cost-beneficial) resource management, tracking and maintenance
of legal and court information, administration and management
of staff and workloads, licensing verification, risk analysis,
and interfacing with other automated information systems.
HHS reports that, as of July 1997, 38 States were
implementing SACWIS and another 9 were in the planning phase.
Among those in some phase of implementation, 12 States were
fully or partially operational. The 38 implementing States
were: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut,
District of Columbia, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Indiana, Georgia,
Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
The nine States in the planning process were: Alabama,
Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, North
Carolina, and Virginia.
Hawaii, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania were not
participating, and Vermont had terminated its project.
Under the final AFCARS rules, States are required to
collect case-specific data on all children in foster care for
whom the State child welfare agency has responsibility for
placement, care, or supervision, regardless of their
eligibility for title IV-E. Further, States are required to
collect data on all adopted children who were placed by the
State child welfare agency, and on all adopted children for
whom the State provides adoption assistance (ongoing payments
or for nonrecurring expenses), care, or services either
directly or by contract with other private or public agencies.
States must report data to HHS twice a year. Penalties for
noncompliance with AFCARS requirements will not be imposed
during the first six reporting periods (Oct. 1, 1994-Sept. 30,
1997). Half penalties will be imposed during the following two
reporting periods, and full penalties will be imposed on States
out of compliance for the reporting period beginning October 1,
1998.
Preliminary data are available from AFCARS and are
presented earlier in this section.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Federal assistance to enable States to make maintenance
payments for children who were not living with a parent and had
been placed in foster care by a child welfare agency first
became available under what was then called the Aid to
Dependent Children (ADC) Program under title IV-A of the Social
Security Act in 1961. Federal assistance to States for child
welfare services (as opposed to maintenance payments) had been
authorized originally under title V of the Social Security Act
of 1935; the assistance authorization was then transferred to
title IV-B in 1967.
Foster care under title IV-A of the Social Security Act was
amended in 1980 by Public Law 96-272. This legislation
continued AFDC foster care as a required Federal matching grant
program, but transferred it to a newly created title IV-E. It
also changed the funding mechanism for this program and the
Child Welfare Services Program under title IV-B, providing
linkages between the two to encourage less reliance on foster
care placement and greater use of services aimed at preventing
placement and encouraging family rehabilitation. The
entitlement nature of AFDC foster care was retained, but under
title IV-E its open-endedness was potentially limited by a
provision that was contingent on the funding level of title IV-
B. The legislation specified a number of protections to help
prevent inappropriate placements or long-term stays in foster
care. Under title IV-E, a new Federal matching grant program
for payments to parents who adopt a child with special needs
was also established and permanently authorized. Funding for
adoption assistance is on an open-ended entitlement basis.
The Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Programs were
amended in the 99th Congress, under the Consolidated Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA, Public Law 99-272).
This legislation also established a new entitlement program
under title IV-E to help States facilitate the transition of
children age 16 and over from AFDC foster care to independent
living. The program is called the Independent Living Program.
The 99th Congress also enacted legislation as part of the
Tax Reform Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-514) that amended the
Adoption Assistance Program under title IV-E to provide for
Federal matching funds for the one-time adoption expenses of
children with special needs, regardless of whether the children
are eligible for AFDC or SSI payments.
During the 100th Congress, legislation was enacted in 1987
to expand the Independent Living Program to include children
ages 16 or over who are in any foster care situation and to
provide services for specified children for 6 months after
foster care payments or foster care ends (Public Law 100-647).
During the first session of the 101st Congress, legislation
was enacted as part of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1989
(Public Law 101-239) to increase the authorization level of the
IV-B program from $266 million to $325 million; to extend the
Independent Living Program through 1992 and to increase the
entitlement ceiling from $45 million to $50 million for fiscal
year 1990, $60 million for fiscal year 1991, and $70 million
for fiscal year 1992; and to establish a State match for the
Independent Living Program beginning in fiscal year 1991.
During the second session of the 101st Congress, the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508)
made several minor amendments to the Child Welfare, Foster Care
and Adoption Assistance Programs. Among other things, these
amendments required States to distinguish between traditional
administrative costs and child placement costs which previously
had been classified as administrative costs, and gave States
the option of providing independent living services to foster
children up to age 21.
The 103d Congress enacted significant child welfare
amendments in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
(Public Law 103-66). This legislation created a new capped
entitlement under title IV-B for a broad range of services to
families (including foster, adoptive, and extended families),
termed ``family preservation'' and ``family support'' services.
The legislation also: included a set-aside for grants to State
courts for assessments and improvements of judicial child
welfare proceedings; authorized a 3-year enhanced match to
States for planning, designing, developing or installing child
welfare data collection systems; permanently authorized the
Independent Living Program; and permanently authorized a 75
percent matching rate for certain State training expenses.
Also enacted during the 103d Congress were the Social
Security Act Amendments of 1994 (Public Law 103-432), which
contained a variety of child welfare provisions. Under these
amendments, the ``section 427'' child protections were
reestablished as State plan requirements under a new section
422(b)(9) of the act, effective April 1, 1996. In addition,
Public Law 103-432 authorized a new conformity review system to
monitor and enforce State compliance with Federal requirements
and State plan provisions.
Public Law 103-432 also: requires States to describe
measures taken to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act in
their title IV-B State plans; authorizes child welfare
traineeships; requires foster care placements to be in the
``most appropriate'' as well as ``most familylike'' setting;
and requires dispositional hearings to be held at least every
12 months after the first such hearing. Further, the 1994
legislation authorizes HHS to conduct child welfare
demonstrations in up to 10 States, allowing States to waive
certain IV-B and IV-E provisions; establishes additional case
plan and case review procedures for children placed outside
their home State; and establishes a timetable for Federal
review of State foster care and adoption assistance claims.
Finally, Public Law 103-432 established a new section 1130A of
the Social Security Act, addressing judicial review of Social
Security Act provisions that are required as components of
State plans. This provision was developed in response to a
Supreme Court ruling in Suter v. Artist M., an Illinois child
welfare case.
During the 104th Congress, comprehensive welfare reform
legislation was enacted that contained provisions affecting
child welfare (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act, Public Law 104-193). The centerpiece of the
welfare reform legislation was the repeal of AFDC and creation
of a new block grant to States for Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF). As a condition of receiving TANF funds,
States must operate Foster Care and Adoption Assistance
Programs under title IV-E of the Social Security Act. However,
eligibility for title IV-E historically has been linked to AFDC
eligibility. Thus, Public Law 104-193 provides that foster or
adoptive children will now be eligible for title IV-E subsidies
if their families would have been eligible for AFDC, as it was
in effect in their State on June 1, 1995. Children eligible for
SSI will continue to be eligible for title IV-E adoption
assistance, and foster and adoptive children will continue to
be eligible for Medicaid.
Public Law 104-193 also amended title IV-E to enable for-
profit child care institutions to participate in the Federal
Foster Care Program; extended the enhanced Federal matching
rate for certain data collection costs through fiscal year
1997; mandated HHS to conduct a national random sample study of
children in the child welfare system; and required States, as a
component of their title IV-E plans, to consider giving
preference to adult relatives in determining a foster or
adoptive placement for a child.
Adoption Legislation in the 105th Congress
Since this chapter was completed, Congress passed and the
President signed the Adoption and Safe Families Act (Public Law
105-89), which constitutes a significant reform of Federal
child welfare law in an effort to promote adoption and ensure
safety for children in foster care. The new law, enacted on
November 19, 1997, amends titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social
Security Act, and is described below.
Child safety and ``reasonable efforts'' to preserve families
The Adoption and Safe Families Act requires that a child's
health and safety be of ``paramount'' concern in any efforts
made by the State to preserve or reunify the child's family.
States continue to be required to make ``reasonable efforts''
to avoid the need to place children in foster care, and to
return them home if they are removed, but the new law
establishes exceptions to this requirement. Specifically,
States are not required to make efforts to preserve or reunify
a family if a court finds that a parent had killed another of
their children, or committed felony assault against the child
or a sibling, or if their parental rights to another child had
previously been involuntarily terminated.
In addition, the new law establishes that efforts to
preserve or reunify a family are not required if the court
finds that a parent had subjected the child to ``aggravated
circumstances.'' Each State will define these circumstances in
State law, although the Adoption and Safe Families Act cites
abandonment, torture, chronic abuse, and sexual abuse as
examples. Moreover, the new law does not preclude individual
judges from using their discretion to protect a child's health
and safety in any case, regardless of whether the specific
circumstances are cited in Federal law.
To further promote safety, the new law adds references to
child safety in various sections of titles IV-B and IV-E. The
legislation also requires that States conduct criminal
background checks for all prospective foster or adoptive
parents, and deny approval to anyone who has ever been
convicted of felony child abuse or neglect, spousal abuse, a
crime against children (including child pornography), or a
violent crime including rape, sexual assault, or homicide. In
addition, States must deny approval to anyone with a felony
conviction for physical assault, battery, or a drug-related
offense, if the felony occurred within the past 5 years. States
may opt out of the criminal record check requirement either
through a letter from the Governor to the Secretary of Health
and Human Services (HHS), or through legislation enacted by the
State legislature.
Finally, the new law requires States to develop standards
to ensure quality services that protect the health and safety
of children in foster care with public and private agencies.
These standards are in addition to licensing requirements
already established under title IV-E.
``Reasonable efforts'' to promote adoption
If efforts to preserve or reunify a family are not
required because the court has found that an exception to this
requirement exists, as described above, the Adoption and Safe
Families Act requires that a permanency hearing (formerly
called ``dispositional'' hearing) be held for the child within
30 days of that court finding. In these cases, or whenever a
child's permanency plan is adoption or another alternative to
family reunification, the new law requires States to make
reasonable efforts to place the child in a timely manner in
accordance with the permanency plan, which may include
placement for adoption, with a guardian, or in another planned,
permanent arrangement. States also must document specific
efforts made to place the child for adoption. These provisions
are intended to shorten the length of time that children spend
in foster care, once a court has determined that family
reunification is not feasible or likely.
The new law also specifies that efforts to preserve or
reunify a family can be made concurrently with efforts to place
the child for adoption or guardianship. This practice is
referred to as ``concurrent planning'' and allows States to
develop a backup plan, to save time in case efforts to restore
the original family are unsuccessful.
The Adoption and Safe Families Act also contains
provisions intended to eliminate interjurisdictional issues as
a potential barrier to a child's adoption. First, the new law
requires States to assure in their title IV-B plans that they
will make effective use of cross-jurisdictional resources to
facilitate timely adoptions for waiting children. The law also
denies Federal foster care and adoption assistance funding to
any State that is found to have denied or delayed a child's
adoptive placement if an approved family is available outside
the child's jurisdiction, or has denied a fair hearing to
anyone who alleges a violation of this provision. In addition,
the Adoption and Safe Families Act directs the General
Accounting Office (GAO) to conduct a study of
interjurisdictional adoption issues, including the
implementation of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of
Children, and to report findings to Congress within 1 year.
Permanency hearings and termination of parental rights
Prior to enactment of the Adoption and Safe Families Act,
Federal law required that every foster child must have a
judicial hearing, known as a ``dispositional'' hearing, within
18 months of their placement in care to determine their future
status. The new law requires this hearing to occur within 12
months of placement, and changes the name to ``permanency''
hearing. The law revises the list of permanency goals (which
had included long-term foster care) to include returning home,
referral for adoption and termination of parental rights,
guardianship, placement with a relative, or, as a last resort,
another planned, permanent living arrangement. Public Law 105-
89 also requires that foster parents, preadoptive parents, and
relative care givers be given notice and an opportunity to be
heard at reviews and hearings.
One of the most significant provisions of the new law
requires States to initiate proceedings to terminate parental
rights (TPR) for certain foster children; there was no
comparable provision in prior law. Specifically, Public Law
105-89 requires States to initiate TPR proceedings for children
who have been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22
months, or for infants determined under State law to be
abandoned, or in any case where the court has found that a
parent has killed another of their children or committed felony
assault against the child or a sibling. States can opt not to
initiate such proceedings if the child is in a relative's care,
or if the State agency has documented in the child's case plan
a compelling reason to determine that TPR would not be in the
child's best interest, or if the State had not provided
necessary services to the family.
For children entering foster care after the new law's date
of enactment, States must comply with this provision no later
than 3 months after the end of their first legislative session
that begins after the date of enactment. For children who
already were in care on the date of enactment, States may phase
in compliance but must be in compliance for all children by no
later than 18 months after the end of the legislative session.
For purposes of the TPR provision and the 12-month permanency
hearing, children will be considered to have entered foster
care on the first date that the court finds they have been
subjected to child abuse or neglect, or 60 days after their
removal from home, whichever occurs first.
Adoption incentive payments
The Adoption and Safe Families Act intends to promote
adoption by providing incentive payments to States to increase
their number of foster child adoptions, with additional
incentives for the adoption of foster children with special
needs. As in the existing Adoption Assistance Program, which
provides ongoing subsidies to adoptive parents of special needs
children, the definition of special needs is determined by each
State, and may include age, ethnic group, or membership in a
sibling group, in addition to disability or a medical condition
that makes a child difficult to place for adoption. Incentive
payments will equal $4,000 for each foster child whose adoption
is finalized (over a certain base level) and $6,000 for each
special needs adoption above the base level. The new law
authorizes $20 million annually for these incentive payments,
for fiscal years 1999-2003. In addition, discretionary budget
caps are adjusted to help ensure that these funds will actually
be appropriated.
The new legislation also authorizes HHS to provide
technical assistance to help States increase their number of
foster child adoptions, and authorizes appropriations of $10
million annually for each of fiscal years 1998-2000. HHS must
use half of the funds that are appropriated to provide
technical assistance to the courts.
Eligibility for adoption and medical assistance
Children who are eligible for Federal adoption assistance
under title IV-E are automatically eligible for Medicaid.
However, States are not required (although they have the
option) to provide Medicaid coverage to special needs adopted
children who do not meet the AFDC or SSI eligibility criteria
for title IV-E subsidies. The Adoption and Safe Families Act
requires States to provide health insurance coverage to these
children, if they have special needs for medical, mental
health, or rehabilitative care. This health coverage may be
through Medicaid or another program, as long as benefits are
comparable. In addition, to be eligible for adoption incentive
payments (described above) in fiscal year 2000 or fiscal year
2001, States must provide health coverage to any special needs
child whose adoptive parents have entered into an adoption
assistance agreement with any State. States also must comply
with this provision to be eligible for a waiver demonstration
(described below).
The Adoption and Safe Families Act also contains a
provision intended to ensure that children who had once been
eligible for title IV-E adoption assistance will continue to be
eligible in a subsequent adoption, if their initial adoption is
disrupted or their adoptive parents die, regardless of whether
they would have qualified for AFDC or SSI based on the income
and assets of their first adoptive family.
Reauthorization and renaming of Family Preservation Program
The new law reauthorizes and changes the name of the
existing Family Preservation Program to Promoting Safe and
Stable Families. This program was scheduled to expire at the
end of fiscal year 1998 and is reauthorized under Public Law
105-89 at: $275 million in fiscal year 1999; $295 million in
fiscal year 2000; and $305 million in fiscal year 2001. Prior
law required States to devote significant expenditures to each
of two types of services: family preservation; and community-
based family support. The Adoption and Safe Families Act adds
two more categories: time-limited family reunification services
provided during the 15-month period after a child is removed
from home; and adoption promotion and support services.
State accountability for performance
The Adoption and Safe Families Act also aims to increase
the accountability of States for the performance of their child
welfare programs. The legislation requires HHS, in consultation
with public officials and child welfare advocates, to develop
outcome measures in various categories (i.e., number of foster
care placements and adoptions, length of stay in foster care),
and to rate State performance according to these measures in an
annual report. The first annual report is due by May 1, 1999.
In addition, the new law directs HHS to conduct a study
and develop recommendations for a performance-based financial
incentive system under titles IV-B and IV-E. To the extent
feasible, this system will be based on the annual performance
report described above. HHS must submit a progress report to
Congress within 6 months of the new law's enactment, and a
final report within 15 months.
State innovation and demonstration waivers
Under legislation enacted in 1994, HHS is authorized to
approve up to 10 States to receive waivers from title IV-B and
IV-E rules in order to conduct demonstration projects. The
Adoption and Safe Families Act allows HHS to approve an
additional 10 demonstrations in each of fiscal years 1998-2002.
Federal law does not mandate specific goals for these
demonstrations. However, the new law directs the Secretary to
give consideration to any applications received with the
following purposes: (1) to identify and address barriers to
adoption for foster children; (2) to identify and address
parental substance abuse problems that result in foster care
placement for children, including through placement of children
together with their parents in appropriate residential
treatment facilities; and (3) to address kinship care.
Additional provisions
Additional provisions in Public Law 105-89: require HHS to
submit a report to Congress by June 1, 1999, on the issue of
kinship care; give child welfare agencies access to the Federal
Parent Locator Service; clarify eligibility for the Independent
Living Program; establish a sense of Congress in favor of
standby guardianship laws; and make a statement of intent about
``reasonable'' parenting. Unless specified otherwise, the new
law takes effect upon enactment, except that, where enactment
of new State laws is required, States have until 3 months after
their first legislative session to comply.
REFERENCES
American Bar Association. (1995, April 21). Reasonable efforts
advisory panel. Meeting conducted by the American Bar
Association's Center on Children and the Law,
Washington, DC.
Barthel, J. (1991). For children's sake: The promise of family
preservation. New York: Edna McConnell Clark
Foundation.
Berrick, J.D., Barth, R.P., & Needell, B. (1992). A comparison
of kinship foster homes and foster family homes:
Implications for kinship foster care as family
preservation. Berkeley, CA: University of California at
Berkeley, Child Welfare Research Center.
Cook, R. (1990). A national evaluation of title IV-E foster
care independent living programs for youth, phase 1.
Rockville, MD: Westat, Inc.
Cook, R. (1992). A national evaluation of title IV-E foster
care independent living programs for youth, phase 2
final report. Rockville, MD: Westat, Inc.
Dubowitz, H., Feigelman, S., & Zuravin, S. (1993, March-April).
A profile of kinship care. Child Welfare, 72, pp. 153-
169.
Forsythe, P. (1992). Homebuilders and family preservation.
Children and Youth Services Review, 14, pp. 37-47.
Goerge, R.M., Wulczyn, F.H., & Harden, A.W. (n.d.). An update
from the multistate foster care data archive: Foster
care dynamics, 1983-93. Chicago: University of Chicago,
Chapin Hall Center for Children.
Heneghan, A.M., Horwitz, S.M., & Leventhal, J.M. (1996).
Evaluating Intensive Family Preservation Programs: A
methodological review. Pediatrics, 97, pp. 535-42.
House Committee on Ways and Means. (1990). The enemy within:
Crack-cocaine and America's families (WMCP: 101-30).
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Lindsey, D. (1994). The welfare of children. New York: Oxford
University Press.
McClain, P., Sacks, J., & Frohlke, R. (1993). Estimate of fatal
child abuse and neglect, United States, 1979 through
1988. Pediatrics, 91, pp. 338-43.
McCurdy, K., & Daro, D. (1993). Current trends in child abuse
reporting and fatalities: The results of the 1992 fifty
State survey. Chicago: National Center on Child Abuse
Prevention Research, National Committee to Prevent
Child Abuse.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (1995). National pregnancy
and health survey. Washington, DC: Department of Health
and Human Services.
Office of Inspector General. (1987). Foster care administrative
costs (OAI-05-87-00012). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
Office of Inspector General. (1990a). Crack babies (OEI-03-89-
01540). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services.
Office of Inspector General. (1990b). Opportunities for cost
containment by modifying Federal reimbursement to
states for administrative costs of the title IV-E
program (A-07-90-00274). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
Office of Inspector General. (1992). Using relatives for foster
care (OEI-06-90-02390). Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services.
Oppenheim, Elizabeth. (1995). Report on the Interstate Movement
of Children Receiving Adoption Assistance. Washington,
DC: American Public Welfare Association.
Pelton, L. (1989). For reasons of poverty: A critical analysis
of the public child welfare system in the United
States. New York: Praeger.
Ratterman, D., Dodson, G., & Hardin, M. (1987). Reasonable
efforts to prevent foster placement: A guide to
implementation. Washington, DC: American Bar
Association, National Legal Resource Center for Child
Advocacy and Protection.
Robinson, D., & Forman, M.R. (1994, November 8). Comparison of
selected Federal child welfare and child abuse programs
(Memorandum to the Committee on Ways and Means).
Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
Rossi, P. (1992). Assessing Family Preservation Programs. Child
and Youth Services Review, 14, pp. 77-97.
Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families. (1987).
Continuous crisis in foster care: Issues and problems.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Tatara, T. (1993). Characteristics of children in substitute
and adoptive care. Washington, DC: American Public
Welfare Association, Voluntary Cooperative Information
System.
Tatara, T. (1997). U.S. Child Substitute Care Flow Data and the
Race/Ethnicity of Children in Care for fiscal year 95,
Along With Recent Trends in the U.S. Child Substitute
Care Populations. Washington, DC: American Public
Welfare Association, Voluntary Cooperative Information
System.
Testa, M.S., & Goerge, R.M. (1988). Policy and resource factors
in the achievement of permanency for foster children in
Illinois. Chicago: University of Chicago, Chapin Hall
Center for Children.
Time, ``The Storm over Orphanages,'' Dec. 12, 1994.
U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect. (1995). A
nation's shame: Fatal child abuse and neglect in the
United States. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (May 1995). A
Synthesis of Research on Family Preservation and Family
Reunification Programs. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1996). Child
maltreatment 1994: Reports from the states to the
National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect. Washington,
DC: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1997). Informal
and Formal Kinship Care. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1989, August). Foster care:
Incomplete implementation of the reforms and unknown
effectiveness (GAO/PEMD-89-17). Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1990). Drug-exposed infants: A
generation at-risk (GAO/HRD-90-138). Washington, DC:
Author.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1994, April). Foster Care:
Parental Drug Abuse Has Alarming Impact on Young
Children (GAO/HEHS-94-89). Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. General Accounting Office (1995, June). Child Welfare:
Opportunities to Further Enhance Family Preservation
and Support Activities (GAO/HEHS-95-112). Washington,
DC: Author.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1997, February). Child
Welfare: States' Progress in Implementing Family
Preservation and Support Services (GAO/HEHS-97-34).
Washington, DC: Author.
Wang, C., & Daro, D. (1997). Current trends in child abuse
reporting and fatalities: The results of the 1996 fifty
State survey. Chicago: National Center on Child Abuse
Prevention Research, National Committee to Prevent
Child Abuse.