Appendix B

		Recent and Proposed Funding For Child Welfare--Funds Distributed on a Discretionary or Competitive Basis

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Appendix C--Federal Funds Dedicated to Child Welfare, Distribution by State

 Table C-1. The program authorizations for both the Promoting Safe and Stable Families and CAPTA'sCommunity-Based Grants provide for certain funds to be set aside for eligible tribes prior to allotment of remaining funds to eligible states. e. Other generally refers to technical assistance and/or program evaluation and support. There are no set asides for program evaluation, technical assistance or other purposes included in the program authorizationsfor Child Welfare Services or CAPTA state grants. If a state is shown as receiving a negative amount of dollars for a given kind of claim this means that an adjustment in federal funding wasmade in the given fiscal year for prior claims. These data include the portion of child support monies collected on behalf of children receiving Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments and whichare reimbursed to the federal government. Demonstration projectsmust be cost neutral to the federal government. c. HHS reports state claims related to the State Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) (both for development and operation) separatelyfrom administration claims. Dedicated Federal Child Welfare Funding for the Adoption Assistance Program, FY2001-FY2003, byState
(by fiscal year in millions of dollars)
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). This file is believed to be the best estimate of annual federal expenditures under the Title IV-E adoption assistance program. Note: Title IV-E of the Social Security Act does not authorize tribes to receive direct Adoption Assistance funding from the federal government. States report to HHS any costs associated with their demonstration projects (waivers) under a separate expenditure category. Appendix D--Actual Distribution of Foster Care Funds and Hypothetical Distributions of Capped Foster Care Funds

The purpose of the hypothetical distributions shown in this Appendix is not to suggest that funding should be capped or that any of the hypothetical distributionsshown in this Appendix are the appropriate way to distribute funds or that theFY2003 funding level is an appropriate one to use. (FY2003 is the most recent Title IV-Eexpenditure data available.) Theseare -- (1) all children in the nation (including Puerto Rico) as shown by the 1990census; (2) all children in the nation (including Puerto Rico) as shown by the 2000census; (3) all children in foster care as of the last day of FY2001; (4) all children infoster care as of the last day of FY2003; and (5) the average number of all foster carechildren for FY2001-FY2003. The total fundingfor each of these hypothetical distributions is the FY2003 federal funding level,however the distribution (or relative share of the funds) is based on the state's relativeshare of all federal foster care claims in (1) FY1999; (2) FY2000; (3) FY2001; (4)FY2002 and (5) average distribution of average funding for FY1999-FY2003. The federal share of child support collections ranged from $25 million in FY2000 to $32 million inFY2003; comparable data are not available for FY1999.
Child welfare programs are designed to protect children from abuse or neglect. Services maybe offered to stabilize and strengthen a child's own home. If this is not a safe option for the child,however, he or she may be placed in foster care while efforts to improve the home are made. Inthose instances where reuniting the child with his or her parents is found to be impossible, a childwelfare agency must seek a new permanent (often adoptive) home for the child.
In FY2003, the most recent year for which complete data are available, the federalgovernment provided states with some $6.9 billion in funding dedicated to child welfare purposes. Most of this funding is authorized under Title IV-B and Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. Apartfrom these dedicated federal child welfare funds, however, states also use non-dedicated federalfunds--including the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, Medicaid, andthe Social Services Block Grant--to meet child welfare needs. The most recent data available (forstate fiscal year 2002) suggests that states spent at least $4.8 billion in non-dedicated funds for childwelfare purposes. While non-dedicated funding streams have increased resources to child welfareagencies, current legislative and administrative proposals may jeopardize their continued use forchild welfare.
The way that the federal government distributes dedicated child welfare money to states hasbeen criticized as inflexible, out of sync with federal child welfare policy goals, and antiquated. Because most dedicated federal child welfare funding (about 65% in FY2003) may be used only forfoster care, critics charge that states have inadequate funds to prevent removal of children from theirhomes or to allow children to be reunited with their parents. In addition, a state's ability to claimmost of the dedicated child welfare funds is directly related to the number of foster and adoptivechildren it assists who meet the income, family structure, and other program rules of the nowdefunct Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program (as that program existed on July16, 1996).
Attention to federal child welfare financing has focused almost exclusively on dedicated childwelfare funding streams and is driven in part by the belief that the current structure hampers theability of state child welfare agencies to achieve positive outcomes for children. This assumptionis not easy to prove. However, it is possible to say that the AFDC link, which ties federal fundingin foster care and adoption assistance to increasingly antiquated income standards, over time, willerode the share of program costs for which states may seek federal reimbursement.
Recent proposals to alter how dedicated federal child welfare funds are distributed included somethat would link eligibility for federally supported foster care and adoption assistance to TANF incomerules and others that would remove income restrictions entirely. The latter proposals, which wouldgreatly expand the number of children for whom the federal government would be committed toproviding support, have typically sought to cap (or block grant) some or all of what is now open-endedfederal funding for foster care and adoption assistance and/or to reduce the share of costs paid for eacheligible child by the federal government. This report will not be updated.