(645)

SECTION 11. CHILD PROTECTION, FOSTER

CARE, AND ADOPTION ASSISTANCE

CONTENTS

Introduction

Federal Child Welfare Programs Today

The Title IV–B Child Welfare Services Programs

The Title IV–E Foster Care Program

The Title IV–E Adoption Assistance Program

The Title IV–E Adoption Incentives Payment Program

The Title IV–E Foster Care Independence Program

State Accountability and Federal Oversight

History of Federal Review Efforts

Federal Conformity Review System

Interethnic and Interjurisdictional Adoption Provisions

State Performance Reports

Federal Waivers of Title IV–B and IV–E Provisions

Recent Trends Affecting Child Welfare Populations and Programs

Child Abuse and Neglect

Substance Abuse

‘‘Kinship’’ Care

Welfare Reform

National Foster Care and Adoption Information

Data Collection Systems

Trends in Foster Care Caseloads

National Data on Foster Care and Adoption

Trends in Child Welfare and Foster Care Costs

Legislative History

References

INTRODUCTION

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, including adoption. 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

646

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. About 30 Federal programs were authorized to

provide support for such services as of 2000, administered by four

different Cabinet agencies and overseen by five House committees.

The largest of these programs are authorized under titles IV–B and

IV–E of the Social Security Act and are under the jurisdiction of

the House Committee on Ways and Means. 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 other small programs. Of these

non-Social Security Act programs, most had funding of less than

$25 million in 2000. 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.

Finally, a $5,000 Federal adoption tax credit is available to adoptive parents to offset some of the initial expenses associated with

adoption (a $6,000 credit is available for parents who adopt children with special needs; section 13).

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.

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 Foster Care Independence Program,

and the Title XX Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) 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 1989–99, and

the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) proVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 00646 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.011 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
647

jections for fiscal years 2000–2005. Under SSBG 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.

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 costs.Authorized entitlement .. Open-ended Federal match of 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 costs.Authorized entitlement .. Open-ended Federal match of 50

percent.

Training expenses ............... Authorized entitlement .. Open-ended Federal match of 75

percent.

Title IV–E Foster Care Independence ProgramAuthorized entitlement .. 80 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 4 (subpart 2).

Authorized entitlement .. Federal match of 75 percent,

with a funding ceiling.5

Title XX Social Services Block

Grant Program.

Authorized entitlement .. 100 percent Federal funding,

with a funding ceiling.

1 Seventy-five percent matching was 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 During fiscal years 1991–99, States were required to provide 50 percent matching for any Federal

funding claimed that exceeded $45 million. Beginning in fiscal year 2000, the Federal share of expenditures is 80 percent. 4 The name of this program was changed from Family Preservation and Family Support in 1997, by Public Law 105–89. 5 Program authorized through fiscal year 2001.

Source: Compiled by House Committee on Ways and Means staff.

Funds available to States from the title IV–B programs 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 Aid to Families with Dependent Children (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 nonVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 00647 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.011 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
TABLE 11–2.—FEDERAL FUNDING FOR CHILD WELFARE, FOSTER CARE, AND ADOPTION ACTIVITIES UNDER TITLES IV–B AND IV–E OF THE SO

SECURITY ACT, UNDER CURRENT LAW, 1989–2005

[In millions of dollars]

Fiscal year

Title IV–B–1

Child Welfare

Services Program

Title IV–B–2 Promoting Safe and

Stable Families 1

Program

Title IV–E foster care State claims Title IV–E

Independent

Living Program

Title IV–E adoption assistance State

claims

Total 2 Maintenance payments Administra- tion/train- ing 3 Total 4 Assistance payments Administra- tion/training

1989 ................................. $247 (5) $1,153 $646 $507 $45 $111 $86 $24 

1990 ................................. 253 (5) 1,473 835 638 50 136 105 31 

1991 ................................. 274 (5) 1,819 1,030 789 60 175 130 45 1992 ................................. 274 (5) 2,233 1,204 1,029 70 220 161 58 1993 ................................. 295 (5) 2,534 1,312 1,222 70 272 198 74 1994 ................................. 295 $60 2,750 1,371 1,375 70 347 249 98 1995 ................................. 292 150 3,066 1,599 1,467 70 411 306 105 1996 ................................. 277 225 3,098 1,503 1,595 70 483 361 122 1997 ................................. 292 240 3,692 1,725 1,967 70 590 429 161 1998 ................................. 292 255 3,714 1,932 1,782 70 697 512 185 1999 6 .............................. 292 275 4,011 1,963 2,048 70 843 621 222 

2000 (estimate) ............... 292 295 4,398 2,120 2,278 7 105 991 730 261 

2001 (estimate) ............... 292 305 5,013 2,384 2,629 140 1,161 856 305 2002 (estimate) ............. 292 (8) 5,426 2,580 2,846 140 1,358 1,000 358 2003 (estimate) ............. 292 (8) 5,759 2,781 2,978 140 1,575 1,160 415 2004 (estimate) ............. 292 (8) 6,214 2,998 3,216 140 1,810 1,333 477 2005 (estimate) ............. 292 (8) 6,702 3,231 3,471 140 2,079 1,531 548 

1 In fiscal years 1998 and 1999, $16 and $18 million, respectively, lapsed. 2 Total includes administration, Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System 

and training expenditures, as well as maintenance payments. 3 Includes regular administration, SACWIS costs, child placement costs, and training. 4 Total includes 

tration and training expenditures and assistance payments. Differences in total due to rounding. 5 The IV–B–2 program did not begin operation until 1994. 6 Beg

fiscal year 1999, title IV–E foster care and adoption assistance State claims data include Puerto Rico. 7 Does not include additional $35 million requested through 

mental budget request. 8 Not authorized.

Note.—Totals may differ from sum of amounts because of rounding.Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

649

recurring costs of adoption under the Title IV–E Adoption Assistance Program. However, only AFDC- or Supplemental Security Income (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 Foster Care Independence 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.

In addition to the programs described above, 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. Under title IV–E, incentive payments are authorized for

States that increase their number of adoptions of foster children,

including children with special needs, above specified baselines.

Table 11–3 provides data on participation under the title IV–B

and IV–E programs. Table 11–4 shows the Congressional Budget

Office (CBO) projections for Federal foster care and adoption assistTABLE 11–3.—PARTICIPATION IN CHILD WELFARE, FOSTER CARE, AND ADOPTION

ACTIVITIES UNDER TITLES IV–B AND IV–E OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, UNDER

CURRENT LAW, 1988–2004

Fiscal year

Title IV–B–1

Child Welfare Services Program

Title IV–B–2

Promoting

Safe and

Stable Families Program

Title IV–E

foster care

assistance

payments 1

Title IV–E

Independent

Living Program2

Title IV–E

adoption

assistance

payments 1

1988 ............................. NA (3) 132,757 18,931 34,698

1989 ............................. NA (3) 156,871 44,191 40,666

1990 ............................. NA (3) 167,981 44,365 44,024

1991 ............................. NA (3) 202,687 45,284 54,818

1992 ............................. NA (3) 222,315 57,360 66,197

1993 ............................. NA (3) 231,100 57,918 78,000

1994 ............................. NA NA 245,000 71,081 91,200

1995 ............................. NA NA 260,800 73,137 106,200

1996 ............................. NA NA 273,600 85,261 124,700

1997 ............................. NA NA 289,400 84,309 146,900

1998 ............................. NA NA 306,500 87,446 168,400

1999 4 ........................... NA NA 302,422 NA 195,243

2000 (estimated) .......... NA NA 319,300 NA 223,900

2001 (estimated) .......... NA NA 341,700 NA 256,400

2002 (estimated) .......... NA (5) 357,100 NA 292,200

2003 (estimated) .......... NA (5) 371,400 NA 330,200

2004 (estimated) .......... NA (5) 386,300 NA 369,900

1 Average monthly number of recipients.

2 Estimated.

3 The IV–B–2 program did not begin operation until 1994.

4 Beginning in fiscal year 1999, data for average monthly number of recipients include Puerto Rico.

5 The IV–B–2 program is only authorized through 2001.

NA—Not available.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

650

ance for 2000–2005. According to CBO, between 2000 and 2005, the

federally funded foster care caseload is projected to increase from

314,000 to 356,000 (13 percent). Total IV–E foster care outlays are

expected to increase 34 percent, from $4,139,000 in 2000 to

$5,546,000 in 2005. Over the same time period, the adoption assistance caseload is projected to increase from 218,000 to 345,000 (58

percent), while total adoption assistance outlays are estimated to

increase from $953 million to $1,750 million (84 percent).

TABLE 11–4.—CBO BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR THE FEDERAL FOSTER CARE AND

ADOPTION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS, FISCAL YEARS 2000–2005

[In millions of dollars]

Program 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Foster Care:

Title IV–E caseload (in thousands) ................................. 314 325 334 342 349 356

Average monthly maintenance

payments (Federal share) ... $545 $564 $584 $605 $626 $648

Federal outlays (in millions of

dollars):

Maintenance payments ....... 2,034 2,174 2,318 2,459 2,599 2,744

Administrative and child

placement services ........ 1,899 2,025 2,154 2,282 2,407 2,538

Training ............................... 206 218 230 241 253 264

Total outlays ................... 4,139 4,417 4,702 4,983 5,259 5,546

Adoption Assistance:

Title IV–E caseload (in thousands) ................................. 218 242 267 292 318 345

Average monthly payments

(Federal share) ................... 273 283 293 303 314 325

Federal outlays (in millions of

dollars):

Assistance payments .......... 705 807 920 1,044 1,178 1,325

Administrative and child

placement services ........ 210 235 263 292 323 356

Training ............................... 39 44 49 55 62 69

Total outlays ................... 953 1,086 1,232 1,391 1,564 1,750

Independent Living:

Total outlays ................... 70 123 140 140 140 140

Total outlays .............. 5,171 5,625 6,074 6,514 6,962 7,436

Note.—Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding.

Source: Congressional Budget Office, March 2000 baseline.

651

THE TITLE IV–B CHILD WELFARE SERVICES PROGRAMS

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 title

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 below.)

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 have remained at $292 million since fiscal

year 1997 (see table 11–2). Table 11–5 details the State-by-State

distribution of child welfare service funds for selected fiscal years.

Child welfare service funds are distributed to States on the basis

of their under 21 population and per capita income.

Because of minimal reporting requirements, no reliable data are

available on the exact number of children or families served, their

characteristics, or the services provided with child welfare service

funds. However, a 1997 study funded by DHHS provides some information on the number and characteristics of children and families served by the child welfare system in 1994, and examines

changes in this population since a similar study was conducted of

children and families served in 1977 (U.S. Department, 1997). This

study looks at children served by all components of the child welfare system, regardless of funding source.

The study found a significant decline in the number of children

receiving services from the child welfare system, from an estimated

1.8 million children in 1977 to an estimated 1 million in 1994. Of

these totals, about the same number of children in each of the 2

years were in foster care (543,000 in 1977 and 502,000 in 1994).

TABLE 11–5.—STATE-BY-STATE ALLOCATIONS FOR TITLE IV–B (SUBPART 1) CHILD WELFARE SERVICES, SELECTED YEARS 1989–2000

[In thousands of dollars]

State 1989 actual 1991 actual 1994 actual 1996 actual 1997 actual 1998 actual 1999 actual 

a

Alabama ........................................................................................ $5,136 $5,634 $5,623 $5,106 $5,327 $5,244 $5,198 Alaska ............................................................................................ 294 561 754 725 749 776 787 American Samoa ........................................................................... 163 175 193 183 188 187 186 Arizona ........................................................................................... 3,797 4,307 5,034 5,015 5,466 5,291 5,752 Arkansas ....................................................................................... 3,095 3,369 3,424 3,178 3,359 3,349 3,213 California ...................................................................................... 23,100 26,521 31,732 31,049 32,760 33,893 34,075 Colorado ........................................................................................ 3,091 3,482 3,866 3,719 3,935 3,959 4,009 Connecticut ................................................................................... 2,143 2,123 2,120 2,052 2,154 2,075 2,050 Delaware ....................................................................................... 654 716 726 713 756 688 689 District of Columbia ..................................................................... 432 469 447 345 346 333 327 Florida ........................................................................................... 10,361 11,771 13,146 12,781 13,708 13,806 13,930 Georgia .......................................................................................... 7,301 8,002 8,426 8,032 8,502 8,479 8,584 Guam ............................................................................................. 342 375 351 329 340 338 336 Hawaii ........................................................................................... 1,119 1,247 1,204 1,117 1,179 1,207 1,189 Idaho ............................................................................................. 1,388 1,576 1,703 1,622 1,736 1,753 1,760 Illinois ............................................................................................ 10,773 11,488 11,773 11,067 11,684 11,633 11,663 Indiana .......................................................................................... 6,064 6,677 6,952 6,367 6,697 6,613 6,575 Iowa ............................................................................................... 3,074 3,223 3,475 3,223 3,358 3,310 3,318 Kansas ........................................................................................... 2,461 2,779 3,068 2,873 3,011 3,001 2,996 Kentucky ........................................................................................ 4,556 4,934 5,030 4,624 4,842 4,806 4,752 Louisiana ....................................................................................... 5,657 6,368 6,527 5,910 6,195 6,015 5,824 Maine ............................................................................................. 1,391 1,477 1,482 1,378 1,432 1,443 1,428 Maryland ....................................................................................... 3,798 4,074 4,343 4,156 4,358 4,453 4,386 Massachusetts .............................................................................. 4,418 4,498 4,708 4,579 4,792 4,624 4,681 Michigan ....................................................................................... 9,551 10,047 10,885 10,075 10,487 10,118 10,130 Minnesota ...................................................................................... 4,206 4,537 5,092 4,785 5,022 4,913 4,915 Mississippi .................................................................................... 3,923 4,244 4,293 3,949 4,146 4,051 4,019 Missouri ......................................................................................... 5,235 5,654 6,146 5,727 5,998 6,055 6,078 Montana ........................................................................................ 1,049 1,125 1,207 1,158 1,203 1,201 1,183 

Nebraska ....................................................................................... 1,744 2,087 2,071 1,879 1,968 1,991 1,995 Nevada .......................................................................................... 964 1,123 1,401 1,379 1,516 1,625 1,711 New Hampshire ............................................................................. 1,024 498 1,087 1,096 1,152 1,137 1,135 New Jersey ..................................................................................... 5,465 5,412 5,224 5,368 5,669 5,679 5,542 New Mexico ................................................................................... 2,072 2,282 2,510 2,418 2,541 2,530 2,511 New York ....................................................................................... 14,373 15,245 15,452 14,148 14,808 14,817 14,767 North Carolina ............................................................................... 7,189 7,916 8,112 7,728 8,229 8,179 8,291 North Dakota ................................................................................. 849 908 945 858 891 893 874 Northern Marianas ........................................................................ 118 124 142 136 139 138 138 Ohio ............................................................................................... 10,429 12,195 12,878 11,853 12,386 11,996 11,901 Oklahoma ...................................................................................... 3,735 4,114 4,406 4,133 4,310 4,325 4,295 Oregon ........................................................................................... 2,850 3,162 3,556 3,321 3,531 3,582 3,580 Pennsylvania ................................................................................. 11,236 12,011 12,148 11,076 11,583 11,515 11,350 Puerto Rico .................................................................................... 3,674 7,100 8,105 7,480 7,787 7,722 7,662 Rhode Island ................................................................................. 953 1,032 1,054 984 1,012 993 986 South Carolina .............................................................................. 4,468 4,876 4,948 4,544 4,696 4,613 4,670 South Dakota ................................................................................ 938 1,015 1,075 991 1,029 1,028 1,001 Tennessee ...................................................................................... 5,598 6,137 6,210 5,792 6,100 5,959 5,946 Texas ............................................................................................. 18,958 21,476 23,795 22,401 23,783 23,889 24,264 Utah ............................................................................................... 2,891 3,192 3,474 3,284 3,469 3,475 3,519 Vermont ......................................................................................... 583 717 715 674 703 710 701 Virginia .......................................................................................... 5,463 5,905 6,373 6,114 6,408 6,444 6,459 Virgin Islands ................................................................................ 295 310 280 263 271 269 268 Washington ................................................................................... 4,382 4,968 5,699 5,231 5,512 5,679 5,725 West Virginia ................................................................................. 2,397 2,519 2,486 2,189 2,251 2,243 2,183 Wisconsin ...................................................................................... 5,077 5,442 6,022 5,574 5,854 5,742 5,729 Wyoming ........................................................................................ 382 689 724 638 661 671 662 

Total ................................................................................. 246,679 273,907 294,624 277,389 291,989 291,458 291,896 

Note.—Totals may differ from sum of State amounts due to rounding.Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

654

However, DHHS found a sharp drop in the number of children receiving services while still living at home, and a substantial increase in the percent of children who were receiving services as a

result of abuse or neglect (45 percent in 1977 compared with 80

percent in 1994). The report suggests that child welfare agencies

today are dealing with more difficult cases that require more extensive services and therefore have been forced to set priorities and

narrow their focus from a broader population of children and families to those in more immediate crisis. The report found that, despite the goals of Public Law 96–272, the same number of children

were in foster care in 1994, as compared with 1977, and foster care

‘‘drift’’ remained a problem. The report also found a major shift in

the racial composition of children in the system, with minority children increasing from 40 percent of those served in 1977 to 54 percent in 1994. Moreover, the report found that minority children, especially African-American children, were more likely to be placed

in foster care than to receive in-home services, even when they presented the same problems and characteristics as white children. Finally, the report examined the longer lengths of stay in foster care

experienced by African-American and Hispanic children in 1994

and concluded that higher rates of kinship care did not necessarily

explain this phenomenon, since minority children remained in outof-home care longer than white children, regardless of the type of

placement.

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 1995; $225 million in 1996; $240

million in 1997; and either $255 million in 1998 or the 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 1999, $295 million for 2000, and

$305 million for 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 DHHS 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 entitlement is reserved for allotment to Indian tribes.

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

655

match. Table 11–6 shows State allotments of promoting safe and

stable families entitlement funds in fiscal years 1997–2000.

TABLE 11–6.—TITLE IV–B PROMOTING SAFE AND STABLE FAMILIES 1 PROGRAM: STATEBY-STATE ALLOCATIONS

State Fiscal year 1997

actual

Fiscal year 1998

actual

Fiscal year 1999

actual

Fiscal year 2000

allotments

Alabama .................. $4,298,428 $4,587,680 $4,998,474 $5,467,218

Alaska ...................... 343,874 389,953 447,625 529,555

American Samoa ..... 159,031 164,480 171,567 179,043

Arizona ..................... 4,126,491 4,495,927 4,774,662 5,070,424

Arkansas .................. 2,106,230 2,202,087 2,412,199 2,716,339

California ................. 29,852,578 33,398,317 37,749,671 40,544,805

Colorado .................. 2,256,675 2,247,963 2,362,463 2,496,711

Connecticut ............. 1,805,340 1,995,641 2,138,651 2,349,394

Delaware .................. 451,335 481,706 522,229 586,057

District of Columbia 752,225 825,782 920,117 1,031,541

Florida ..................... 11,691,723 12,203,230 13,105,452 14,020,393

Georgia .................... 6,297,197 6,766,829 7,559,881 8,335,896

Guam ....................... 274,029 286,517 302,757 319,890

Hawaii ..................... 773,717 894,598 1,019,589 1,222,967

Idaho ....................... 623,272 688,152 746,041 812,739

Illinois ...................... 8,682,824 9,404,745 10,046,684 11,393,553

Indiana .................... 3,890,077 3,945,405 3,978,885 3,909,002

Iowa ......................... 1,504,450 1,536,873 1,641,290 1,760,182

Kansas ..................... 1,396,989 1,513,935 1,666,158 1,811,435

Kentucky .................. 3,696,648 3,738,960 4,003,753 4,411,229

Louisiana ................. 6,447,642 6,468,629 6,888,444 7,195,319

Maine ....................... 924,162 940,474 969,853 1,066,598

Maryland .................. 3,030,392 3,303,130 3,680,469 4,079,010

Massachusetts ........ 3,632,171 3,784,836 3,978,885 4,149,338

Michigan .................. 7,995,076 8,349,578 8,952,491 9,485,814

Minnesota ................ 2,600,549 2,752,608 2,934,428 2,998,745

Mississippi .............. 4,019,030 4,197,728 4,327,037 4,532,892

Missouri ................... 4,470,365 4,748,249 5,172,550 5,577,218

Montana .................. 515,811 550,522 646,569 714,863

Nebraska ................. 924,162 963,413 1,019,589 1,078,461

Nevada .................... 752,225 848,721 920,117 1,049,293

New Hampshire ....... 429,843 481,706 497,361 523,548

New Jersey ............... 4,212,459 4,541,804 5,147,682 5,616,230

New Mexico .............. 1,934,292 2,064,456 2,262,991 2,485,020

New York ................. 15,237,926 (2) (2) (2)

North Carolina ......... 4,814,239 5,069,387 5,520,703 6,068,954

North Dakota ........... 343,874 344,076 348,152 379,765

Northern Marianas .. 121,935 125,114 129,247 133,608

Ohio ......................... 9,499,525 9,634,129 9,972,080 10,110,000

Oklahoma ................ 2,750,994 3,004,931 3,232,844 3,490,646

Oregon ..................... 2,041,753 2,225,025 2,437,067 2,631,579

Pennsylvania ........... 8,489,395 8,854,223 9,574,192 10,468,059

Puerto Rico .............. 5,901,525 6,258,461 6,722,614 7,212,312

Rhode Island ........... 752,225 825,782 895,249 989,602

South Carolina ........ 3,116,360 3,349,007 3,556,128 3,927,057

South Dakota ........... 429,843 458,768 472,493 533,640

656

TABLE 11–6.—TITLE IV–B PROMOTING SAFE AND STABLE FAMILIES 1 PROGRAM: STATEBY-STATE ALLOCATIONS—Continued

State Fiscal year 1997

actual

Fiscal year 1998

actual

Fiscal year 1999

actual

Fiscal year 2000

allotments

Tennessee ................ 5,287,066 5,551,093 5,669,911 5,999,983

Texas ....................... 21,169,757 22,892,526 24,793,426 26,985,190

Utah ......................... 1,096,099 1,123,982 1,143,929 1,225,329

Vermont ................... 429,843 458,768 522,229 536,382

Virginia .................... 3,933,061 4,404,173 4,874,134 5,300,937

Virgin Islands .......... 222,094 231,404 243,510 256,282

Washington .............. 3,481,726 3,830,713 4,351,905 4,833,043

West Virginia ........... 2,493,088 2,523,224 2,287,859 2,486,708

Wisconsin ................ 2,836,962 2,959,054 3,158,240 3,270,921

Wyoming .................. 279,398 298,199 323,284 349,572

Subtotal ..... 221,600,000 220,186,673 238,195,810 276,050,000

Set-asides:

Indians (1 percent) ........... 2,400,000 2,550,000 2,750,000 2,950,000

Research and

evaluation .. 6,000,000 6,000,000 5,953,061 6,000,000

Courts ............. 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000

Subtotal ..... 18,400,000 18,550,000 18,703,061 18,950,000

Lapsed funds 0 16,263,327 18,057,129 19,339,709

Total ...... 240,000,000 255,000,000 274,956,000 295,000,000

1 The name of this program was changed from Family Preservation and Family Support in 1997 by

Public Law 105–89. 2 New York did not apply for its allotment for these years; as a result, their funds lapsed.

Note.—Totals may differ from sum of State amounts because of rounding

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

States must submit a plan to the U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services (DHHS) 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 communitybased 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 spent on any particular category of

service, but says that States must devote ‘‘significant portions’’ of

their expenditures to each of the four categories. DHHS issued program instructions on March 5, 1998, and March 25, 1999, specifying that States must have a ‘‘strong rationale’’ for spending less

than 20 percent of their allotments on each of the four categories

of services.

657

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 followup 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.

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.

As added by Public Law 105–89, time-limited reunification services are services and activities intended to facilitate the safe and

appropriate reunification of children who have been removed from

home and placed in foster care with their parents in a timely fashion; i.e., within 15 months of having entered foster care. Reunification services for children and their families include counseling, substance abuse treatment services, mental health services, assistance

to address domestic violence, temporary child care and therapeutic

services such as crisis nurseries, and transportation to and from

these activities. Adoption promotion and support services, also

added to the law by Public Law 105–89, are services and activities

designed to encourage more adoptions out of the foster care system,

including pre- and postadoptive services and activities designed to

expedite adoptions and support adoptive families.

In regulations proposed on October 4, 1994, and made final on

November 18, 1996, DHHS set forth a series of child and family

services ‘‘principles’’ that were intended to guide State implementation of the program. According to DHHS, 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 regulations,

DHHS stated that family preservation ‘‘does NOT mean that the

family must stay together or ‘be preserved’ under all circumstances.’’ The principles also were intended to support a familyfocused 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 DHHS is required to evaluate activities under

subpart 2 of title IV–B. In September 1994, the Secretary funded

three evaluation projects: a study of the implementation of family

preservation and family support; a national evaluation of family

658

preservation and reunification programs; and a national evaluation

of family support programs. These projects are still underway and

no final reports on the national evaluations have yet been published. However, as part of this evaluation, contractors (Westat,

James Bell Associates, Chapin Hall Center for Children) submitted

two products in May 1995, including a literature review of existing

research on family preservation and family reunification and a description of the range of program models then in existence (U.S.

Department, 1995a, 1995b). Although numerous studies had been

conducted of individual programs, leading to initial enthusiasm for

the family preservation approach, the 1995 literature review found

‘‘little solid evidence’’ that demonstrated that programs designed to

prevent foster care placement or to reunify families had achieved

their intended goals. According to the literature review summary,

nonexperimental studies had produced misleading results, and the

few controlled studies that had been conducted had produced mixed

findings. The research suggested that family preservation programs

had only modest effects on family and child 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. Regarding family reunification, the contractors noted that

evaluations of such programs were still very preliminary but that

a few studies had reported encouraging results.

In 1998, the contractors submitted a final report on one specific

family reunification project, known as HomeRebuilders in New

York City (Westat et al., 1998). This project began in 1993 and

tested an alternative payment method for foster care in which six

local agencies received a flat rate for serving an identified group of

children in foster care for a 3-year period. These funds could be

used for foster care or any service the agencies believed would

achieve permanency. Funding was ‘‘front-loaded’’ in the first year

to encourage early discharge, and agencies could retain any savings

they realized if the children left foster care before the end of the

3 years (see below). The impact of HomeRebuilders varied across

the six participating agencies. Earlier discharge from foster care

and fewer days in care was achieved in one of the three agencies

using random assignment, with a 13 percent difference between

the experimental and control groups. This outcome did not occur at

the other two random assignment sites, however, although one of

the nonrandom assignment agencies did show fewer days in foster

care. The contractors concluded that changes in fiscal incentives

alone are not likely to result in major child welfare reform, but

that other factors are needed for reform to occur, such as clear decisionmaking protocols, triage strategies, and data systems that can

be used for case and program management.

Most recently, James Bell Associates released an interim report

(1999a) on the family preservation and family support services implementation study, reporting on State and local planning efforts,

the relationship of planning to service delivery, and the design of

programs. The contractor found that services did not fall neatly

into the categories of family preservation and family support as defined in the legislation, although the majority of services were in

general more characteristic of family support programs. This is also

659

consistent with the findings of the U.S. General Accounting Office

(GAO), which reported in 1997 that States were using more than

half their funds for family support services, which are designed for

a broader population than family preservation activities.

Court Improvement Program

A portion of the promoting safe and stable families 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 1996–2001. A 25-percent non-Federal match is

required in each of the last 6 fiscal years.

Courts use their grant funds to assess their procedures and effectiveness in determinations regarding foster care placement, termination of parental rights (TPR), and recognition of adoptions.

Courts also can use these grant funds to implement changes found

necessary as a result of the assessments. According to DHHS, 49

States and the District of Columbia were participating in this program, as of fiscal year 1999. South Carolina was no longer participating in the program.

According to a review conducted for DHHS on court improvement

activities during 1995–98, States conducted thorough assessments

of their judicial systems and came up with various recommendations (James Bell Associates, 1999b). Categories where improvement was most commonly recommended were: representation of

parties, timeliness of decisions, management information systems,

quality of court hearings, judicial expertise, multidisciplinary training for court participants, coordination between the courts and

child welfare agency or service providers, treatment and participation of parties, and resources for courts and social services. The activities most commonly implemented included: development of

training and educational materials; pilot programs; revision of legislation, court rules and judicial directives; development of automated case tracking systems, public relations campaigns and local

work groups; supplemental assessments or studies; increased number of attorneys, judges and other court personnel; hiring of court

improvement coordinating staff; and improved treatment of parties.

The report found that court improvement changes were still at an

early stage, partially because initial assessments took longer to

complete than expected and also because reforms requiring new

legislation or staff require time to implement. However, the report

concluded that the Court Improvement Program had raised the visibility of courts within the child welfare system and provided

States with flexibility and resources to address court-related challenges.

Child welfare research, training, studies

In addition to providing funds to the States for services, title IV–

B authorizes the Secretary of DHHS to make direct grants for research and demonstration, training, and studies. Specifically, section 426 authorizes direct grants from DHHS to public and private

organizations and institutions of higher education for research and

demonstration projects related to child welfare, and for training

projects for personnel in the child welfare field. For fiscal year

660

2000, $7 million was appropriated for child welfare training, but no

funding was provided for research and demonstration under section

426.

Section 429A was added to title IV–B by the welfare reform legislation enacted in 1996 (Public Law 104–193). This provision authorized and appropriated funds for DHHS to conduct 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.

For this study, the welfare reform law appropriated $6 million for

each of fiscal years 1996–2002; however, Congress subsequently rescinded the appropriations for fiscal years 1996–2000, with the understanding that adequate funding was available for the study in

the broader appropriation for social services and income maintenance research.

In response to the section 429A provision, DHHS has undertaken

the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being through a

contract with Research Triangle Institute and subcontracts with

the University of California at Berkeley, the University of North

Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Caliber Associates. DHHS anticipates

that this study will provide nationally representative data on children and families that come into contact with the child welfare system, which will enable analysis of child and family well-being outcomes in relation to the experience of children and families with

the child welfare system, as well as characteristics of the families,

the community environment, and other factors. The study is being

conducted over a 6-year period (1997–2003) and will include a sample of more than 6,000 children, ages 0–14, from 100 child welfare

agencies nationwide.

THE TITLE IV–E FOSTER CARE PROGRAM

Eligibility criteria

The Foster Care Program under title IV–E is a permanently authorized entitlement that provides open-ended matching payments

to States for the costs of maintaining certain children in foster

care, and associated administrative, child placement, and training

costs. Several eligibility criteria apply to the foster children on

whose behalf Federal reimbursement is available to States. First,

children must have been removed from families that would have

been eligible for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC),

as the program existed in their State on July 16, 1996. Although

welfare reform legislation enacted in 1996 (Public Law 106–193) repealed the AFDC Program, its eligibility criteria continue to be

used for determining children’s eligibility under title IV–E. Under

Public Law 106–193 as originally enacted, foster children would be

eligible under title IV–E if their families met the AFDC criteria of

June 1, 1995; however, technical corrections enacted in 1997

changed this date to July 16, 1996 (Public Law 105–33). The welfare reform legislation replaced AFDC with a block grant to States

called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and requires all States participating in TANF to certify that they will operate a Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Program under title

IV–E. States are required to provide foster care maintenance payments to AFDC-eligible children removed from the home of a relVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 00660 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.011 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
661

ative if the child received or would have received AFDC prior to removal from the home and if the following also 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 home (unless certain exceptions apply, which are described later in the section); and (3)

care and placement of the child are the responsibility of the State.

Children whose expenses are eligible for reimbursement under title

IV–E also are deemed eligible for Medicaid. Finally, States may

claim reimbursement on behalf of eligible children who have been

placed in licensed or approved foster family homes or child care institutions, which can be public or private, including both for-profit

and nonprofit. Public child care institutions can accommodate no

more than 25 children, although no limitation applies to the size

of private institutions. Detention facilities for children determined

to be delinquent are not eligible for Federal reimbursement under

title IV–E.

Financing structure

The Federal matching rate for foster care maintenance payments

for a given State is that State’s Medicaid matching rate, which is

inversely related to State per capita income 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, including costs of data collection. States may claim

open-ended Federal matching at a rate of 75 percent for costs of

training personnel employed (or preparing for employment) by

State or local agencies administering the program and for training

current and prospective foster and adoptive parents. During fiscal

years 1994–97, States also were able to receive Federal matching

at the 75 percent rate for certain costs related to the development

of Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information Systems

(SACWIS); currently, these costs are matched at the 50 percent

rate.

Foster care expenditures and participation rates

The average estimated monthly number of children in title IV–

E foster care more than tripled between 1983 and 1999, from

97,370 in fiscal year 1983 to 302,422 in fiscal year 1999 (table 11–

3). During those same years, Federal spending on title IV–E foster

care increased more than tenfold, from $395 million in fiscal year

1983 to $4 billion in fiscal year 1999. Table 11–7 provides a State

breakdown of foster care expenditures in fiscal year 1999, showing

maintenance payments, child placement services and administration, information systems, and training expenditures. Note that

California, New York, Pennsylvania and Illinois accounted for 49

percent of total Federal foster care expenditures in fiscal year 1999.

662

TABLE 11–7.—FEDERAL FOSTER CARE EXPENDITURES UNDER TITLE IV–E, FISCAL YEAR

1999

[In thousands of dollars]

State Maintenance

payments

Child placement services

and

administration

SACWIS Training Total

Alabama ..................... $2,533 $5,801 $3,769 $1,137 $13,240

Alaska ........................ 2,338 6,209 361 511 9,418

Arizona ....................... 25,625 26,738 ¥660 2,612 54,316

Arkansas .................... 8,172 16,610 787 6,488 32,057

California ................... 437,765 427,894 12,192 33,950 911,802

Colorado ..................... 7,993 25,584 6,902 2,070 42,548

Connecticut ................ 33,044 54,934 0 3,799 91,777

Delaware .................... 1,650 5,723 347 586 8,306

District of Columbia .. 22,377 17,011 3,557 0 42,946

Florida ........................ 39,090 67,183 3,886 10,609 120,768

Georgia ....................... 19,975 18,003 1,258 3,657 42,893

Hawaii ........................ 4,916 8,640 0 2,258 15,813

Idaho .......................... 1,293 6,338 334 ¥43 7,922

Illinois ........................ 100,774 152,903 10,580 9,011 273,267

Indiana ....................... 30,425 16,592 5,613 688 53,319

Iowa ........................... 19,553 8,809 0 1,260 29,623

Kansas ....................... 20,203 10,269 0 419 30,892

Kentucky ..................... 22,464 12,647 1,928 9,070 46,108

Louisiana ................... 29,734 17,344 0 3,058 50,136

Maine ......................... 27,835 1,842 1,249 1,257 32,183

Maryland .................... 42,415 47,779 606 5,928 96,728

Massachusetts 1 ......... 28,415 45,735 1,039 41 75,229

Michigan .................... 67,906 65,983 0 2,067 135,956

Minnesota .................. 30,445 30,393 3,828 7,929 72,595

Mississippi ................. 2,769 8,058 ¥2,123 787 9,491

Missouri ..................... 33,757 30,138 749 8,975 73,619

Montana ..................... 4,031 2,764 826 173 7,794

Nebraska .................... 13,219 6,839 0 5,829 25,887

Nevada ....................... 4,407 4,460 5,380 509 14,756

New Hampshire .......... 5,756 3,693 1,855 543 11,847

New Jersey ................. 32,529 12,100 13 998 45,641

New Mexico ................ 4,145 6,063 15 4,144 14,367

New York .................... 302,376 160,352 11,278 8,031 482,037

North Carolina ........... 33,494 25,340 832 4,871 64,537

North Dakota .............. 4,144 5,862 330 873 11,209

Ohio ............................ 116,128 80,983 838 9,940 207,889

Oklahoma ................... 14,714 12,450 0 5,254 32,418

Oregon ........................ 12,628 16,981 79 1,812 31,499

Pennsylvania .............. 169,269 125,280 5,908 15,946 316,403

Puerto Rico ................ 7,281 0 0 0 7,281

Rhode Island .............. 4,541 7,385 ¥9 671 12,588

South Carolina ........... 8,066 4,774 2,125 2,269 17,234

South Dakota ............. 2,264 1,828 446 61 4,598

Tennessee .................. 13,902 7,953 447 2,887 25,189

Texas .......................... 63,755 17,549 0 5,660 86,964

663

TABLE 11–7.—FEDERAL FOSTER CARE EXPENDITURES UNDER TITLE IV–E, FISCAL YEAR

1999—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

State Maintenance

payments

Child placement services

and

administration

SACWIS Training Total

Utah ........................... 3,519 13,726 2,093 1,612 20,950

Vermont ...................... 8,705 2,644 0 650 11,999

Virginia ...................... 16,756 23,867 0 3,699 44,322

Washington ................ 11,271 15,694 976 1, 358 29,299

West Virginia ............. 11,474 2,526 2,971 758 17,729

Wisconsin ................... 29,565 55,130 3,722 3,238 91,654

Wyoming ..................... 1,206 551 435 0 2,192

Total ............. 1,962,611 1,751,955 96,759 199,910 4,011,236

1 Fiscal year 1999 data include estimates for the third and fourth quarters.

Note.—Totals may differ from sum of State amounts due to rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Federal expenditures for child placement services, administrative

costs, and training have grown more rapidly than expenditures for

foster care maintenance payments. For example, expenditures for

child placement services, administration, and training in fiscal year

1983 equaled $118 million, or 30 percent of total Federal foster

care expenditures. In fiscal year 1999, Federal expenditures for

child placement services, administration, and training totaled almost $2 billion, or 49 percent of total Federal expenditures for foster care. DHHS regulations give the following examples of allowable child placement services and administrative costs for foster

care under title IV–E: 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.

In addition, Federal matching is available for certain expenses related to data collection and automation of child welfare information

systems (see below). Expenditures for child placement services and

administration also include expenditures made on behalf of children before and during the time a title IV–E eligibility determination is made; as a result, Federal reimbursement is provided for expenditures made for some children who, ultimately, are determined

not eligible for title IV–E maintenance payments.

In 1987, the DHHS Inspector General reported that administrative costs associated with the Foster Care Program were much

higher than those associated with similar programs, such as the

former AFDC Program, Medicaid, and the Food Stamp Program

(Office, 1987). 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 had not been reimbursed by the Federal Government prior to

1980, when foster care was part of AFDC. The Inspector General

664

subsequently reported in 1990 that the term ‘‘administrative costs’’

is a misnomer (Office, 1990). Most of the activities being funded are

not traditional administrative costs, but are child placement services required by the law. The Inspector General determined that

the significant increases in Federal reimbursement for so-called

‘‘administrative’’ costs occurred for two primary reasons: the expanded definition of administrative costs provided in Public Law

96–272, and a broad interpretation of that definition by the DHHS

Departmental Appeals Board. Other factors, according to the Inspector General’s 1990 report, included 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.

In response to concerns about the rapid growth in administrative

costs, the 101st Congress enacted legislation as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–508) that

was intended to provide better information on State reimbursement

for administrative costs. Under 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, child placement services were included

among administrative costs and not identified separately. DHHS

reports that of claims filed for child placement and administrative

costs in fiscal year 1999, 49 percent were for case planning and

management activities, 18 percent were for preplacement activities,

4 percent were for eligibility determinations, and the remaining 28

percent were for other activities including traditional administrative and overhead costs.

Foster care payment rates

Table 11–8 shows each State’s ‘‘basic’’ monthly foster care payment rates in 1987, 1991, 1994, and 1998 for children ages 2, 9,

and 16, as reported in surveys conducted by the American Public

Human Services Association (APHSA) and the Child Welfare

League of America. 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 for group or congregate care.

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). 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. In

addition, many States and counties 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.

TABLE 11–8.—FOSTER CARE BASIC MONTHLY MAINTENANCE RATES FOR CHILDREN AGES 2, 9, AND 16, SELECTED YEARS 1987–98

State

Age 2 Age 9 Age 16

1987 1991 1994 1998 1987 1991 1994 1998 1987 1991 1994 

Alabama .................................................. $168 $181 $205 $230rsc $188 $202 $229 $254rsc $198 $213 $241 Alaska 1 ................................................... 428 561 588 652rsc 478 499 523 580rsc 565 592 621 

Arizona ..................................................... 223 247 297 2 403rsc 223 247 286 2 392rsc 282 305 365 

Arkansas .................................................. 175 195 300 400rc 190 210 325 425rc 220 240 375 California ................................................. 294 345 345 375rsc 340 400 400 436rsc 412 484 484 Colorado .................................................. 235 296 319 2 361rc 266 296 319 2 361rc 318 352 379 Connecticut 1 ........................................... 268 386 567 622rsc 302 424 586 642rsc 350 478 637 

Delaware 3 ............................................... 264 301 342 410rsc 266 304 342 410rsc 342 1 440 

District of Columbia ................................ 304 304 431 445rsc 304 304 431 445rsc 317 317 519 Florida ..................................................... 233 296 296 345rsc 233 296 296 355rsc 293 372 372 Georgia 1 .................................................. 300 300 300 338rsc 300 300 300 338rsc 300 300 300 Hawaii ..................................................... 194 529 529 2 529rs 233 529 529 2 529rs 301 529 529 

Idaho ........................................................ 138 198 228 228rs 165 205 250 250rs 204 278 338 Illinois ...................................................... 233 268 322 343rsc 259 299 358 382rsc 282 325 390 Indiana 4 .................................................. 226 281 405 486rsc 245 330 462 536rsc 280 398 518 

Iowa ......................................................... 159 198 328 387rsc 201 243 342 409rsc 285 300 405 Kansas ..................................................... 187 304 205 2 305rsc 245 304 277 2 305rsc 280 386 351 

Kentucky .................................................. 248 265 263 375rsc 263 288 285 350rsc 300 333 330 Louisiana ................................................. 199 283 298 2 348rc 232 316 331 2 331rc 265 349 364 Maine ....................................................... 244 296 296 2 325r 250 304 304 2 334r 291 353 353 

Maryland .................................................. 285 535 535 535rsc 285 535 535 535rsc 303 550 550 Massachusetts ........................................ 362 410 410 448rs 362 410 410 464rs 433 486 486 Michigan 5 ............................................... 315 332 383 398rsc 315 332 383 398rsc 395 416 454 

TABLE 11–8.—FOSTER CARE BASIC MONTHLY MAINTENANCE RATES FOR CHILDREN AGES 2, 9, AND 16, SELECTED YEARS 1987–98—Cont

State

Age 2 Age 9 Age 16

1987 1991 1994 1998 1987 1991 1994 1998 1987 1991 1994 

Minnesota 1 .............................................. 285 341 377 458rsc 285 341 377 458rsc 375 442 487 Mississippi .............................................. 130 145 175 2 225rc 150 165 205 2 255rc 160 175 250 Missouri ................................................... 174 209 212 316rs 212 255 259 364rs 232 281 286 Montana .................................................. 283 307 330 2 345rs 283 307 330 2 345rs 354 384 416 Nebraska ................................................. 210 222 326 2 326rsc 210 291 394 2 393rsc 210 351 461 Nevada .................................................... 275 281 281 2 304rs 275 281 281 2 304rs 330 337 337 New Hampshire ....................................... 200 200 314 2 314rs 251 251 342 2 342rs 354 354 404 New Jersey ............................................... 203 244 272 294rs 215 259 288 312rs 253 305 340 New Mexico .............................................. 236 258 308 2 308rsc 247 270 341 2 341rsc 259 281 367 New York ................................................. 312 353 367 2 367rs 375 424 441 2 441rs 434 490 510 New York City .......................................... 342 386 401 2 401rs 403 455 473 2 473rs 465 526 547 North Carolina ......................................... 215 265 315 315rs 215 265 365 365rs 215 265 415 North Dakota ........................................... 240 260 265 317rsc 287 312 318 359rsc 345 416 424 Ohio 6 ....................................................... 240 289 413 603rsc 270 328 413 603rsc 300 366 413 Oklahoma ................................................ 300 300 300 300rsc 360 360 360 360rsc 420 420 420 Oregon ..................................................... 200 285 315 356rsc 234 295 327 370rsc 316 363 404 Pennsylvania ........................................... 558 303 315 2 312rc 558 319 368 2 375rc 558 377 473 Rhode Island 7 ......................................... 223 274 279 308rs 223 274 279 285rs 275 335 341 South Carolina ........................................ 138 182 212 212rsc 158 209 239 239rsc 208 275 305 South Dakota ........................................... 188 237 259 353rsc 230 291 317 353rsc 276 349 382 Tennessee ................................................ 139 255 336 336rs 190 226 262 262rs 224 267 385 Texas ....................................................... 243 420 476 2 482rsc 243 420 476 2 482rsc 274 420 476 

Utah 1 ...................................................... 198 300 300 326rsc 198 300 300 326rsc 225 300 300 Vermont ................................................... 210 371 416 360rsc 249 371 416 360rsc 268 447 504 Virginia .................................................... 193 246 256 270rs 244 288 300 316rs 309 365 379 Washington .............................................. 184 270 292 338rsc 227 332 359 410rsc 268 392 425 West Virginia ........................................... 161 161 161 400rsc 202 202 202 400rsc 242 242 242 Wisconsin ................................................ 163 231 276 289rsc 224 257 301 315rsc 284 324 361 Wyoming .................................................. 300 400 400 400rsc 300 400 400 400rsc 330 400 400 

Average monthly rates ................... 239 294 329 NA 263 314 350 NA 307 365 407 

1 These States provided daily regular foster care maintenance rates which were converted to monthly rates using the formula: (daily rate) × 365 ÷ 12. Alaska’s 

changes for regular family foster care became effective July 1, 1998. 2 1998 data were not available. Data shown are for 1996, as reported to the American Public Human Services Association (formerly American Public Welfare Association

3 The foster care maintenance rates provided in the table are midpoints. Delaware has a range of payments for each age. Delaware has a standard foster care pay

three levels of care with supplemental payments. 4 Basic monthly payment rates are State averages of rates set at the county level. They are estimated from daily maintenance payments of $16.20, $17.88, $20.10 an

respectively. 5Michigan has two age ranges for payment rates in family foster care: 0–12 and 13–18.

6 Ohio’s foster care rates range depending on the county: the rates provided in the table are the overall average for 88 counties, converted from Ohio’s daily rate to a 

rate. Rates are determined by the county agency, but must be within the approved uniform statewide standards for per diem foster care maintenance rates. 7 Regular family foster care basic monthly maintenance rates apply to age ranges. The amount presented for age 2 applies to ages 0–3; the amount for age 9 applie

4–11; the amount for age 16 applies to ages 12 and older.

NA—Not available.Note.—Most States and/or counties supplement these basic rates with additional payments. For 1998, figures are coded for major items covered in the basic rate. 

room and board; s = supervision; c = clothing.

Source: American Public Human Services Association (formerly American Public Welfare Association) for 1987–96. Child Welfare League of America for 1998.

668

Public Law 96–272 (1980) stipulated that title IV–E foster care

payments could be made for children in public institutions, whereas previously under title IV–A (AFDC), 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. However, definitive data are not available.

History of Federal protections for children in foster care

The 1980 legislation that established the current framework of

titles IV–B and IV–E contained several provisions intended to protect foster children and children at risk of foster care placement.

Under the 1980 law as originally enacted, States were not eligible

for all of their Federal title IV–B funds unless the following protections had been implemented: (1) a one-time inventory of children

who had been in foster care more than 6 months to determine the

appropriateness of and necessity for their current foster care placement, whether the child should be returned home or freed for adoption, and the services needed to achieve this placement goal; (2) a

statewide information system containing the status, demographic

characteristics, location, and placement goals of every child in care

for the preceding 12 months; (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 the least restrictive

(most familylike) setting available, in close proximity to the child’s

original home, and consistent with the child’s best interest; and (4)

a reunification program to return children to their original homes.

These provisions were originally contained in section 427 of the

Social Security 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 a requirement that dispositional

hearings (renamed permanency hearings) be held at 12 months

after placement and a requirement that States initiate procedures

to terminate parental rights after a child has been in foster care

a certain period of time (see below).

In addition to the protections specified above, States were required to implement a preplacement preventive service program if

the title IV–B appropriation was at least $325 million for 2 consecutive years. The amount appropriated for title IV–B was 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 necVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 00668 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.011 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
669

essary to enable permanent placement decisions to be made expeditiously for such children.

States must comply with certain State plan requirements under

title IV–B that are intended to protect all children in foster care.

The law reinforces these protections by specifically requiring that

they be provided in the case of children for whom Federal reimbursement is claimed under title IV–E. In addition, the law requires States to establish specific goals for title IV–E-eligible children who will remain in foster care more than 24 months, and to

describe the steps the State will take to meet these goals.

Mandatory procedural safeguards: ‘‘reasonable efforts’’

The 1980 legislation required that in every case, ‘‘reasonable efforts’’ must be made to prevent placement of a child in foster care

and to reunify a foster child with her parents. The Adoption and

Safe Families Act (Public Law 105–89), enacted in November 1997,

modified this provision. First, the law now specifies that a child’s

health and safety must be of ‘‘paramount’’ concern in all efforts

made by the State to preserve or reunify the child’s family. States

continue to be required to make reasonable efforts to preserve or

reunify the family, but the 1997 law established exceptions to this

requirement. Specifically, States are not required to make such efforts 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 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 may define these circumstances in State law; the act cites abandonment,

torture, chronic abuse, and sexual abuse as examples. Moreover,

the law does not preclude judges from using their discretion to protect a child’s health and safety regardless of whether the specific

circumstances are cited in Federal law. If the court determines that

reasonable efforts to preserve or reunify a child and family are not

required, the law now requires that a permanency hearing be held

within 30 days of the child entering foster care, and that reasonable efforts be made to place the child for adoption or in an alternative permanent setting in a timely manner.

Notwithstanding the exceptions allowed under the Adoption and

Safe Families Act, reasonable efforts to preserve or reunify a family

are still required in most cases. The Social Security Act establishes

this 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 a child’s placement in

foster care to prevent the need for placement or to help the child

return home, unless the exceptions described above apply (section

471(a)(15)). Second, for every title IV–E-eligible child placed in foster care, a judicial determination must be made and documented

that reasonable efforts were made to prevent placement into foster

care in that particular case, unless an exception applies (section

472(a)(1)).

The term ‘‘reasonable efforts’’ is not defined in law or regulations.

Instead, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)

670

regulations have required State plans to include a description of

the services provided to prevent removal or to reunify families. The

regulations 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.

Because ‘‘reasonable efforts’’ is not defined, Federal courts have

been active in defining reasonable efforts in individual cases. Over

the 20 years since enactment of Public Law 96–272, numerous lawsuits have been filed by foster children, parents, and advocacy

groups against State and local child welfare systems, challenging

their failure to make reasonable efforts to preserve or reunify families. Many of these cases have been broad in scope, and some Federal courts have 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

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 home; (2) make reasonable efforts to reunify children who were removed from home;

(3) notify appropriate agencies when a child was mistreated while

placed in substitute care; 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’’ requirement conferred enforceable rights on the child beneficiaries that 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 DHHS

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 Laws 103–382 and 103–432). These laws

added a new section to the Social Security Act, which was inadvertently enacted twice, as section 1123 and section 1130A. The provision establishes that, in any action brought to enforce a provision

671

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 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 is not enforceable in a private right of

action.

Mandatory procedural safeguards: case planning and case reviews

The law specifies case review provisions that apply to all foster

children, as required by the title IV–B State plan, and specifically

to title IV–E-eligible children in order for States to claim Federal

reimbursement for expenditures made on their behalf. The case review process must include a written case plan that: describes the

child’s placement, including its safety and appropriateness; describes a plan for assuring the child receives safe and proper care

and that services are provided to enable the child to return home

or to another permanent setting; includes the child’s health and

education records; describes services to help the child prepare for

independent living, if the child is age 16 or older; and for children

with permanency plans of adoption or another permanent arrangement, documents the steps taken or planned by the agency to place

the child in accordance with that plan. Children must have a case

plan that is designed to achieve a safe setting, that is the least restrictive (most familylike) and most appropriate setting available,

in close proximity to the child’s parent’s home, and is consistent

with the child’s best interest and special needs.

The law also requires an administrative or judicial review at

least every 6 months for children in foster care to determine the

continuing need and appropriateness of the foster care setting,

compliance with the case plan, progress made toward improving

the conditions that caused the child to be placed in foster care, and

projecting a date by which the child can be returned home or

placed for adoption or legal guardianship.

The mandatory case review process also includes a judicial permanency hearing, to be held no later than 12 months after a child

has entered foster care (as amended by the Adoption and Safe

Families Act in 1997), and every subsequent 12 months. This hearing determines the child’s permanency plan; i.e., whether the child

should be returned to the parents, placed for adoption (in which

case, the State also will initiate proceedings to terminate parental

rights), referred for legal guardianship, or placed in another

planned, permanent arrangement (if other options, including placement with a fit and willing relative, are not in the child’s best interest). Prior to enactment of Public Law 105–89 in 1997, long-term

foster care also was a specified permanency plan. Also as amended

in 1997, the law provides that States may make efforts to reunify

a child and family concurrently with efforts to place the child for

adoption or guardianship. This practice, referred to as ‘‘concurrent

planning,’’ allows States to develop a backup plan, to save time in

case efforts to restore the original family are unsuccessful.

The permanency hearing also must ensure safeguards for children placed outside their home State; must determine the indeVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 00671 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.011 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
672

pendent living services needed for foster children aged 16 and

older; and must ensure safeguards for the parental rights pertaining to children in foster care. A child’s foster parents, preadoptive

parents, or relative caretakers must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard at any review or hearing held with respect to

the child.

Mandatory procedural safeguards: filing for termination of parental

rights (TPR)

One of the most significant provisions of the 1997 Adoption and

Safe Families Act requires States to initiate proceedings to terminate parental rights for certain foster children. There was no comparable provision in prior law. Specifically, the act requires States

to initiate or join 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 in which

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. According to final regulations issued

by DHHS on January 25, 2000, exceptions to the TPR requirement

must be made on a case-by-case basis; States may not establish

blanket exceptions for categories of children. For purposes of the

TPR provision and the 12-month permanency hearing, children are

considered to have entered foster care on the first date that the

court finds they have been subjected to abuse or neglect, or 60 days

after their removal from home, whichever occurs first.

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: assistance 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. 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 Aid to Families with Dependent Children (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

673

situation, such as age, membership in a minority or sibling group,

or a mental, emotional, or physical disability, 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 federally subsidized

monthly adoption assistance payments for AFDC- and SSI-eligible

children with special needs who are adopted.

The amount of adoption assistance payments 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 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

disabled. 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.

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. 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.

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. According to APHSA, all States but four

currently take this option, with regard to children for whom they

have an adoption assistance agreement in effect. (The four that do

not take this option are Connecticut, Illinois, New Mexico, and

674

Michigan.) In addition, APHSA reports that 25 States provide Medicaid to children living in their States who have State-funded adoption assistance agreements from other States, and another 9 States

provide Medicaid to children with State-funded adoption assistance

agreements from other States, but only if those States are members

of the Interstate Compact on Adoption and Medical Assistance. As

of April 2000, an additional three States were in the process of developing reciprocity policies.

The Adoption and Safe Families Act contains additional requirements regarding health insurance coverage for special-needs adopted children who are not eligible for title IV–E adoption assistance.

Specifically, the 1997 law requires States to provide health insurance coverage to non-title IV–E children for whom they have an

adoption assistance agreement in effect, if the children have special

needs for medical, mental health or rehabilitative care. This health

coverage can be through Medicaid or another program, as long as

benefits are comparable. In addition, the law prohibits States from

receiving adoption incentive payments (described below) in fiscal

years 2000 or 2001, or from receiving waivers of title IV–B or IV–

E provisions (also described below), unless they provide health coverage for non-title IV–E children who are living in their State, but

who are covered by an adoption assistance agreement from another

State.

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 disabilities). 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.

Not all children who receive adoption subsidies from States are

eligible for Federal title IV–E funds. Data from APHSA for 1997

indicate that almost three-fourths of children receiving adoption assistance nationwide were eligible for title IV–E. The non-IV–E children’s adoption subsidies are paid solely by the State in which

their adoption agreement was signed.

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 speVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 00674 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.011 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
675

cial needs. States may vary in the maximum amount they allow

parents to receive under this provision.

All States and the District of Columbia have implemented the

program; Delaware does not operate a separate program for reimbursing these one-time expenses. Table 11–9 shows State-by-State

data on maximum reimbursement rates, based on 1998 data collected by the North American Council on Adoptable Children.

These maximum payment rates are the same for most States as

the maximum rates reported in a 1996 survey by APHSA; however,

APHSA also reported that average reimbursements did not equal

the maximum for many States. In 1996, as reported by APHSA, the

average maximum reimbursement rate for all States was $1,651,

while the average amount actually awarded to adoptive families

was $966, based on data for 36 States. Parents adopting children

from public child welfare agencies may not necessarily claim these

reimbursements because many costs incurred in public agency

adoptions 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 1999, 50

States plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico participated,

and 195,243 children (table 11–10) were served.

TABLE 11–9.—MAXIMUM STATE REIMBURSEMENT OF NONRECURRING ADOPTION COSTS,

1998

Amount States

$2,000 ........... Alaska,1 Arizona, District of Columbia (contested), Georgia,1 Hawaii,

Idaho,1 Kansas,1 Maine, Maryland,1 Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,1 Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New

York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,1 Oklahoma,1 Oregon,

Pennsylvania, Utah,1 Vermont,1 Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin,

Wyoming

$1,500 ......... Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Nebraska,1 South Carolina, South Dakota,

Tennessee, Texas, Washington

$1,000 ........... Alabama,1 District of Columbia (uncontested), Florida, Kentucky,1

Louisiana, Mississippi,1 Rhode Island

$800 .............. Colorado

$750 .............. Connecticut 2

$400 .............. California, Massachusetts

$250 .............. Nevada

1 States that indicated they will consider reimbursement of nonrecurring adoption costs for international

adoptions. 2 States that indicated they will not consider reimbursement of international adoption nonrecurring expenses.

Note.—States without footnotes may have provisions for reimbursing international adoption expenses

but did not specify. Iowa participates in the program but did not indicate the maximum amount of reimbursement available to families.

Source: North American Council on Adoptable Children.

TABLE 11–10.—FEDERAL ADOPTION ASSISTANCE EXPENDITURES, FISCAL YEARS 1994–99, AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF CHILDREN RECEIVI

ADOPTION ASSISTANCE, FISCAL YEAR 1999

[In thousands of dollars]

State 1994 claims 1995 claims 1996 claims 1997 claims 1998 claims 1999 claims

199

mon

ber 

Alabama .................................................................... $1,830 $1,867 $1,786 $2,243 $2,492 $3,525 Alaska ....................................................................... 1,070 1,286 1,562 1,914 2,232 2,840 Arizona ...................................................................... 3,960 5,522 6,856 8,365 9,435 11,270 Arkansas ................................................................... 1,960 1,542 2,387 3,035 4,323 5,181 California .................................................................. 43,590 48,234 52,962 76,819 85,093 108,802 Colorado .................................................................... 3,230 3,316 4,361 5,420 7,888 10,358 Connecticut ............................................................... 6,310 7,122 6,040 4,507 12,369 10,341 Delaware ................................................................... 430 536 556 592 635 862 District of Columbia ................................................. 1,970 1,847 1,987 2,676 3,273 4,434 Florida ....................................................................... 10,580 16,830 19,613 23,664 29,801 33,428 Georgia ...................................................................... 3,320 4,364 4,864 6,913 11,156 15,193 Hawaii ....................................................................... 480 610 980 1,183 2,026 2,802 Idaho ......................................................................... 580 753 982 1,063 1,313 1,485 Illinois ....................................................................... 13,060 16,801 19,362 27,246 35,494 55,526 Indiana ...................................................................... 6,710 7,338 8,692 10,630 12,421 15,106 Iowa ........................................................................... 3,870 4,976 6,591 11,347 12,238 15,792 Kansas ...................................................................... 2,240 2,740 3,180 7,702 4,147 5,809 Kentucky .................................................................... 3,320 3,540 3,835 3,742 4,436 5,198 Louisiana ................................................................... 9,320 11,044 12,180 13,556 17,342 18,129 Maine ........................................................................ 2,960 2,794 3,669 4,084 4,730 4,811 

Maryland ................................................................... 2,880 3,633 4,491 5,447 6,271 8,197 Massachusetts 1 ........................................................ 8,380 9,603 11,147 12,585 12,648 17,699 

Michigan ................................................................... 26,840 31,917 37,282 44,032 52,429 58,439 Minnesota .................................................................. 4,620 5,224 5,861 6,653 8,314 10,232 Mississippi ................................................................ 390 667 795 936 1,110 1,346 Missouri ..................................................................... 5,190 6,743 6,270 7,432 8,775 10,998 Montana .................................................................... 760 905 1,330 1,258 2,866 2,339 Nebraska ................................................................... 1,560 1,771 2,062 2,332 2,881 3,287 Nevada ...................................................................... 460 668 870 1,504 1,835 1,690 New Hampshire 2 ....................................................... 740 841 834 803 745 872 

New Jersey ................................................................. 6,700 8,975 8,522 13,629 9,807 15,614 New Mexico ............................................................... 1,890 2,443 2,722 3,246 4,413 6,180 New York ................................................................... 72,590 89,816 100,466 114,405 123,605 134,508 North Carolina ........................................................... 2,550 4,229 5,258 6,783 8,962 11,035 North Dakota ............................................................. 500 460 544 635 827 1,139 Ohio ........................................................................... 30,300 34,985 56,331 74,323 69,112 84,502 Oklahoma .................................................................. 2,240 2,950 4,030 6,431 6,949 8,008 Oregon ....................................................................... 3,300 4,020 4,936 6,178 8,668 10,776 Pennsylvania ............................................................. 4,263 5,440 6,820 8,090 10,273 12,385 Puerto Rico 3 ............................................................. NA NA NA NA NA 54 Rhode Island ............................................................. 4,610 4,194 3,080 3,042 3,958 4,469 South Carolina .......................................................... 2,910 3,915 4,454 5,382 6,623 9,169 South Dakota ............................................................ 630 649 666 788 890 1,006 Tennessee .................................................................. 3,240 3,607 5,814 5,204 4,705 6,605 Texas ......................................................................... 14,520 17,160 17,308 19,815 24,454 28,003 Utah .......................................................................... 1,240 1,158 1,943 2,700 3,782 3,825 Vermont ..................................................................... 1,860 1,947 2,080 2,664 3,325 3,970 

TABLE 11–10.—FEDERAL ADOPTION ASSISTANCE EXPENDITURES, FISCAL YEARS 1994–99, AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF CHILDREN RECEIVI

ADOPTION ASSISTANCE, FISCAL YEAR 1999—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

State 1994 claims 1995 claims 1996 claims 1997 claims 1998 claims 1999 claims

199

mon

ber 

Virginia ...................................................................... 2,590 2,998 3,671 3,601 5,256 7,705 Washington ............................................................... 3,940 3,013 4,441 5,085 6,812 9,227 West Virginia ............................................................. 440 492 542 678 4,567 3,189 Wisconsin .................................................................. 7,730 9,056 10,339 13,122 14,503 17,382 Wyoming .................................................................... 60 24 51 105 123 172 

Total ............................................................. 344,540 411,398 482,990 604,371 694,545 842,737 

1 Fiscal year 1999 data include estimates for the third and fourth quarters.2 Fiscal year 1999 data include estimates for the average monthly number of children.3 Did not begin to participate until fiscal year 1999.

NA—Not applicable.Note.—Totals may differ from sum of State amounts because of rounding.Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

679

Federal expenditures for adoption assistance payments have in- creased from less than $400,000 in fiscal year 1981 to $843 million

in fiscal year 1999, and are expected to exceed $2 billion by fiscal

year 2005.

DHHS 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 1999 they totaled $222 million and are expected to be $548 million in fiscal year 2005.

THE TITLE IV–E ADOPTION INCENTIVES PAYMENT PROGRAM

The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (Public Law 105–89)

established a new provision intended to promote adoption through

incentive payments to States that increase their number of foster

child adoptions, with additional incentives for the adoption of special-needs foster children with adoption assistance agreements

under title IV–E. Incentive payments equal $4,000 for each foster

child whose adoption is finalized (over a certain baseline) and an

additional $2,000 for each special-needs child whose adoption is finalized (over the baseline). For adoptions finalized in 1998, the

baseline was the average number of adoptions in 1995–97. For

adoptions finalized in 1999–2002, the baseline is the highest number of adoptions in any preceding year, beginning with 1997. Table

11–11 shows the 1998 and 1999 baselines for foster child adoptions

in all States. For those States that achieved a sufficient number of

adoptions in 1998 to receive an incentive payment in 1999, their

1998 adoptions and incentive awards are also shown. Adoptions

shown in this table, which qualified for incentive payments, are

those of children who were in foster care before their adoption, and

are not necessarily the same as adoptions made with the involvement of public child welfare agencies. The number of incentivequalifying adoptions in 1998 for States that did not earn incentive

payments is not shown in table 11–11; however, State information

on adoptions made with public agency involvement is provided

below.

TABLE 11–11.—ADOPTION BASELINES, NUMBER OF INCENTIVE-QUALIFYING ADOPTIONS,

AND INCENTIVE PAYMENTS, BY STATE

State

1998 baseline

(3-year average, 1995–

97)

1998 incentive-qualifying adoptions

Incentive payments for

1998 adoptions (in

thousands)

1999 baseline

(higher of

1997 or

1998)

Alabama .................................... 139 NA 0 136

Alaska ........................................ 108 NA 0 109

Arizona ....................................... 357 NA 0 474

Arkansas .................................... 138 251 $596 251

California ................................... 3,287 3,958 3,916 3,958

Colorado .................................... 417 560 892 560

Connecticut ............................... 207 229 88 278

Delaware .................................... 39 NA 0 33

District of Columbia .................. 110 NA 0 132

680

TABLE 11–11.—ADOPTION BASELINES, NUMBER OF INCENTIVE-QUALIFYING ADOPTIONS,

AND INCENTIVE PAYMENTS, BY STATE—Continued

State

1998 baseline

(3-year average, 1995–

97)

1998 incentive-qualifying adoptions

Incentive payments for

1998 adoptions (in

thousands)

1999 baseline

(higher of

1997 or

1998)

Florida ....................................... 987 1,549 2,744 1,549

Georgia ...................................... 493 672 956 672

Hawaii ....................................... 85 297 1,102 297

Idaho ......................................... 44 NA 0 47

Illinois ........................................ 2,200 4,656 14,606 4,656

Indiana ...................................... 495 774 1,792 774

Iowa ........................................... 350 517 790 517

Kansas ....................................... 349 NA 0 421

Kentucky .................................... 211 NA 0 222

Louisiana ................................... 220 NA 0 284

Maine ......................................... 108 112 24 112

Maryland .................................... 342 420 676 420

Massachusetts .......................... 1,116 1,137 84 1,161

Michigan .................................... 1,905 2,254 2,004 2,254

Minnesota .................................. 258 427 1,022 427

Mississippi ................................ 114 169 398 169

Missouri ..................................... 557 616 236 616

Montana .................................... 115 144 116 144

Nebraska ................................... 185 NA 0 180

Nevada ...................................... 149 NA 0 148

New Hampshire ......................... 45 50 20 50

New Jersey ................................. 621 755 870 755

New Mexico ................................ 147 197 200 197

New York ................................... 4,716 4,822 424 4,979

North Carolina ........................... 467 NA 0 694

North Dakota ............................. 47 83 144 83

Ohio ........................................... 1,287 NA 0 1,400

Oklahoma .................................. 338 456 596 456

Oregon ....................................... 445 665 1,248 665

Pennsylvania ............................. 1,224 1,494 1,260 1,526

Rhode Island ............................. 261 NA 0 226

South Carolina .......................... 256 465 1,064 465

South Dakota ............................. 56 58 8 58

Tennessee .................................. 328 NA 0 295

Texas ......................................... 880 1,365 2,872 1,365

Utah ........................................... 225 250 100 268

Vermont ..................................... 75 116 214 116

Washington ................................ 607 759 620 759

West Virginia ............................. 182 211 128 220

Wisconsin .................................. 467 589 640 589

Wyoming .................................... 15 30 0 30

NA—Not available.

Source: Compiled by the Congressional Research Service from data available from the U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services.

681

Public Law 105–89 originally authorized appropriations of $20

million annually for fiscal years 1999–2003 for adoption incentive

payments. In addition, discretionary budget caps were adjusted to

help ensure that the funds are actually appropriated for each year.

However, the amount of incentive payments that States earned for

fiscal year 1999, based on the number of adoptions finalized in

1998, exceeded the $20 million level. Congress subsequently enacted the Foster Care Independence Act (Public Law 106–169),

which authorized an additional $23 million for adoption incentive

payments in fiscal year 2000. These funds were intended to supplement payments made in fiscal year 1999 for increased adoptions in

the previous year. The additional $23 million was appropriated in

Public Law 106–113, a consolidated appropriations bill that also

called for a governmentwide reduction of 0.38 percent, slightly reducing the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000 for adoption incentive payments. The total amount awarded for adoptions finalized in fiscal year 1998 was $42.5 million.

THE TITLE IV–E FOSTER CARE INDEPENDENCE 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–80s 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. Initially, 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

were designed to assist IV–E-eligible children age 16 and over

make a successful transition from foster care to independent adult

living when they became 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 followup services to

youth up to 6 months after their emancipation from substitute

care. Under Public Law 101–508, States had the option of serving

individuals up to age 21 in the Independent Living Program. Funds

were 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 were required to provide 50 percent matching for any Federal funding claimed that exceeded the original $45 million funding

level. In 1993, Congress permanently extended the authority for

independent living under Public Law 103–66.

In response to continuing concerns about the adjustment problems faced by older children leaving foster care, the 106th Congress

enacted the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (Public Law

682

106–169). The law replaced section 477 with new language and renamed the program the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence

Program, in honor of the Rhode Island Senator who was one of the

law’s sponsors and who died before it was enacted. As amended in

1999, the Foster Care Independence Program is intended to help

States provide services to children who are likely to remain in foster care until age 18 (no minimum age is specified for participation

in the program), as well as former foster children between the ages

of 18 and 21. To participate in the program, States must submit

a 5-year plan to DHHS and must certify that, among other things,

no more than 30 percent of program funds will be used for room

and board for 18–20 year olds and that services will be coordinated

with related Federal and State youth programs, including transitional living youth projects funded under the Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention Act, abstinence education, housing programs, programs for disabled youth, and school-to-work activities.

The law also allows States to extend Medicaid coverage to former

foster children between 18 and 21 years of age.

States have flexibility in the use of their Foster Care Independence Program funds within the general purposes outlined in the

law. These purposes include helping eligible children make the

transition to self-sufficiency through such services as assistance in

obtaining a high school diploma, career exploration, vocational

training, job placement and retention, training in daily living

skills, training in budgeting and financial management skills, substance abuse prevention, and preventive health activities. The program seeks to help eligible children obtain employment and to receive postsecondary education and training. The program also

seeks to provide personal and emotional support to eligible children

and youth in their efforts to achieve self-sufficiency.

The revised Foster Care Independence Program is a capped entitlement with an annual ceiling set at $140 million, which is double

the entitlement ceiling level prior to enactment of Public Law 106–

169. States are entitled to an amount based on their share of the

Nation’s foster care population, in the most recent year for which

information is available. However, no State may receive less than

the greater of $500,000 or the amount received by the State in fiscal year 1998. The law contains a ratable reduction provision to ensure total State allotments do not exceed the national ceiling of

$140 million. The law also requires a 20-percent non-Federal

match. For fiscal year 2000, Congress appropriated $105 million for

the program, notwithstanding the new entitlement ceiling of $140

million. Thus, table 11–12 shows State allocations for fiscal year

2000 under section 477 at the $105 million and $140 million level,

under the new formula established by Public Law 106–169. (The

law authorizes a set-aside for evaluation activities, equal to 1.5 percent of $140 million, after which State allocations are made.)

683

TABLE 11–12.—TITLE IV–E INDEPENDENT LIVING AWARDS UNDER PUBLIC LAW 106–

169, AT FISCAL YEAR 2000 APPROPRIATION AMOUNT OF $105 MILLION AND FULL AUTHORIZATION AMOUNT OF $140 MILLION, BY STATE

[In thousands of dollars]

State

Fiscal year 2000

appropriation

amount of $105

million

Full authorization

amount of $140

million

Funding under

prior law

Alabama ......................................... $1,038 $1,269 $1,038

Alaska ............................................ 500 500 13

Arizona ........................................... 858 1,248 348

Arkansas ........................................ 500 685 271

California ....................................... 18,804 27,350 12,482

Colorado ......................................... 1,419 2,064 826

Connecticut .................................... 1,134 1,650 755

Delaware ........................................ 500 500 203

District of Columbia ...................... 1,092 1,092 1,092

Florida ............................................ 4,163 6,055 987

Georgia ........................................... 1,610 2,342 1,099

Hawaii ............................................ 500 651 18

Idaho .............................................. 500 500 107

Illinois ............................................ 8,524 12,398 2,817

Indiana ........................................... 1,405 2,044 1,020

Iowa ................................................ 593 863 450

Kansas ........................................... 717 1,030 717

Kentucky ......................................... 984 1,432 792

Louisiana ........................................ 1,358 1,535 1,358

Maine ............................................. 566 713 566

Maryland ........................................ 2,179 3,170 1,238

Massachusetts ............................... 2,353 3,422 636

Michigan ........................................ 4,406 6,408 4,172

Minnesota ....................................... 1,496 2,176 1,142

Mississippi ..................................... 523 761 514

Missouri .......................................... 2,112 3,072 1,295

Montana ......................................... 500 500 244

Nebraska ........................................ 765 1,113 436

Nevada ........................................... 500 500 154

New Hampshire .............................. 500 500 320

New Jersey ...................................... 2,298 2,298 2,298

New Mexico .................................... 500 500 207

New York ........................................ 11,586 13,392 11,586

North Carolina ................................ 1,879 2,733 1,045

North Dakota .................................. 500 500 192

Ohio ................................................ 2,861 3,072 2,861

Oklahoma ....................................... 1,161 1,688 620

Oregon ............................................ 1,197 1,741 931

Pennsylvania .................................. 4,638 5,578 4,638

Puerto Rico ..................................... 1,126 1,637 NA

Rhode Island .................................. 500 500 315

South Carolina ............................... 810 1,178 580

South Dakota ................................. 500 500 193

Tennessee ....................................... 1,622 2,359 778

684

TABLE 11–12.—TITLE IV–E INDEPENDENT LIVING AWARDS UNDER PUBLIC LAW 106–

169, AT FISCAL YEAR 2000 APPROPRIATION AMOUNT OF $105 MILLION AND FULL AUTHORIZATION AMOUNT OF $140 MILLION, BY STATE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

State

Fiscal year 2000

appropriation

amount of $105

million

Full authorization

amount of $140

million

Funding under

prior law

Texas .............................................. 2,900 4,218 1,842

Utah ............................................... 500 500 202

Vermont .......................................... 500 500 296

Virginia ........................................... 1,362 1,393 1,362

Washington .................................... 1,664 2,421 825

West Virginia .................................. 521 714 521

Wisconsin ....................................... 1,673 2,434 1,554

Wyoming ......................................... 500 500 45

Total .................................. 102,900 137,900 70,000

NA—Not available.

Note.—The allotments under the fiscal year 2000 appropriation amount of $105 million were provided

by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The allotments under the full authorization

amount of $140 million are estimates based on the above data provided by the U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services. Both allotment columns reflect the evaluation set-aside of 1.5 percent of

$140 million ($2.1 million).

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service.

As originally enacted in 1986, section 477 instructed the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to conduct a

study of independent living services, which was done in two phases

by Westat, Inc. (Cook, 1990, 1992). Looking at youths who emancipated from foster care between January 1987 and July 1988,

Westat reported that they were a troubled population. In the study

group, two-thirds of 18-year-olds had not completed high school or

obtained a GED and 61 percent had no job experience. Also, 38 percent of the youths 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. During the time they

had been in foster care, 58 percent of the study group had experienced at least three placement settings and about 30 percent had

been in foster care an average of 9 years. Of the total number of

youths who emancipated from foster care during the study period,

31 percent received services from their State’s Independent Living

Program, 29 percent received informal services, and 40 percent received no independent living services at all. Westat conducted a followup with the study group and reported in 1992 that, 21⁄2–4 years

after leaving foster care, many were still having problems. Only

about half had completed high school, a little less than half had

jobs, and only about 40 percent had held a job for at least 1 year.

Among the females, 60 percent had given birth. One quarter of the

youths had been homeless for at least one night, and fewer than

1 in 5 were completely self-supporting.

685

Later research conducted by the University of Wisconsin had

similar findings (Courtney & Piliavin, 1998). Looking at Wisconsin

youths 12–18 months after they emancipated from foster care in

1995, researchers found 37 percent had still not completed high

school and 12 percent had been homeless at least once since their

discharge from foster care. While 81 percent had held at least one

job since their discharge, only 61 percent reported being employed

at the time of their interview, suggesting that job retention was a

problem for some. Of females, 40 percent were receiving public assistance, as were 23 percent of the males. Access to medical care

was a problem for 44 percent of the youths, usually because of a

lack of health insurance. While almost half of the youths had received mental health services when still connected to the child welfare system, 21 percent reported receiving such services after they

left foster care. Although they were not reunited with their biological families by the child welfare system, many of the youths had

contact with their original families after their discharge from foster

care, with about one-third actually living with their families. At the

same time, 40 percent reported continued and frequent contact

with their foster parents. About 18 percent of the youths had been

incarcerated at some point since their discharge.

The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) reported in 1999 that

State and local administrators felt they could not provide youths

who were leaving foster care with all the support they needed to

make a successful transition to independent adult living. GAO reported that some programs lacked sufficient connections with employers to provide job leads, or opportunities for youths to practice

skills in real-life settings, or supervised living arrangements for

youths to become experienced at living self-sufficiently. GAO also

noted that DHHS lacked sufficient information to evaluate the effectiveness of services.

Also in 1999, DHHS released a report reviewing the history of

the Independent Living Program over the 10 years from 1987

through 1996 (U.S. Department, 1999b). This report found that

many eligible youth did not receive independent living services at

all. Specifically, in 30 States that reported data for fiscal year 1996,

37 percent of eligible youth received no services. Of those youth

served in fiscal year 1996, 65 percent were either 16 or 17 years

old, while 22 percent were 18 and the remainder were 19 or 20.

Half the youth were white, and slightly more than half were females. African-American youth comprised 38 percent and Hispanic

youth 9 percent. Half of the youth served had been in foster care

less than 2 years, while 20 percent had been in care 5 years or

longer. Slightly more than a quarter of the youth had special

needs, and 9 percent were parents or pregnant. Over the 10 year

period reviewed, DHHS found that States shifted from providing

primarily tangible skills, such as vocational training, job search,

and money management, to also addressing intangible skills, such

as decisionmaking, communication, and conflict resolution.

To enable assessments of State independent living activities,

Public Law 106–169 directed the Secretary of DHHS to develop a

series of outcome measures, including the following: educational attainment, high school diploma, employment, avoidance of dependency, homelessness, nonmarital childbirth, incarceration, and highVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 00685 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.011 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
686

risk behaviors. The Secretary also must identify data elements that

can be used to track the number and characteristics of children receiving independent living services, the type and quantity of services provided, and State performance on the outcome measures.

The Secretary must develop a plan to collect this information beginning with the second fiscal year that starts after the date of enactment, and must report to Congress on this plan and timetable

within 1 year of the date of enactment. Once this data collection

plan is in effect, States must submit the required reports or face

financial penalties. In addition, the law requires the Secretary to

conduct evaluations of innovative State Independent Living Programs or programs that have potential national significance. The

law reserves 1.5 percent of each year’s appropriation for such evaluation, technical assistance, performance measurement, and data

collection.

STATE ACCOUNTABILITY AND FEDERAL OVERSIGHT

Federal child welfare law requires States to comply with a series

of provisions that are intended to protect children who have been

placed in foster care or who are at risk of foster care placement.

States are required to comply with these provisions to be eligible

to receive Federal funds, but the extent to which the Federal Government actually holds States accountable has been an issue of ongoing concern. On January 25, 2000, DHHS published final regulations establishing a new system, mandated by Congress, for monitoring and enforcing the implementation by States of Federal child

welfare laws. The new regulations took effect on March 27, 2000.

In addition, the law establishes specific penalties for violations of

certain provisions intended to eliminate ethnic or geographic barriers to adoption. Finally, the Adoption and Safe Families Act in

1997 mandated that DHHS establish a series of outcome measures

that could be used to rate the performance of State child welfare

programs, and to report annually on State performance in meeting

these outcome measures. DHHS published the outcome measures

on August 20, 1999. The new Federal review system, the specific

penalties applicable to violations of ethnic or geographic discrimination provisions, and outcome measures that will be used to assess State performance are described in detail below.

HISTORY OF FEDERAL REVIEW EFFORTS

The history of Federal child welfare review efforts goes back to

passage of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980

(Public Law 96–272). Many of the original foster child protections

were established by that legislation as part of section 427 and were

voluntary incentives for States to meet to receive their full allotment of title IV–B funds. In addition, the 1980 law established eligibility requirements that were used to determine which children

could qualify for federally subsidized foster care and adoption assistance payments. These eligibility criteria contained provisions

that were intended to work together with the ‘‘section 427 requirements’’ to protect children in foster care.

In the early 1980s, DHHS developed and operated review systems for monitoring State compliance with section 427 protections

687

and with the Federal foster care requirements under title IV–E.

However, child welfare advocates, State and Federal officials, and

Members of Congress grew dissatisfied with the early review systems for various reasons, both procedural and programmatic, and

beginning in 1989, Congress suspended the collection of penalties

resulting from these reviews. Procedural concerns included a lack

of formal regulations, frequently resulting in confusion about the

standards that States were expected to meet. Reviews were conducted retrospectively, sometimes for fiscal years that had long

past, so that current practices were not examined. Exacerbating

this problem was the late release of final reports by DHHS, so their

findings and recommendations were sometimes irrelevant by the

time they were issued. State officials had limited ongoing contact

with Federal regional office staff, so that formal reviews were seen

as adversarial and punitive, rather than collaborative and potentially helpful. The reviews were often seen as time consuming,

labor intensive, and burdensome for the States.

Of greater concern, however, was the perception that the reviews

did not result in improved services for children and families. Both

section 427 and title IV–E eligibility reviews focused on paper compliance with legal requirements. Moreover, States were sometimes

held accountable for circumstances beyond their control, such as

the schedule or actions of the courts. Reviews were criticized for focusing on isolated components of a State’s child welfare system,

rather than the system as a whole. When problems were identified,

penalties were imposed but little technical assistance was provided.

The review system contained no mechanism for helping States improve the quality of their child welfare programs, and also were

criticized for failing, in some cases, to identify problems in State

programs.

In 1989, Congress imposed the first in a series of moratoriums,

prohibiting DHHS from collecting penalties associated with these

reviews. Finally, in 1994, Congress enacted two significant provisions as part of the Social Security Act amendments of that year

(Public Law 103–432). First, Congress restructured title IV–B so

that the foster child protections previously contained in section 427

were no longer voluntary incentives, but rather mandatory components of the State title IV–B plan. Second, Congress mandated the

development of a new system to review State conformity with Federal requirements, including State plan requirements, under titles

IV–B and IV–E.

The 1994 legislation directed DHHS to develop a review system

that would incorporate the concepts of technical assistance and corrective action. Specifically, DHHS was directed to specify the Federal requirements that would be subject to review and the criteria

that would be used to determine if a State was substantially meeting those requirements. The law further directed DHHS to specify

a method for determining the amount of financial penalties that

would be imposed in cases of substantial nonconformity. However,

Congress also mandated that before such penalties could be imposed, States must be given an opportunity to implement a corrective action plan, and required that DHHS provide the States with

necessary technical assistance.

688

FEDERAL CONFORMITY REVIEW SYSTEM

The 1994 legislation also directed DHHS to promulgate regulations establishing the new review system by July 1, 1995, to take

effect on April 1, 1996. After pilot testing the system in several

States, DHHS proposed the regulations in the Federal Register of

September 18, 1998, and issued them as final on January 25, 2000,

with an effective date of March 27, 2000. Two types of reviews are

established: child and family services reviews of activities funded

by both titles IV–B and IV–E, to determine systemwide State compliance with Federal law; and title IV–E eligibility reviews to determine the eligibility of State expenditures for foster care or related activities for Federal reimbursement under title IV–E.

Child and family services reviews

The child and family services review primarily measures outcomes and results, and allows States to undertake corrective action

if they are not found in substantial conformity with the law. DHHS

established three outcomes for children and families and seven specific criteria as indicators of States’ conformity with Federal law:

1. Child safety

—children are first and foremost protected from abuse and neglect, and

—children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate;

2. Permanency for children

—children have permanency and stability in their living situations, and

—the continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children;

3. Child and family well-being

—families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs,

—children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs, and

—children receive adequate services to meet their physical and

mental health needs.

In addition, the review system measures State performance on

the following seven systemic factors, explained in detail in the regulations, that reflect a State’s capacity to deliver services leading

to improved outcomes for children and families. These factors are:

1. Statewide information system on children in foster care;

2. Case review system for all children in foster care;

3. Standards to protect the health and safety of children in foster

care and an identifiable quality assurance system;

4. Staff development and training program;

5. Service array for children and families;

6. Agency responsiveness to the community; and

7. Foster and adoptive parent licensing, recruitment, and retention.

The child and family services review is conducted by a joint

Federal-State team, and a full review consists of two steps: first,

a statewide assessment conducted by the State members of the

team, and second, an onsite review conducted by the joint FederalVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 00688 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.011 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
689

State team. The statewide assessment examines each of the seven

systemic factors listed above; assesses State performance in each of

the three child and family outcomes listed above, using statewide

data, and analyzes the State’s performance in meeting national

standards established for these outcomes; assesses characteristics

of the State agency that enable it to deliver services that lead to

improved outcomes; and assesses the State’s strengths and areas

that require further examination during the onsite review.

While the national standards mentioned above are not specified

in the regulations themselves, DHHS explained in its preamble

that standards for some of the criteria, related to two of the three

child and family outcomes, were developed based on currently

available data. National standards have been established as follows:

For the child safety outcome:

—percent of children with substantiated or indicated child

abuse or neglect reports, for whom a subsequent abuse or neglect report is substantiated or indicated—standard: 7 percent;

—percent of foster children who are the subject of substantiated or indicated abuse or neglect by a foster parent or facility staff—standard not specified in the January 25, 2000,

publication.

For the child permanency outcome:

—of children who entered foster care during a review period,

the percent who reentered within 12 months of a prior foster

care episode—standard: 13 percent;

—of foster children who were reunified with their parents, the

percent who were reunified in less than 12 months—standard: 80 percent;

—of foster children who were adopted, the percent who left foster care in less than 24 months—standard: 26 percent;

—of children in foster care less than 12 months, the percent

who had no more than two placement settings—standard: 77

percent; and

—the median length of stay in foster care prior to discharge,

for children entering foster care for the first time—standard:

12 months.

DHHS established these national standards at the 75th percentile of all States’ performance on the particular outcome, as measured through two data collection systems (see below): the Adoption

and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS), and

the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS).

The standards, and the outcomes for which standards are established, may change over time.

The onsite component of the child and family services review relies on information from the statewide assessment to determine

areas in need of improvement and requiring indepth review. The

onsite review may focus on specific geographic areas within the

State, as long as the State’s largest metropolitan area is included.

While the onsite review must be planned and conducted by the

joint Federal-State team, DHHS has final approval of the program

components and geographic areas that are the focus of the review.

690

Sources of information to determine whether a State is in substantial conformity with Federal law, include at a minimum: specific case records on children and families served by the agency;

interviews with the children and families; interviews with caseworkers, foster parents and service providers for the cases selected

for review; and interviews with ‘‘key stakeholders,’’ including individuals involved in developing the State’s child and family services

plan, courts, administrative review bodies, guardians ad litem, and

other individuals or organizations with responsibility for representing the best interests of children.

The onsite review examines a sample of cases (drawn randomly

from AFCARS and NCANDS data) that may range in size from 30

to 50. The sample size may be increased to ensure that all program

areas (i.e., children in foster care, children and families receiving

in-home services) are adequately represented. If discrepancies appear between the statewide assessment and the findings of the onsite review, the State may submit additional data or the State and

DHHS may jointly review additional cases, up to a specified maximum.

A State is considered in substantial conformity with regard to

the three child and family outcomes (and seven associated criteria),

if its performance meets the national standards for those outcomes

or criteria for which standards are established; and if each of the

outcomes is ‘‘substantially achieved’’ in 95 percent of cases examined during an onsite review (90 percent for an initial review).

Moreover, a State’s level of achievement with regard to the child

and family outcomes is measured by the extent to which it has implemented a series of statutory and regulatory requirements or assurances.

A State is considered in substantial conformity with regard to

the seven systemic factors, indicating its service delivery capacity,

if all State plan requirements associated with the systemic factor

are in place and no more than one of the State plan requirements

fails to function.

If a State is found not to be in substantial conformity, the regulations require development and implementation of a corrective action plan before financial penalties may be assessed. The plan must

be approved by DHHS. States subject to a mandatory program improvement plan must report quarterly to DHHS on their progress,

and have a specified time in which to complete the plan, based on

the seriousness and complexity of the remedies required to correct

program deficiencies. In general, the maximum time allowed to

complete the program improvement plan is 2 years, although

DHHS may grant 1-year extensions in rare circumstances. Priority

goes to correcting deficiencies that affect child safety, which must

be addressed in less than 2 years.

For States that are not in substantial conformity, DHHS must

determine the amount of Federal funds to be withheld from that

State as a penalty. DHHS will not actually withhold these funds

while an approved program improvement plan is in effect, if the

State is actively implementing the plan. DHHS can suspend the

withholding of funds for no longer than 3 years, or the amount of

time allowed for completing the improvement plan, whichever is

shorter. Ultimately, funds are withheld for those States that fail to

691

complete their plan by the specified date, or for States that fail to

submit quarterly progress reports, or if reports indicate that the

State is not making satisfactory progress toward achieving the

steps outlined in the plan.

The amount of Federal funds to be withheld from a particular

State can vary, depending on the extent of the State’s nonconformity. Penalties are calculated as a percentage of the following pool

of funds: the State’s allotment of title IV–B funds (both subparts

1 and 2) for the year(s) to which the withholding applies; and 10

percent of the State’s Federal reimbursement claims for administrative costs related to foster care under title IV–E, for the years

to which the withholding applies.

In the case of a first finding of substantial nonconformity, the

amount to be withheld equals 1 percent of the pooled amount described above, for each of the seven criteria associated with child

and family outcomes and for each of the seven systemic factors subject to review. For example, if a State does not substantially

achieve two of the seven child and family outcome indicators, then

2 percent of the pooled amount of funds it would otherwise receive

would be withheld. Likewise, if a State is not in substantial conformity with one of the systemic factors, then 1 percent of the

pooled amount would be withheld. The maximum penalty is 14 percent of the pooled amount (i.e., 1 percent for each of the 14 factors).

If a State completes a program improvement plan but is found

to be in substantial nonconformity during a second full review, the

amount of pooled funds to be withheld increases to 2 percent for

each of the child and family outcomes or systemic factors that are

not achieved, for a maximum penalty of 28 percent. In the case of

a third finding of nonconformity, after completion of a program improvement plan, the penalty increases to 3 percent for each factor,

for a maximum of 42 percent. If a State refuses to develop a program improvement plan altogether, it is subject to the maximum

42 percent withholding. Once funds are withheld from a State, the

withholding continues until a subsequent full review finds the

State in substantial conformity or until the State successfully completes a program improvement plan developed as a result of the

subsequent review.

All States are required to complete an initial full review under

the regulation within the 4-year period that began March 27, 2000.

Those States that are found to be in substantial conformity must

complete a subsequent full review every 5 years, and submit a completed statewide assessment 3 years after their last onsite review.

This assessment must be reviewed by the State and DHHS to determine the State’s continuing substantial conformity, but is not

subject to formal DHHS approval. If an initial or subsequent full

review finds that a State is not in substantial conformity, the State

must develop and implement a program improvement plan and

must begin a subsequent full review 2 years after the plan is approved.

If DHHS has any information suggesting that a State is no

longer operating in substantial conformity, it may conduct an inquiry and request data from the State and may, depending on the

outcome of the inquiry, require a full or partial review at any time,

regardless of when the State was last reviewed. Moreover, if DHHS

692

learns that a State is not complying with a title IV–B or IV–E requirement that is outside the scope of the child and family services

review, it may conduct an inquiry and institute a partial review at

any time, which could result in a mandatory program improvement

plan and potentially a financial penalty.

Final determinations of substantial nonconformity, and withholding or reduction of funds, may be appealed to the DHHS Departmental Appeals Board within 60 days of the State receiving notice

of the nonconformity. States may seek judicial review of an adverse

decision by the Board in Federal district court.

Title IV–E eligibility reviews

Like the child and family services reviews, title IV–E eligibility

reviews are conducted by a Federal-State team and include an onsite review. From AFCARS data, DHHS officials select a random

sample of 80 cases, plus a 10 percent ‘‘oversample’’ of 8 additional

cases, from the pool of children eligible for federally funded foster

care maintenance payments. Cases from the oversample are used

to replace any cases in the basic sample that are found to be invalid for some reason. The State submits to DHHS the complete

payment history for all cases in the sample and the oversample,

prior to the onsite review.

The Federal-State team reviews the sample to determine whether any cases are ineligible under title IV–E. In an initial review,

a State is considered in substantial compliance with the law if no

more than 8 cases (from the sample of 80) are determined to be ineligible. In a subsequent review, a State is considered in substantial compliance if no more than 4 cases (again, from a sample of

80) are found ineligible.

If a State is found in substantial compliance, it is not subject to

another review for 3 years. If a State is not found in substantial

compliance, it must develop a program improvement plan followed

by a secondary review. The program improvement plan must be developed by the joint Federal-State team, identify weaknesses to be

corrected and steps to correct them, and specify a timetable for

achieving these steps. However, in contrast to the child and family

services review, the program improvement plan for a title IV–E eligibility review can last no longer than 1 year, unless enactment of

State legislation is required, in which case an extension of one legislative session may be granted.

In the secondary review, DHHS draws a sample of 150 cases

(plus a 10 percent oversample) from AFCARS data, for review by

the joint Federal-State team. The team calculates for the sample

both an ineligibility error rate and a dollar error rate. If neither

of these error rates, or only one, is more than 10 percent, a disallowance is assessed for the ineligible cases in the sample. If both

error rates exceed 10 percent, an extrapolated disallowance is assessed based on the State’s entire foster care population.

The following title IV–E State plan requirements, which relate to

the eligibility of children and foster care providers, are subject to

review:

1. For each child, there must be judicial finding that certain ‘‘reasonable efforts’’ were made by the State, and that remaining

693

in the biological home would be ‘‘contrary to the welfare’’ of the

child;

2. If a child was placed through a voluntary placement agreement, the agreement must meet specified criteria;

3. The State agency must have responsibility for the child’s placement and care;

4. The child must be placed in a licensed foster family home or

child care institution; and

5. The child must meet Aid to Families with Dependent Children

(AFDC) requirements, as in effect on July 16, 1996.

Compliance with State plan requirements regarding licensing authorities and criminal background checks are also reviewed.

INTERETHNIC AND INTERJURISDICTIONAL ADOPTION PROVISIONS

States are subject to penalties if they violate certain provisions

of law that were enacted to eliminate barriers to adoption, in addition to any violations of provisions that are subject to a child and

family services review or title IV–E eligibility review. Specifically,

States may not discriminate in adoption or foster care placements

on the basis of race, color or national origin, and also may not deny

or delay a child’s adoptive placement when an approved family is

available outside of the jurisdiction that has responsibility for handling the child’s case. The law establishes specific penalties for violations of these provisions.

Regarding discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity, Congress initially enacted the Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA) in

1994 (Public Law 103–382), which prohibited any agency or entity

that received Federal assistance from discriminating on the basis

of the child’s or the potential adoptive or foster parents’ race, color

or national origin. However, as enacted in 1994, MEPA did allow

agencies to consider the child’s cultural, ethnic, or racial background, and the capacity of the prospective parents to meet the

child’s needs, as one of the factors used to determine the child’s

best interest. The 1994 legislation also provided a right of action

in U.S. district court for individuals who were aggrieved by a

MEPA violation and deemed noncompliance with MEPA to be a

violation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act. In addition, the 1994

law amended title IV–B of the Social Security Act to add, as a

State plan requirement, that States must provide for the diligent

recruitment of potential foster and adoptive families that reflect

the ethnic and racial diversity of children who need homes.

In 1996, Congress revised the interethnic discrimination provisions, as part of the Small Business Job Protection Act (Public Law

104–188). The 1996 law repealed the prior MEPA provision that allowed consideration of a child’s cultural, ethnic, or racial background in making placement decisions. Further, the law amended

title IV–E of the Social Security Act to provide that neither the

State nor any other entity that receives Federal funds may discriminate in adoption or foster care placements on the basis of

race, color or national origin. The law specified a penalty for violations of this State plan requirement, equal to 2 percent of Federal

title IV–E funds for a first violation, 3 percent for a second violation, and 5 percent for three or more violations. Private agencies

that violate the interethnic provisions are required to pay back any

694

Federal funds received. Under the current law, private individuals

may continue to seek relief in U.S. district court. However, Public

Law 104–188 provides that no action may be brought more than 2

years after the alleged violation occurs. None of these interethnic

provisions affect the application of the Indian Child Welfare Act.

The final child welfare review regulations, published by DHHS

on January 25, 2000, do not establish a specific monitoring system

for the antidiscrimination provisions of MEPA, as amended by the

1996 law. However, the regulations establish a procedure for responding to reports of violations of these provisions, and for enforcing the law in cases where violations are found to have occurred.

Specifically, whenever DHHS becomes aware of a possible violation, either through a child and family services review or filing of

a complaint or any other mechanism, it refers the case to the Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) for investigation. If, on the

basis of OCR’s investigation, a violation actually has occurred, enforcement action will be taken, based on the nature of the violation.

If OCR (or a court) finds that a State has discriminated against

an individual, on the basis of race, color or national origin, in the

course of a foster or adoptive placement, a penalty is assessed for

the quarter in which the State is notified of the violation. The penalty equals 2 percent of the State’s total title IV–E funds for the

quarter, in the case of a first violation in a given fiscal year, and

continues for subsequent quarters in that fiscal year, until the

State completes a corrective action plan or comes into compliance.

In the case of a second violation in the same fiscal year, the penalty equals 3 percent, and 5 percent for third or subsequent violations in a given fiscal year. Violations that remain uncorrected at

the end of the fiscal year may be subject to another review and additional penalties.

If a MEPA violation results from a State’s statute, regulation,

policy, procedure, or practice, and no individual is directly affected,

the State has 30 days to develop and submit a corrective action

plan for DHHS approval. If the State hasn’t completed the plan

and come into compliance within 6 months of DHHS approving the

plan, penalties are assessed. Findings of MEPA violations, and related financial penalties, may be appealed to the DHHS Departmental Appeals Board, and States may seek judicial review of an

adverse decision by the Board in Federal district court.

As amended in 1997 by the Adoption and Safe Families Act (Public Law 105–89), title IV–E provides that States may not deny or

delay a child’s placement for adoption if an approved family is

available outside the jurisdiction responsible for the child’s case.

Further, States must provide an opportunity for a fair hearing to

anyone whose allegation of a violation of this provision is denied

by the State or not acted upon promptly. The law specifies that the

same penalty structure applicable to violations of the interethnic

provisions, described above, also applies to violations of this provision (i.e., 2 percent for a first violation, 3 percent for a second violation, and 5 percent for three or more violations). However, DHHS

did not address enforcement of this interjurisdictional provision in

the January 25, 2000, child welfare monitoring regulations.

695

STATE PERFORMANCE REPORTS

The Adoption and Safe Families Act (Public Law 105–89) required the Secretary of DHHS, in consultation with Governors,

State legislatures, State and local public officials, and child welfare

advocates, to develop a set of outcome measures that could be used

to assess State performance in operating programs under titles IV–

B and IV–E. The law required that these outcome measures include length of stay in foster care, number of foster care placements, and number of adoptions. The law also required that DHHS

develop a system for rating State performance on these outcome

measures, and publish an annual report on each State’s performance, examining the reasons for high and low performance and

making recommendations for how State performance could be improved. The first annual report was issued in early August 2000,

too late to be included in this edition of the Green Book.

DHHS published preliminary outcomes and measures on February 2, 1999, and published the final list of child welfare outcomes

and measures on August 20, 1999. These may be amended or expanded over time, particularly to include outcomes addressing child

safety and well-being. According to DHHS, the first annual performance report will be based on NCANDS data for calendar year

1997 and AFCARS data for fiscal year 1998 (these data collection

systems are described in detail below). The annual report will include additional information about each State and its child welfare

program to provide context necessary to interpret the State’s performance on the outcome measures.

The final list published by DHHS includes seven child welfare

outcomes, each with one or more measures that will be used to assess performance. Table 11–13 identifies the child welfare outcomes

and measures.

TABLE 11–13.—CHILD WELFARE PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES AND RELATED MEASURES

Outcome Measure

Reduce recurrence of

child abuse and/or

neglect

Of all children who were victims of substantiated or indicated

child abuse/neglect during the reporting period, what percentage had another substantiated or indicated report

within a 12-month period?

Reduce the incidence

of child abuse

and/or neglect in

foster care

Of all children who were in foster care during the reporting

period, what percentage was the subject of substantiated

or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility

staff?

696

TABLE 11–13.—CHILD WELFARE PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES AND RELATED

MEASURES—Continued

Outcome Measure

Increase permanency

for children in foster care

For all children who exited the child welfare system, what percentage left either to reunification, adoption, or legal

guardianship?

For children who exited the system and were identified as

having a diagnosed disability, what percentage left either

to reunification, adoption, or legal guardianship?

For children who exited the system and were age 12 or older

at the time of their most recent entry into care, what percentage left either to reunification, adoption, or legal

guardianship?

For all children who exited the system, what percentage by racial/ethnic category left either to reunification, adoption, or

legal guardianship?

Of all children exiting the system to emancipation, what percentage was age 12 or younger at the time of entry into

care?

Reduce time in foster

care to reunification without increasing reentry

Of all children who were reunified with their parents or caretakers at the time of discharge from foster care, what percentage was reunified in the following time periods: less

than 12 months from the time of the latest removal from

home; 12–23 months; 24–35 months; 36–47 months; 48 or

more months?

Of all children who entered foster care during the reporting

period, what percentage reentered care within 12 months of

a prior foster care episode?

Reduce time in foster

care to adoption

Of all children who exited care to a finalized adoption, what

percentage exited care in the following time periods: less

than 12 months from the time of latest removal from

home; 12–23 months; 24–35 months; 36–47 months; 48 or

more months?

Of all children who exited care to a finalized adoption and

who were age 3 or older at the time of entry into care,

what percentage exited care during the following time periods: less than 12 months from the time of latest removal

from home; 12–23 months; 24–35 months; 36–47 months;

48 or more months?

Increase placement

stability

Of all children served who had been in care for the time periods listed below, what percentage had no more than two

placement settings during that time period: less than 12

months from the time of latest removal from home; 12–23

months; 24–35 months; 36–47 months; 48 or more

months?

697

TABLE 11–13.—CHILD WELFARE PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES AND RELATED

MEASURES—Continued

Outcome Measure

Reduce placements

of young children

in group homes or

institutions

For all children who entered care during the reporting period

and were age 12 or younger at the time of their most recent placement, what percentage was placed in a group

home?

Source: Compiled by the Congressional Research Service from information published in the Federal

Register (1999).

FEDERAL WAIVERS OF TITLE IV–B AND IV–E

PROVISIONS

To provide States flexibility to design innovative child welfare

programs, Congress enacted a provision in 1994 (Public Law 103–

432) authorizing the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services (DHHS) to approve up to 10 demonstration

projects requiring waivers of provisions under titles IV–B and IV–

E. This authority was established by section 1130 of the Social Security Act, and was subsequently amended by the Adoption and

Safe Families Act in 1997, allowing DHHS to approve an additional

10 demonstration projects in each of fiscal years 1998–2002. The

Secretary may waive any provision of either title IV–B or title IV–

E if necessary to enable the State to carry out its demonstration

project, with some exceptions. Demonstrations are limited to 5

years and must include an evaluation component and be costneutral to the Federal Government.

As of April 2000, almost half the States had demonstration

projects approved, with some States operating more than one

project. For new waivers, DHHS is especially interested in proposals that would examine the following: performance-based systems,

integrated systems for behavioral health (substance abuse and

mental health), effective prevention and early intervention, adoption and postadoption services, service improvements for children

in the placement and care responsibility of tribes, service improvements for adolescent youth, and reunification services for adolescent youth.

Table 11–14 summarizes the waiver projects that currently have

been approved by DHHS and are in various stages of implementation. Few of these demonstrations operate statewide and few have

produced evaluation findings thus far. Almost all are designed as

5-year projects.

698

TABLE 11–14.—SUMMARY OF APPROVED STATE CHILD WELFARE WAIVER

DEMONSTRATIONS

State and date of

implementation Project description

Assisted guardianship/kinship permanence:

California

December

1998

Assisted guardianship for relatives caring for children, age 13 or

older, who have been living with the relative at least 1 year and

for whom reunification or adoption are not options. Payments equal

the basic foster care rate and children retain Medicaid eligibility.

Project goals: promote permanence and stability, reduce court and

case management costs, increase client safety, increase client satisfaction.

Delaware

July 1996

Assisted guardianship for caretakers (related or unrelated) of children, who are older than 12, in a sibling group, or have special

needs, and for whom reunification or adoption are not options.

Children must have been living with the foster caretaker at least 1

year and have a strong attachment. Payments equal the basic foster care rate, and postadoption-type services are available. Project

goals: move children more quickly to permanency, provide an additional permanency option, reduce agency involvement and costs.

Illinois

May 1997

Assisted guardianship for relative caretakers and licensed foster parents caring for children who have been in foster care at least 2

years and living with the prospective guardian at least 1 year, and

for whom reunification or adoption are not options. Payments equal

adoption assistance payments, and services may be provided.

Project goals: provide more stable placement, reduce agency intrusion in family life, reduce costs.

Maryland

February 1998

Assisted guardianship for relative caretakers of children ages 0–18

(or up to 21 if in formal education) who have been in stable relative homes at least 6 months, and for whom reunification or

adoption are not options. Payments equal $300 per month and priority for support services is given. Project goals: provide more stable placement, reduce agency intrusion in family life, reduce costs.

Montana

January–September

1999

Assisted guardianship for caretakers of children (including in tribal

custody) who are at least age 12, have lived with the prospective

guardian at least 1 year, and for whom reunification or adoption

are not options. Payments may not exceed foster care rate. Services similar to those for adoptive families, and financial and medical assistance, may be provided at the family’s request. Project

goals: reduce the number of children in long-term foster care and

placement disruptions, without increasing subsequent reports of

child abuse or neglect.

New Mexico

January–July,

2000

Assisted guardianship for caretakers of children for whom reunification or adoption are not options. (Two projects are approved; one

for children in State custody and one for children in tribal custody.) Payments are similar to and may not exceed adoption assistance. Project goals: achieve permanency more rapidly, improve

child well-being, family functioning and child and caretaker satisfaction, increase number of placements in adoption and guardianship homes, and decrease reentry into foster care.

699

TABLE 11–14.—SUMMARY OF APPROVED STATE CHILD WELFARE WAIVER

DEMONSTRATIONS—Continued

State and date of

implementation Project description

North Carolina

July 1997

Assisted guardianship for related and unrelated caretakers of children

who have lived with the prospective guardian at least 6 months,

and for whom adoption or reunification are not options. Payments

and services are similar to those offered adoptive families. (This is

part of a larger demonstration of capped allocations and local

flexibility, described below.) Project goals (of overall demonstration): reduce rate of initial entry into foster care, reduce length of

stay in foster care, reduce rate of reentry into foster care.

Oregon

July 1997 (assisted

guardianship option

approved

in June

1999)

Assisted guardianship for related and unrelated caretakers of children

who have been in foster care at least 1 year, have lived with the

prospective guardian continuously at least 6 months, are at least

12 years old if the prospective guardian is not a relative (any age

for relatives), and for whom termination of parental rights (TPR),

adoption or reunification are not options. (This is part of a larger

demonstration of capped allocations and local flexibility, described

below). Project goals (of overall demonstration): improve outcomes

for children and families and increase service efficiency, reduce

length of stay in foster care and prevent children’s placement in

foster care, reduce foster care costs by investing in services,

maintain child safety and protection.

Capped title IV–E allocations and flexibility to local agencies:

Florida

July–December 2000

Capped title IV–E funding allocations that can be used flexibly are

provided to locally controlled, nonprofit, community-based systems

of care. A local lead agency is responsible for all children referred

to the community-based system from point of referral to exit, and

assumes financial risk for service delivery. The State must develop

a catastrophic risk plan to ensure that children are not put at risk

due to bankruptcy or termination of contracts with private service

providers. Target population: children from selected counties with a

maltreatment finding who require services beyond investigation.

Project goals: improve access to services, reduce length of stay in

foster care, reduce reentry into the system, improve satisfaction

with services, reduce variability in service delivery across sites.

Indiana

January 1998

A fixed number of home-based placement slots are allocated to counties, which select children for these slots. Individually-tailored intensive services are designed by community-based teams. Each

slot has an allocation of $9,000 and the county bears the risk of

costs exceeding this amount. Target population: children with substantiated maltreatment reports who are in or at risk of foster care

placement. Project goals: improve child and family well-being, reduce placement in out-of-State facilities, improve youth and caretaker satisfaction, promote permanence.

700

TABLE 11–14.—SUMMARY OF APPROVED STATE CHILD WELFARE WAIVER

DEMONSTRATIONS—Continued

State and date of

implementation Project description

New York

originally September

1999 (to

be extended)

Participating local districts use a prospective payment system with

individually negotiated payment arrangements with service providers. Target population: children (chosen by the local district) who

can safely remain home or return from foster care with appropriate

services, and children who can benefit from adoption services.

Project goals: decrease foster care placements, increase quality

and flexibility of services, decrease reentry, expedite permanency,

increase rate of transfer to less restrictive setting.

North Carolina

July 1997

Participating counties receive allocations based on historic title IV–E

funding levels, which they can use flexibly to achieve goals of permanency, safety, and well-being. Strategies may include internal

restructuring and contracting with community-based service providers. Counties may not reduce spending below 1995–96 levels

and may enter into risk-sharing agreements with service providers.

If necessary, the State will share excess costs with counties at the

end of the demonstration. Target population: children at imminent

risk of placement. Project goals: reduce rate of initial entry into

foster care, reduce length of stay in foster care, reduce rate of reentry into foster care.

Ohio

October 1997

Participating counties receive a capped allotment based on historic

and projected costs, and may negotiate financial and risk-sharing

agreements with private providers. Funds may be used flexibly to

achieve safety, permanency and well-being outcomes. Target population: children in foster care or at risk of placement. Project

goals: reduce time in foster care, reduce placement costs, improve

stability for children, promote adoption.

Oregon

July 1997

Participating branch offices receive a title IV–E allocation based on

estimates of projected use for foster care, a portion of which can

be used flexibly for alternative services. The branch office retains

‘‘savings’’ that result; any additional foster care costs are subsidized by the State. Target population: children in foster care or

at risk of placement. Project goals: improve outcomes for children

and families and increase service efficiency, reduce length of stay

in foster care and prevent children’s placement into care, reduce

foster care costs by investing in services, maintain child safety

and protection.

701

TABLE 11–14.—SUMMARY OF APPROVED STATE CHILD WELFARE WAIVER

DEMONSTRATIONS—Continued

State and date of

implementation Project description

Managed care/capitated payment systems:

Colorado

July–December 2000

Participating counties negotiate a capitated or case rate (rate per

child) with service providers, which manage the cases of children

assigned to them. Agreements with providers may include risksharing formulas, penalties, and performance-based incentives.

Providers must accept children assigned by the county, and are responsible for outcomes. Target population: children age 10 or older

who are at risk of, or have already experienced, foster care ‘‘drift’’

and are at risk of aging out of the system without a permanent

family. Project goals: increase child safety (reduce recurrence of

maltreatment), achieve permanency more rapidly, improve child

and family functioning, decrease adoption.

Connecticut

June 1999

Participating lead service agencies receive a case rate for each child

referred to them for a 15-month period. The lead service agency

coordinates the child’s care through a network of service providers

and places children in the least restrictive setting. Providers may

retain savings up to 10 percent of the case rate and are not at

risk for excess costs up to 10 percent of the case rate. Target

population: children ages 7–15 with significant behavior problems

who are authorized for residential placement or group homes.

Project goals: reduce average length of stay in foster care, increase safety (i.e., reduce substantiated reports or abuse or neglect), increase stability in the community for the children affected, improve children’s behavioral health (based on standardized measures), increase children’s and families’ satisfaction with

department services.

Maryland

January–July

2000

Participating service providers receive a capitated rate for placement

and support services. Providers propose outcome improvements; if

improvements are achieved, providers retain savings to be used

flexibly while providers that fail to achieve improvements risk financial loss. Providers remain responsible for children who reenter

care. Target population: children entering foster care after a

dispositional hearing and any siblings already in care, children entering foster care from kinship care and any siblings already in

care; foster children age 5 and under and any siblings already in

care. Project goals: expedite permanency, reduce time in foster

care, decrease reentry into foster care.

702

TABLE 11–14.—SUMMARY OF APPROVED STATE CHILD WELFARE WAIVER

DEMONSTRATIONS—Continued

State and date of

implementation Project description

Michigan

May 1999

Community-based providers receive capped allocations ($1,545 per

month per child), to be used flexibly to achieve safety and permanency goals. Providers assume full case management responsibility. Some participating providers bear full risk for costs that exceed the capped allocation; others share risk with the State, retaining savings or covering costs within 10 percent of the case

rate. Target population: children who have formerly been in foster

care, are suitable for reunification, have been judged at risk by a

risk assessment process, and for whom the court approves an alternative treatment plan. Project goals: increase availability and

flexibility of services, reduce foster care placement, reduce time in

foster care, expedite permanency, improve child safety and wellbeing.

Texas

September

2000–

March

2001

A primary contractor receives a per-child standard monthly payment,

based on average historic costs, to cover all services and coordinate service delivery by a provider network. Incentives encourage

providers to move children to lower levels of care. Target population: children with therapeutic needs (and their siblings) who

have been removed from home due to abuse or neglect. Project

goals: improve child functioning, reduce time in foster care, decrease reentry into foster care, increase placement stability, ensure

least restrictive placement settings.

Washington

June–December 1999

A fixed payment rate is negotiated for each demonstration site, which

develops local agreements between the child welfare agency and

other systems, such as education or mental health. Local agreements specify responsibilities of each participant and local service

rate per child. Title IV–E funds may be blended with other (Medicaid or education) funds to provide comprehensive services for children to be served at home or in least restrictive community-based

setting. Risk is borne by either contractor or local service providers. Target population: children ages 8–17 in the child welfare

system, in need of mental health or special education services,

who are in temporary care or likely to enter high-cost care. Project

goals: meet safety and individual needs of children in appropriate

setting; where therapeutically indicated and appropriate, prevent

out-of-community group care settings, decrease length of stay, and

ensure placement in least restrictive setting.

703

TABLE 11–14.—SUMMARY OF APPROVED STATE CHILD WELFARE WAIVER

DEMONSTRATIONS—Continued

State and date of

implementation Project description

Intensive service options:

California

December

1998

In participating counties, title IV–E funds are used for individuallytargeted services for children and families, in addition to traditional maintenance costs. Intensive services include: family conferencing, ‘‘wraparound’’ process for children and adolescents with

complex and enduring needs, shared family care in which an entire family is temporarily placed with a host family. Target population: children at risk of removal (for family preservation and

placement prevention services), foster children moving toward reunification, adoption or guardianship (for services to expedite permanency goals). Project goals: reduce foster care placement, divert

children to less restrictive family-like placements.

District of Columbia

January–July

2000

Social workers are matched with trained neighborhood-based ‘‘community collaborative’’ workers to provide family support services to

kinship ‘‘triads’’; i.e., kinship care giver, parent, and child.

Collaboratives are partnerships intended to produce a communitybased service delivery system. Target population: children cared for

by kinship care givers, who have been in foster care an average of

3–4 years. Project goals: expedite permanency, increase stability,

increase child safety, reduce the incidence of child abuse or neglect, reduce the number of new foster care placements, increase

child well-being.

Mississippi

originally

June–December

1999 (to

be extended)

Using flexible title IV–E funds, participating counties provide ‘‘core’’

services (e.g., parent training, family counseling) and additional

services to respond to needs (e.g., respite care, temporary financial

or inkind assistance, job training, educational services, medical

care, transportation, child care, counseling, support services for

foster parents, homemaker services). Target population: children in

the child welfare system, their parents, foster or potential foster

parents, custodial relatives, siblings, adoptive or potential adoptive

parents. Project goals: reduce subsequent abuse and neglect, increase number of children remaining with their families, increase

relative placements for children placed outside the home, increase

placement of children and sibling groups in their home communities, decrease foster care placements, decrease time in foster

care, increase child well-being.

Permanency efforts:

California

December

1998

Voluntary placement agreements (without court orders) may be extended from 6 to 12 months, while retaining title IV–E eligibility.

Target population: children who have been placed voluntarily,

would otherwise become dependents of the court, who can likely

return home safely during the extended time period. Project goals:

reduce long-term foster care costs, achieve permanence more rapidly, increase/maintain levels of child safety, avoid court processes.

704

TABLE 11–14.—SUMMARY OF APPROVED STATE CHILD WELFARE WAIVER

DEMONSTRATIONS—Continued

State and date of

implementation Project description

Maine

April 1999

Expanded training is provided for social workers, mental health and

other professionals who work with adoptive families, to provide

postadoption support services. Target population: families adopting

special-needs children (for services; training provided Statewide).

Project goals: increase number of special-needs adoptions, decrease disruptions of special-needs adoptions, decrease length of

stay in foster care, strengthen adoptive families.

Texas

September

2000–

March

2001

Enhanced adoption services for children with special needs are provided. Target population: children for whom petition to terminate

parental rights has been filed, or for whom parental rights have

been terminated, families interested in adopting special-needs

children. Project goals: increase pool of adoptive families, increase

number of children leaving foster care for adoption, reduce time in

care prior to adoption, reduce disruption and dissolution rates.

Substance abuse services:

Delaware

February 1997

Contracted substance abuse counselors are colocated with child protection workers; accompany child protection workers on initial visits; with the child protection worker, assess the substance abuse

problem and its impact on parenting; conduct or arrange for substance abuse evaluations; and stay connected to families through

treatment. Savings are used to pay for the counselors. Target population: children in foster care or likely to enter foster care due to

parental substance abuse. Project goals: prevent foster care, reduce number of days in foster care.

Illinois

October

1999–June

2000

Recovery coach services are provided in addition to traditional child

welfare and substance abuse services, assisting families early in

the treatment process and providing continuing support during and

after treatment to prevent relapse and enable family reunification.

Some participants receive enhanced services in addition to the recovery coach. Target population: custodial parents with a child

who enters placement. Project goals: increase rate of reunification,

reduce length of stay in foster care, reduce reallegations of abuse

or neglect, increase successful completion of parental substance

abuse treatment.

Maryland

January–July

2000

Family support services teams provide comprehensive coordinated

services. Treatment options include inpatient treatment for parents

and their children; intermediate (28-day residential) care, or intensive outpatient treatment. Core services include case management,

individual, group and family therapy. Additional services may be

provided. Title IV–E funds are used when Medicaid or other

sources are not available. Target population: parents who have lost

custody or are at risk of losing custody of their children due to

substance abuse. Project goals: reduce reallegations of abuse or

neglect, reduce time in foster care, increase successful completion

of substance abuse treatment, enable mothers to assume a

healthy parenting role.

705

TABLE 11–14.—SUMMARY OF APPROVED STATE CHILD WELFARE WAIVER

DEMONSTRATIONS—Continued

State and date of

implementation Project description

New Hampshire

November

1999

A substance abuse specialist trains child protection investigators and

supervisors on screening and identifying parents with substance

abuse problems; evaluates parents identified by child protection

investigators; if needed, refers families to counseling and treatment, assists with case planning, collaborates with corrections departments, and provides intensive case management. Target population: families with credible reports of abuse or neglect due to

parental substance abuse. Project goals: prevent placement in foster care, reduce time in foster care, reduce subsequent abuse or

neglect reports, and reduce foster care costs by improving parents’

recovery from substance abuse and use of available services and

improving stability and adjustment of children in substance-abusing families.

West Virginia

June–December 2000

Teams of child protection workers and substance abuse outreach specialists coordinate services for families affected by substance

abuse. Parents identify temporary informal care givers for their

children (up to 60 days) while the parent receives inpatient and/or

residential substance abuse treatment. Child protection workers

assess appropriateness of informal care givers and conduct criminal background checks; licensed providers supply temporary care if

relatives or friends are not available. Caretakers receive payments

no higher than foster care rate. Target population: children likely

to enter foster care due to maternal substance abuse. Project

goals: expedite family reunification, reduce number of children entering formal foster care, increase number of mothers successfully

completing substance abuse treatment.

Tribal administration of title IV–E funds:

New Mexico

January–July

2000

Administration of foster care maintenance, adoption and independent

living services is fully delegated to the tribal government. Target

population: children in the custody of tribes that do not already

have agreements with the State as allowed under current law.

Project goals: increase capacity of tribes to protect and care for

their children without subordination to State oversight, promote

and improve permanency.

Source: Compiled by the Congressional Research Service from information available from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

RECENT TRENDS AFFECTING CHILD WELFARE

POPULATIONS AND PROGRAMS

Certain social problems and trends are inextricably linked with

the child welfare system and its clients, and data and information

on these issues are sometimes used as indicators of the need for

child protection and preventive services for families. Most children

enter foster care as a result of child abuse or neglect; thus, data

on the incidence and trends of maltreatment are of great interest

706

to child welfare practitioners and policymakers. Likewise, substance abuse is cited as a factor in many of the cases coming to the

attention of child welfare agencies, so that information on substance abuse among families with children and responses to the

problem of substance abuse is also of interest. Kinship care also is

a phenomenon that has had a significant impact on the child welfare system. In addition, as a major policy change affecting low-income families with children, the welfare reform law of 1996 has implications for both the child welfare system and its clients. These

issues are described briefly below.

CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT

Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act

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). CAPTA provides formula grants to States to help support

their child protective service systems ($21 million in fiscal year

2000), in exchange for which States must comply with various requirements related to the reporting, investigation, and treatment of

child maltreatment cases. The law also authorizes Federal discretionary research and demonstration projects ($18 million in fiscal

year 2000), grants to States for community-based family resource

and support services ($33 million in fiscal year 2000), and grants

to States to improve investigation and prosecution of child maltreatment cases (funded through a set-aside of the victims of crime

fund).

As amended most recently in 1996 (Public Law 104–235), CAPTA

requires States to have procedures for reporting known or suspected cases of child abuse or neglect, for investigating such reports, and for taking immediate steps to protect children who

might be in danger. The law requires States to provide immunity

from prosecution for individuals who make good faith reports of

suspected abuse or neglect, and to provide confidentiality of

records. States also must have procedures for public disclosure of

information about cases of abuse or neglect which result in a child’s

death or near-death. State CAPTA plans must provide for cooperation with law enforcement officials, courts, and human service

agencies, and for the expungement of records in cases that are false

or unsubstantiated. Further, States must appoint a guardian ad

litem, who may be an attorney or court-appointed special advocate,

to represent children in judicial proceedings.

The 1996 law required States to establish citizen review panels,

composed of volunteer community representatives, to evaluate

State and local child protection activities. In addition, the law required States (within 2 years of the law’s enactment) to have procedures for expedited termination of parental rights (TPR) in any

case of an abandoned infant, and to have procedures for individuals

to appeal an official finding of abuse or neglect. Also within 2 years

of enactment, States were required to provide that family reunificaVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 00706 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.011 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
707

tion would be not be required for a surviving child with a parent

who had committed or aided in the murder or voluntary manslaughter of another of their children, or who had committed a felony assault that resulted in serious bodily injury to any of their

children. States were required to provide that conviction of any of

these felonies would constitute grounds for TPR. CAPTA also requires States to have procedures for responding to cases of medical

neglect.

Child abuse and neglect statistics

The 1996 CAPTA amendments required States to submit annual

aggregate data to DHHS on child maltreatment for inclusion in the

National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS). States

with the capacity to do so may also submit case-level data.

NCANDS was established by the 1988 amendments to CAPTA and

has published annual reports each year beginning with 1990, although prior to the 1996 amendments States participated in

NCANDS on a voluntary basis. Other sources of national data on

child maltreatment have included the American Association for

Protecting Children (of the American Humane Association), which

collected information from 1976 to 1987, and Prevent Child Abuse

America (formerly called the National Committee to Prevent Child

Abuse), which has been conducting an annual survey of States

since 1986. Finally, DHHS has periodically funded the National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS), which collects

data on children who have been investigated by child protection

agencies, but also includes information from community professionals on children who were either not reported to child welfare

agencies or whose cases were not investigated. The NIS has been

conducted three times, in 1980, 1986, and 1993.

The latest data available from NCANDS are for 1998, and include aggregate data from all States and the District of Columbia

and case-level data from 20 States. (It is anticipated that 27 States

will submit case-level data for 1999 and that 29 States will submit

these data for 2000.) Data for 1998 show that 2.8 million reports

of possible maltreatment were made to child welfare agencies in

that year (U.S. Department, 2000). Approximately two-thirds of

these reports were investigated, and 903,000 children were estimated to have been victims of abuse or neglect, for an incidence

rate of 12.9 per 1,000 children. These numbers mark a continuation

of a downward trend that began in 1993, when more than 1 million

children were substantiated as victims, for an incidence rate of 15.3

per 1,000 children. Table 11–15 shows NCANDS data on the incidence of children alleged to have been victims, and substantiated

or indicated victimization, by State, in 1994 and 1998, and the percent change between those years. Chart 11–1 illustrates nationwide

changes in these incidence rates between 1990, when NCANDS

began, and 1998.

708

TABLE 11–15.—INCIDENCE OF CHILD MALTREATMENT ALLEGATIONS AND

VICTIMIZATION, BY STATE, 1994–98

State

Children alleged to

be victims per

1,000 children

Percentage

change in

allegation

rate,

1994–98

Child victims per

1,000 children

Percentage

change in

victimization rate,

1994 1998 1994–98 1994 1998

Alabama ........................... 37.4 33.1 ¥11 20.1 15.4 ¥24

Alaska .............................. 53.5 58.9 10 36.0 37.1 3

Arizona ............................. 43.4 48.0 11 26.3 7.1 ¥73

Arkansas .......................... 28.7 45.2 58 12.3 13.1 6

California ......................... 51.9 46.4 ¥11 18.4 17.7 ¥4

Colorado ........................... 1 43.3 37.6 ¥13 1 15.2 6.7 ¥56

Connecticut ...................... 47.2 51.7 10 35.2 21.4 ¥39

Delaware .......................... 53.6 54.1 1 14.4 16.2 12

District of Columbia ........ 117.3 95.8 ¥18 49.4 47.7 ¥3

Florida .............................. 50.2 52.8 5 23.5 23.2 ¥1

Georgia ............................. 47.8 36.7 ¥23 33.9 12.1 ¥64

Hawaii .............................. 19.6 12.0 ¥39 7.9 7.3 ¥7

Idaho ................................ 100.9 76.0 ¥25 27.8 22.6 ¥19

Illinois .............................. 45.6 34.7 ¥24 17.2 11.2 ¥35

Indiana ............................. 42.4 67.3 59 17.2 12.5 ¥27

Iowa ................................. 43.1 38.9 ¥10 12.7 10.1 ¥20

Kansas ............................. 49.4 38.4 ¥22 5.3 7.6 43

Kentucky ........................... 61.4 64.2 4 26.8 23.1 ¥14

Louisiana ......................... 36.5 38.0 4 12.2 11.6 ¥5

Maine ............................... 29.2 31.0 6 15.6 12.3 ¥21

Maryland .......................... 1 43.3 43.5 0 1 15.2 11.1 ¥27

Massachusetts ................. 39.7 36.3 ¥9 16.9 18.9 12

Michigan .......................... 54.5 61.3 12 8.7 8.9 2

Minnesota ........................ 23.0 19.7 ¥14 8.5 8.4 ¥1

Mississippi ....................... 36.0 42.8 19 10.6 8.0 ¥24

Missouri ........................... 62.9 53.4 ¥15 11.6 8.9 ¥23

Montana ........................... 57.8 84.7 47 17.9 14.7 ¥18

Nebraska .......................... 39.9 32.9 ¥18 10.3 9.5 ¥8

Nevada ............................. 1 43.3 49.7 15 21.3 17.2 ¥19

New Hampshire ................ 1 43.3 30.1 ¥31 3.6 3.9 8

New Jersey ....................... 34.0 38.2 12 4.9 4.9 1

New Mexico ...................... 50.9 26.6 ¥48 15.0 8.4 ¥44

New York .......................... 46.9 53.4 14 12.2 18.6 52

North Carolina ................. 54.1 65.6 21 17.1 19.5 14

North Dakota .................... 45.5 43.7 ¥4 21.2 0.0 ¥100

Ohio .................................. 55.1 47.7 ¥13 21.7 20.4 ¥6

Oklahoma ......................... 40.1 68.6 71 12.5 18.9 51

Oregon .............................. 1 43.3 33.5 ¥23 10.1 12.3 22

Pennsylvania .................... 8.2 7.9 ¥4 2.4 1.9 ¥23

Rhode Island .................... 61.0 41.5 ¥32 13.7 14.5 6

South Carolina ................. 42.9 39.9 ¥7 12.3 8.8 ¥29

South Dakota ................... 49.3 26.4 ¥46 9.3 13.2 41

Tennessee ........................ 26.9 24.2 ¥10 9.4 7.5 ¥21

Texas ................................ 32.9 30.7 ¥7 10.5 7.1 ¥32

Utah ................................. 43.4 38.8 ¥11 15.6 11.4 ¥27

Vermont ............................ 20.6 14.0 ¥32 8.4 6.3 ¥25

709

TABLE 11–15.—INCIDENCE OF CHILD MALTREATMENT ALLEGATIONS AND

VICTIMIZATION, BY STATE, 1994–98—Continued

State

Children alleged to

be victims per

1,000 children

Percentage

change in

allegation

rate,

1994–98

Child victims per

1,000 children

Percentage

change in

victimization rate,

1994 1998 1994–98 1994 1998

Virginia ............................ 35.3 29.8 ¥15 6.4 5.9 ¥8

Washington ...................... 40.8 32.1 ¥21 1 15.2 8.8 ¥42

West Virginia ................... 1 43.3 159.5 268 1 15.2 19.3 27

Wisconsin ......................... 35.5 16.5 ¥54 13.6 6.0 ¥55

Wyoming ........................... 1 43.3 17.1 ¥61 1 15.2 6.2 ¥59

Total ................... 43.3 42.5 ¥2 15.2 12.9 ¥15

1 Based on estimates.

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service using data provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The long-term trend in child abuse reporting has been one of

substantial growth, with the number of maltreatment reports more

than quadrupling since 1976. However, increased reporting does

not necessarily mean an equivalent increase in actual abuse or neglect. It is generally agreed that some part of the dramatic growth

in reporting over the last two to three decades is due to greater

public awareness and recognition of child abuse and neglect, especially since the 1960s and 1970s when States enacted mandatory

CHART 11–1. INCIDENCE RATE OF CHILD MALTREATMENT ALLEGATIONS AND

VICTIMIZATION, 1990–98

Source: Chart prepared by the Congressional Research Service using data provided by the U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services.

710

reporting laws. Moreover, not all reports are substantiated. In fact,

the proportion of child maltreatment reports that are substantiated

has grown smaller over time. According to NCANDS data, 29 percent of investigations in 1998 resulted in victim determinations,

compared to 39 percent in 1990. Looking at data from earlier

sources, 65 percent of child abuse or neglect reports were substantiated in 1976. However, researchers and professionals agree that

not all children who are victims of abuse or neglect are reported

to child welfare agencies. According to the most recent NIS survey,

more than 1.5 million children were victims of abuse or neglect in

1993 under the ‘‘harm’’ standard (i.e., children who have suffered

demonstrable harm by objective measures), for a 67 percent increase from 1986, and a 149 percent increase from 1980 (Sedlak &

Broadhurst, 1996). The NIS also found that 2.8 million children

could be counted in 1993 under the ‘‘endangerment’’ standard (a

more subjective measure, including children who were not actually

harmed but might be considered at risk), which was almost double

the number counted in 1986. The endangerment standard was not

used in the 1980 NIS.

Of child victims in 1998, almost 54 percent experienced neglect,

while 23 percent were physically abused. Almost 12 percent were

sexual abuse victims, 6 percent had been psychologically abused,

and about 2 percent had suffered from medical neglect. Other

forms of maltreatment were found for 25 percent of child victims

in 1998, with some children falling into more than one of these categories. According to NCANDS data, the number of children who

died in 1998 as a result of substantiated abuse or neglect was

about 1,100, which was virtually unchanged from 1997 and 1996,

although below the peak of 1,240 in 1994. However, in 1995, the

U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect estimated that

2,000 children under age 18 are actually killed by parents or caretakers each year, and suggested that this might be a low estimate

(U.S. Advisory Board, 1995).

SUBSTANCE ABUSE

Substance abuse has received considerable attention as one of

the major challenges facing the child welfare system, especially in

the last 10–15 years. It is widely believed that the dramatic increase in foster care placements in the mid to late 1980s resulted,

at least in part, from the introduction of crack cocaine. Children

born drug exposed often enter substitute care shortly after birth,

either because of their own medical problems or because of abuse

or neglect by their parents. However, children exposed prenatally

to drugs or alcohol are a small portion of the children affected by

parental substance abuse. Children of all ages typically enter foster

care because of child abuse or neglect, and substance abuse is a

factor in the majority of these cases.

According to a 1990 publication by the Committee on Ways and

Means, New York City officials blamed 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. Crack

cocaine had an especially significant impact on the number of very

young infants entering foster care at birth during the late 1980s.

From a survey of women who gave birth during 1992–93, the NaVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 00710 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.011 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
711

tional Institute on Drug Abuse estimated that 221,000 women who

gave birth during that period used illegal drugs while pregnant (5.5

percent of a total of 4 million women). Marijuana and cocaine were

the most frequently used illegal drugs (2.9 percent for marijuana;

1.1 percent for cocaine). The survey also estimated that 820,000

women (20.4 percent of all women who gave birth during the period) had smoked cigarettes while pregnant, and 757,000 women

(18.8 percent of the total) drank alcohol (National Institute, 1995).

Cocaine abuse appears to have declined from 1985, when 5.7 million Americans reported being current users, to the latest available

level of 1.7 million Americans in 1997 (National Institute, 1999).

However, there has been no significant change in the number of

frequent cocaine users (682,000 Americans in 1997) since 1985, and

no significant change in the number of current crack users (604,000

in 1997) since 1988. In a report mandated by Congress and released in 1999, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) looked at data from several sources and concluded

that a substantial number of children (8.3 million) live with substance abusing parents (U.S. Department, 1999a). AfricanAmerican parents have higher rates of illegal drug abuse than

white parents, especially for cocaine, and substance abusing parents in general have less education, are less likely to be working

full time, are less likely to be married, and more likely to be receiving welfare than other parents. Of all forms of parental substance

abuse, alcohol abuse is the most prevalent. Although relatively few

of the children in substance abusing families ever come into contact

with the child welfare system, substance abuse is a major factor in

the child welfare caseload. For children with substantiated reports

of abuse or neglect, DHHS found that substance abuse is a factor

in between one-third and two-thirds of cases, and is a factor in twothirds of the cases of children in foster care. While mothers and fathers are equally represented in substance abusing households

with children, mothers more typically come to the attention of the

child welfare system.

The DHHS study identified various barriers to meeting the needs

of child welfare clients with substance abuse problems, including

the different perspectives and philosophies of the substance abuse

treatment and child welfare fields. For example, differences exist

with regard to the definition of ‘‘client,’’ the establishment of reasonable expectations for outcomes and timetables, and responses to

setbacks in treatment. Additional barriers cited by DHHS include

certain Federal and State laws, the crisis environment affecting

many child welfare agencies, shortages of substance abuse treatment facilities, the particular shortage of services appropriate for

women with children, and confidentiality requirements. DHHS

identified certain key features as important components of a comprehensive approach to addressing joint substance abuse and child

maltreatment problems, including preventive services for children,

training for caseworkers, enhanced risk assessment and referral capacity, increased access to substance abuse treatment, client retention, recognition of the importance of permanency for children, and

support for ongoing recovery.

712

KINSHIP CARE

The number of children living with relatives who are not their

parents has increased in recent years, especially among minority

populations. In the child welfare system, States increased their use

of relatives as foster care providers for 18 percent of foster children

in 1986 to 31 percent in 1990, according to data from 25 States

submitted to the DHHS Inspector General (Office, 1992). Several

recent studies shed light on the characteristics of these children

and their families.

A study for DHHS in 1997 reported on formal and informal kinship care; in other words, ‘‘formal’’ placements of children with relatives by the court or a child welfare agency versus ‘‘informal’’ arrangements in which relatives care for children without government intervention (U.S. Department, 1997). Based on Current Population Survey data, the contractors (Chapin Hall and the Urban

Institute) found 2.15 million children living with relatives without

a parent present in 1994. The report found that among these arrangements generally, two-thirds of care givers were the child’s

grandparents and about half were married. Of single relative care

givers, more than 85 percent were female. Kinship care givers were

much older than parents caring for their own children, and more

likely to be unmarried, have less education, be unemployed or out

of the labor force, be poor, or receive welfare benefits. Based on administrative data from four States (California, Illinois, New York

and Missouri), the report found that informal kinship care is more

common than formal care, with only about 15 percent of kinship

children in these States in a formal foster care placement. Younger

children were more likely to be in formal kinship care arrangements than older children. The study also found that formal kinship care was largely an urban phenomenon in these States. New

York and Missouri had virtually no formal kinship care outside

their major city; in California and Illinois, formal kinship care also

was concentrated in their major city and a few other counties. In

each State, African-American children were more likely to be in

kinship care and were eight times as likely as all other children to

be in formal kinship care placements.

A 1998 report for DHHS by Macro International examined kinship care in seven States (California, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland,

Minnesota, New York, and Utah). This report found that all seven

States had policies that explicitly favored kinship foster care over

care by nonrelatives, and most allowed relatives to be licensed or

certified and receive title IV–E foster care subsidies (U.S. Department, 1998). At the time of the study in 1995, the seven States

combined had an equal number of children placed with relatives

and nonrelatives. During the previous 5 years, the total number of

foster children in these States had increased, almost entirely within the kinship care component. The report found that case management practices were generally the same for relative and nonrelative

foster parents in the seven States, and similar services were provided with some exceptions. For example, nonrelated foster parents

were more likely to receive training, respite care, and have support

groups available, while relative caretakers were more likely to receive funds to meet emergencies. When family reunification was

713

not possible for the child, caseworkers in the seven States encouraged relatives to seek legal custody, guardianship, or subsidized

adoption.

The Urban Institute surveyed foster care administrators in 1997

to obtain information on State kinship care policies and found considerable variation among States (Boots & Geen, 1999). Almost all

States gave preference to relatives over nonrelative foster care providers, but policies differed with regard to the definition of an eligible ‘‘relative.’’ In some States, this category included neighbors,

godparents, or other adults with a close but not blood relationship

with the child. Licensing policy also varied among States, particularly with regard to the stringency of requirements applied to relative care givers. Ten States required kinship care givers to meet

the same licensing standards as nonrelative foster parents; however, the remaining 41 States also offered relatives a more flexible

option (e.g., less stringent licensing criteria, waiver of certain licensing criteria, or special licensing criteria established specifically

for relatives). In addition, some States offered relatives the option

of meeting only minimal requirements (generally safety-related),

which meant they could not receive a foster care stipend, but could

potentially qualify for a welfare payment. In general, payments

made to kinship care givers varied according to the type of licensing they received. Relatives who met the same licensing requirements as nonrelatives were generally eligible to receive the same

foster care payment. Of 41 States that offered less stringent licensing options, 21 continued to pay the full foster care rate to relatives

covered by these options, while most of the remaining States only

offered welfare assistance. Finally, based on their National Survey

of America’s Families, the Urban Institute estimated about 200,000

children are currently in formal kinship care, or about 10 percent

of the total number of children living with relatives without their

parents present.

The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) reported in 1999 on

quality and permanency issues raised by kinship care. Looking at

open foster care cases in California and Illinois, as of September

1997, GAO found the quality of kinship care and other foster care

was good and the experiences of children in both types of settings

were comparable. GAO’s review confirmed the generally held view

that children in kinship care have more stability than children in

other forms of foster care, but also found that caseworkers had

somewhat less confidence that kinship care givers would enforce

court-ordered restrictions on parental visits with their children. In

addition, the two States held kinship care givers to somewhat

lower standards than other foster parents and provided a lower

level of support to these families as well. Kinship care children in

California spent about the same length of time in foster care as

other foster children, while kinship care children in Illinois spent

significantly less time in the system, according to GAO.

Most recently, DHHS released a report to Congress on kinship

care in response to a mandate in the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act (U.S. Department, 2000b). The report included a research

review, and also identified the following principles to guide policy

discussions on kinship care: the child welfare system should continue to focus on safety, permanency, and well-being of children;

714

kinship placement decisions should be based on the best interests

of the child; the child welfare system should not supplant family

efforts or income assistance programs; and relatives should be

viewed as potential resources but should be assessed on a case-bycase basis.

WELFARE REFORM

Congress enacted landmark welfare reform legislation in 1996,

the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation

Act (Public Law 104–193), which has been of great interest to child

welfare practitioners, researchers, and policymakers because of its

potential implications for the child welfare system and its clients.

The 1996 law replaced the 61-year-old program of Aid to Families

with Dependent Children (AFDC) with a State-administered block

grant of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Receipt

of public assistance now is time limited and conditioned on participation in work activities (see section 7).

The 1996 legislation had an immediate programmatic impact on

child welfare agencies because of the legal connection between

AFDC eligibility and title IV–E foster care and adoption assistance.

As explained earlier, the law now limits title IV–E funding to those

children who would have been eligible for the former AFDC Program as it existed on July 16, 1996. Thus, States must maintain

these eligibility criteria, even though AFDC has been repealed, for

use in determining title IV–E (and Medicaid) eligibility. Some analysts have observed that over time, these eligibility criteria could

erode in value and the number of foster and adoptive children for

whom States can claim Federal reimbursement may decrease.

The financing of welfare reform also has potential implications

for child welfare. The law replaced an open-ended entitlement program with a capped block grant, while allowing foster care and

adoption assistance under title IV–E to remain uncapped. There is

overlap between the populations served by TANF and title IV–E,

raising the possibility that States might have an incentive to shift

expenditures from TANF to the open-ended title IV–E program,

particularly for kinship care families who might be able to meet

Federal title IV–E eligibility criteria. In fact, a significant number

of children receiving TANF benefits are ‘‘child-only’’ cases (see section 7), which means the adult in the household is not part of the

assistance unit. In some cases, the adult may be a parent who is

not eligible for TANF benefits because of immigration status or another reason, but some portion of these children are living with relatives who are not their parents. Both welfare and child welfare

analysts are particularly interested in the dynamics of this population and the extent to which these children and families resemble

those in formal kinship foster care arrangements.

Beyond these issues, child welfare professionals are closely

watching the implementation of welfare reform to determine its impact on the well-being of children and families, especially as measured through changes in the incidence of child maltreatment or

entry into foster care. Although relatively few welfare families ever

come into contact with the child welfare system, a disproportionately large share of child welfare clients receive or have received

cash assistance. Thus, changes in welfare programs that affect a

715

small percentage of clients may have a significant impact on the

size of the child welfare population and the workload of the child

welfare system. DHHS recently reported on the interaction between welfare assistance (specifically, receipt of AFDC), Medicaid,

and foster care prior to enactment of welfare reform (U.S. Department, 2000a). Using administrative data from California, Illinois,

and North Carolina in 1995–96, DHHS found that less than 3 percent of children who entered AFDC during the study period were

subsequently placed in foster care. However, about 60 percent of

the foster care entries in the three States during the study period

were from AFDC families. Infants were more likely to enter foster

care from an AFDC family than children ages 15–17 and, if they

were placed in foster care, they generally entered care within the

first 10 months of receiving welfare. These findings may provide a

rough baseline for later research on the transition of welfare recipients to foster care after enactment and implementation of the Federal welfare reform law.

Numerous evaluations are currently underway on the impact of

welfare reform on various outcomes, including the transition of welfare recipients to work, the family formation patterns of welfare recipients, and the economic status of families receiving or formerly

receiving welfare (see appendix L). These evaluations have produced limited findings so far on the impact of welfare reform on

child welfare-related outcomes; however, additional findings are expected in the near future. Moreover, as the welfare rolls have declined in recent years, many States are conducting ‘‘leaver’’ studies

to learn about the circumstances of these families after their TANF

benefits end. Some of the leaver studies have examined the extent

to which children in former welfare families become involved with

the child welfare system after the family’s cash assistance ends. As

of yet, no significant findings on this outcome have emerged, although these studies will continue and may identify trends in the

future. In the interim, some analysts have explored potential impacts by looking at data on previous welfare recipients. For instance, Kristen Shook (1999) at Northwestern University attempted to examine the effect of a reduction in welfare income on

the likelihood of a family’s involvement with child welfare by

studying data on AFDC recipients in the Chicago area during a 16-

month period in 1995–96. Shook found that a reduction in welfare

income was associated with higher risk of child welfare involvement. This relationship was partially offset by an increase in employment income, but was exacerbated by other stressful life

events, such as housing or similar environmental problems, birth

of another baby, or health issues.

Another recent study, by the National Bureau of Economic Research, examined the relationship between child maltreatment and

the economic circumstances of parents using State-level data from

several sources on child maltreatment (Paxson & Waldfogel, 1999).

In this case, researchers found that States with higher proportions

of very poor children, children with absent fathers (especially those

with absent fathers and working mothers), or nonworking fathers,

also had higher rates of child maltreatment. Reductions in State

welfare benefits were associated with higher rates of child neglect

and foster care, but with small decreases in physical abuse (posVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 00715 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.011 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
716

sibly because of changes in household composition and parental

employment).

These studies suggest that welfare reform has significant implications for child welfare clients and services because of its potential

impact on family formation patterns, parental employment, amount

and composition of household income, poverty status, and other socioeconomic circumstances that may be associated with family dysfunction and child maltreatment. However, as of spring 2000, few

studies are available on the impact of welfare reform on child welfare-related measures.

NATIONAL FOSTER CARE AND ADOPTION

INFORMATION

DATA COLLECTION SYSTEMS

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, before 1980 States were not 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 the 1980 legislation, DHHS

wrote detailed guidelines for the implementation of these requirements, which were published as an interim final rule on December

31, 1980. However, DHHS withdrew these regulations the following

March, stating that the Office of Management and Budget 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.

Starting in 1982, DHHS funded the American Public Human

Services Association (APHSA, formerly the American Public Welfare Association) to conduct a voluntary annual survey of States,

known as the Voluntary Cooperative Information System (VCIS).

Until recently, VCIS was the only source of national data on the

number and characteristics of children in foster and adoptive care.

However, the VCIS was of limited use for several reasons: (1) not

all States participated fully in the survey; (2) reporting periods

were not consistent among States; (3) there was a serious time lag

between data collection and publication; and (4) data were available only in an aggregated, State-specific format, preventing the

type of analysis that could be conducted with case-specific data.

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 DHHS with recommendations for establishing, adVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 00716 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.011 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
717

ministering, 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 DHHS 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, DHHS submitted an implementation plan to Congress. On September 27, 1990, DHHS 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.

In 1993, as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (Public Law 103–66), Congress 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 specified that this enhanced match of 75 percent

was 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

did the following: complied with DHHS regulations; to the extent

practicable, interfaced with State child abuse and neglect data collection systems and with AFDC (now TANF) data collection systems; and provided more efficient, economical, and effective administration of State Child Welfare Programs, as determined by

DHHS. The law also provided that ongoing operational costs of

State data collection and information retrieval systems are

matched at the 50 percent Federal rate available for administrative

expenses under title IV–E. Further, the amendment specified 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, DHHS published two sets of rules in the

Federal Register: interim final rules for Statewide 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 were

required to develop ‘‘comprehensive’’ child welfare data collection

systems, of which AFCARS must be a component, in order to qualify for Federal funding, including the 75 percent enhanced match.

According to DHHS, ‘‘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.

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 TANF, Medicaid, child support

718

enforcement, and the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data

System (NCANDS) (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 statutory child 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 costbeneficial) 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.

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 DHHS twice a year. Full penalties for noncompliance with AFCARS requirements can be imposed for reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 1998.

Table 11–16 shows the status of State SACWIS projects and

those States that submitted detailed case data to NCANDS for

1998.

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

7.7 per 1,000 in 1999. The incidence of children in foster care fluctuated during the 1960s and 1970s. However, the incidence of children in foster care in 1982 was 3.9 per 1,000—exactly the same as

20 years earlier. 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 5.6 per 1,000. The incidence has continued

to rise to an estimated 7.7 per 1,000 in 1999, the most recent year

for which data are available (table 11–17).

719

TABLE 11–16.—STATUS OF STATE PARTICIPATION IN CHILD WELFARE DATA COLLECTION

SYSTEMS

Status of information system States

Operating (or partially operating) SACWIS (as of

February 2000).

Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware,

District of Columbia, Idaho (partial), Indiana, Iowa,

Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska,

New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York (partial),

North Dakota (partial), Oklahoma, Rhode Island,

South Dakota (partial), Texas, Virginia, Washington,

West Virginia, Wisconsin (partial), Wyoming

Implementing SACWIS (as of

February 2000).

Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Oregon, South Carolina,

Tennessee, Utah

Planning SACWIS (as of

February 2000).

Alaska, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, New Jersey,

Ohio

No SACWIS activity reported

(as of February 2000).

Hawaii, Louisiana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Vermont

Submitted detailed case

data to NCANDS for 1998.

Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York,

North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming

Source: Compiled by the Congressional Research Service, from data obtained from the U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services.

TABLE 11–17.—U.S. FOSTER CARE AND IV–E FOSTER CARE POPULATIONS AND FOSTER

CARE INCIDENCE IN U.S. POPULATION AGES 0–18, 1962–99

Year

U.S. foster care

population (end

of fiscal year) 1

IV–E foster care

children (average

monthly number) 2

U.S. foster

children per

1,000 in U.S.

population

ages 0–18 3

1962 ....................................................... 272,000 989 3.9

1963 ....................................................... 276,000 2,308 3.9

1964 ....................................................... 287,000 4,081 4.0

1965 ....................................................... 300,000 5,623 4.1

1966 ....................................................... 309,400 7,385 4.2

1967 ....................................................... 309,600 8,030 4.2

1968 ....................................................... 316,200 8,500 4.3

1969 ....................................................... 320,000 16,750 4.3

1970 ....................................................... 326,000 34,450 4.4

1971 ....................................................... 330,400 57,075 4.5

1972 ....................................................... 319,800 71,118 4.4

1973 ....................................................... NA 84,097 NA

1974 ....................................................... NA 90,000 NA

1975 ....................................................... NA 106,869 NA

1976 ....................................................... NA 114,962 NA

1977 ....................................................... NA 110,494 NA

1978 ....................................................... NA 106,504 NA

1979 ....................................................... NA 103,771 NA

720

TABLE 11–17.—U.S. FOSTER CARE AND IV–E FOSTER CARE POPULATIONS AND FOSTER

CARE INCIDENCE IN U.S. POPULATION AGES 0–18, 1962–99—Continued

Year

U.S. foster care

population (end

of fiscal year) 1

IV–E foster care

children (average

monthly number) 2

U.S. foster

children per

1,000 in U.S.

population

ages 0–18 3

1980 ....................................................... 302,000 100,272 4.4

1981 ....................................................... 274,000 104,851 4.1

1982 ....................................................... 4 262,000 97,309 3.9

1983 ....................................................... 4 269,000 93,360 4.0

1984 ....................................................... 4 276,000 102,051 4.1

1985 ....................................................... 4 276,000 109,122 4.1

1986 ....................................................... 4 280,000 110,749 4.2

1987 ....................................................... 4 300,000 118,549 4.5

1988 ....................................................... 4 340,000 132,757 5.0

1989 ....................................................... 4 387,000 156,871 5.6

1990 ....................................................... 4 400,000 167,981 5.9

1991 ....................................................... 4 414,000 202,687 6.0

1992 ....................................................... 4 427,000 223,315 6.1

1993 ....................................................... 4 445,000 231,100 6.3

1994 ....................................................... 4 468,000 245,000 6.6

1995 ....................................................... 4 483,000 260,800 6.7

1996 (estimate) ..................................... 5 507,000 273,600 7.0

1997 (estimate) ..................................... 5 537,000 289,400 7.3

1998 (estimate) ..................................... 5 560,000 306,500 7.6

1999 (estimate) ..................................... 5 568,000 304,422 7.7

1 Data from Child Welfare Research Notes #8 (July 1984), published by the Administration for Children,

Youth, and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 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 the Administration for Children, Youth, and Families in 1978,

for 1977 data; and the Office of Civil Rights, DHHS, 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 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

(1996–99). 4 American Public Welfare Association (now the American Public Human Services Association).

5 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

NA—Not available.

Source: Compiled by staff of the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Congressional Research Service.

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. Between 1983 and

1998, the number of foster care children funded under title IV–E

has increased steadily (table 11–17).

More detailed information is available on trends in foster care

caseloads in certain States through the Multistate Foster Care

Data Archive at the Chapin Hall Center for Children. Using State

administrative data, Chapin Hall has conducted analyses of foster

721

care dynamics from 1983 through 1997 (Wulczyn, Brunner, &

Goerge, 1999). Current participants are Alabama, California, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New Mexico, New York,

Ohio, and Wisconsin, although not all States have participated in

the archive for all years. In general, the data show that in recent

years caseload growth has become more a function of longer

lengths of stay and changes in the composition of the caseload,

rather than the marked increases in admissions that characterized

the late 1980s.

Looking at the number of children in care at a given point in

time, Chapin Hall found different patterns among States, although

virtually all States that submitted data for the late 1980s showed

growth during that period. For five States (California, Illinois,

Michigan, Missouri, and New York), net caseload growth was the

highest between 1988 and early 1990, averaging an additional

2,000 cases per month, primarily due to rapid growth in California

and New York. California’s caseload in general has grown steadily

since 1983. Illinois also has seen steady growth in its caseload, especially since 1988, but showed a decline in 1997. After rapid

growth between 1986 and 1991, the New York caseload has been

steadily dropping. Meanwhile, Alabama’s caseload declined slightly

each year from 1989 to 1995, and then began to grow. Maryland

and Wisconsin have seen steady growth in their caseloads since

1991 and 1992, although data for these States for earlier years are

not available from the archive. Caseloads in Michigan and Missouri

have grown steadily since 1983.

The size of a State’s caseload is a function of several factors, including the number of children entering and exiting. To control for

differences in State population sizes, Chapin Hall examined data

on entries into foster care by looking at entry rates; i.e., the number of new entrants in a given year per 1,000 children in the State.

Again, States show various patterns. In New York, entry rates

more than doubled from less than 2.5 per 1,000 children in 1983

to almost 6 per 1,000 in 1989, and then declined to less than 3 per

1,000 in 1995 before climbing again slightly. In Illinois, entry rates

rose from 1.7 per 1,000 in 1983 to 4.4 per 1,000 in 1994, but have

sharply declined since then. California entry rates have stayed relatively stable at 3 per 1,000 since 1991, after a slight decrease between 1989 and 1991. Entry rates in Michigan and Missouri fluctuated but slowly increased between 1983 and 1997, from less than

2 to almost 3 per 1,000 in Michigan and from less than 2.5 to more

than 3 per 1,000 in Missouri. Entry rates in Maryland, Ohio, and

Wisconsin have been fairly stable since 1990, at around 2 per 1,000

children in Maryland, around 3 per 1,000 in Ohio, and between 3

and 3.5 per 1,000 in Wisconsin. Finally, entry rates in Alabama

and New Mexico declined slowly since the late 1980s, although Alabama’s rate increased again in 1995. The rate in Alabama has generally been between 2 and 1.5 per 1,000; in New Mexico, the entry

rate has fluctuated between 2.5 and 2 per 1,000.

Chapin Hall found that caseload growth in the 11 archive States

in the late 1980s coincided with a change in the age distribution

of children entering the system for the first time, with a dramatic

increase in infants and a decrease in adolescents. The percent of

new entrants who were infants rose from 15 percent in 1983–86 to

722

almost 25 percent during the peak years of 1987–94. As a percent

of new entrants, infants have since declined somewhat, but they remain the single largest group of children entering care, accounting

for 20 percent of new entrants in 1995–97. Comparing children

ages 0–4 with children ages 5–17, Chapin Hall found that younger

children are twice as likely to enter care as older children.

To further understand the dynamics of State foster care caseloads, Chapin Hall examined the length of time that children remained in care during their first spell, for the years 1988–97. The

investigators found that in every State except Illinois, a quarter of

the children had completed their first spell (i.e., exited from the

system) within the first 5 months of placement. The comparable

figure was 10 months in Illinois. Another 25 percent of children

spent more than three times longer in foster care than the first 25

percent; nonetheless, half the children exited foster care in 1 year

or less in the following States: Alabama, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri,

New Mexico, Ohio, and Wisconsin. At the same time, at least 25

percent of children, in all States except Iowa, spent more than 18

months in foster care. Median durations in care varied widely, from

3 months in Iowa to almost 3.5 years in Illinois. Median duration

in Maryland was just over 1 year; New York was 1.5 years. In

eight of the archive States, children who entered as infants stayed

longer than others, although in Illinois, Iowa, and Maryland, median durations were high for all children who entered before age

12. Median duration was also high for children from major cities

and African-American children, except in Missouri. Children in kinship care stayed significantly longer than children in nonrelative

foster care, especially in Maryland, Missouri, and New York. Meanwhile, congregate care was associated with shorter spells in Alabama, Illinois, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, and Ohio, but the

opposite was true in Iowa. Finally, Chapin Hall found that length

of stay appears to be increasing in Alabama, California, Illinois,

and Missouri, while declining or remaining stable in the other

States.

Children who entered the system as infants had the highest

rates of adoption, with the likelihood of adoption decreasing each

year after the first birthday. Children who entered at age 14 or

older were less likely than younger children to exit through family

reunification or placement with relatives, except in Alabama. Of

children who left the system and had been in nonrelative foster

care, 19 percent were adopted, compared with 11 percent of children who had been in kinship foster homes. On the other hand,

kinship children were somewhat more likely to be reunited with

their families than children in nonrelative foster care. Children in

congregate care were least likely to exit through adoption and more

likely to age out or run away. White and Hispanic children were

more likely to be reunified with their families than AfricanAmerican children, who were more likely to be permanently placed

with a relative or be adopted. Finally, Chapin Hall looked at the

relationship between length of stay and type of discharge, and

found that 15 percent of children returned to their families in the

first 3 months of placement. The rate of family reunification fell

sharply after that, although there was an increase between months

12 and 15, possibly due to the case review process. On the other

723

hand, the likelihood of adoption increased over time, and was the

most likely discharge for children who had been in care for 3 years

or more.

NATIONAL DATA ON FOSTER CARE AND ADOPTION

As described earlier, States now are required to participate in a

mandatory data collection system known as AFCARS. Tables 11–

18 through 11–40, below, present national and State AFCARS data

on the following: (1) total numbers of children in foster care, including numbers of children entering and exiting the system; (2) characteristics of children in foster care and conditions of their placement; (3) characteristics of foster children who are awaiting adoption; and (4) number and characteristics of children who have been

adopted through the public child welfare system, including their relationship with their adoptive parents. Data included in these tables are for those States whose data were considered of sufficient

quality by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

(DHHS). (AFCARS data, as well as complete tables from the earlier

VCIS system, can be found on the DHHS web site at http://

www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/stats/index.htm.)

Over the years, States have made great strides in collecting, analyzing and submitting child welfare data to the Federal Government for inclusion in AFCARS. Nonetheless, State capacity to collect and report valid data in a nationally consistent format continues to be a challenge. As States transition from older, payment-focused systems to more comprehensive, child-focused systems, they

face difficult implementation decisions, while also addressing such

issues as training workers, revising manuals, and synchronizing

paper and automated information systems. Many States have been

and continue to be engaged in the development and implementation of SACWIS. The construction of a SACWIS normally requires

sequential stages of development; i.e., planning, design, development, and implementation. Until a State’s SACWIS is fully utilized

by staff, operational statewide, and all programming errors have

been corrected, care should be exercised in utilizing their data (see

table 11–16 for the status of individual States’ SACWIS development). For those States that indicated general concerns about the

reliability of their 1998 AFCARS data as a result of SACWIS conversion, a footnote is shown in the tables. In addition, several tables include other footnotes, which reflect comments made by certain States about specific data elements.

This year’s Green Book contains more tables, including data from

more States, than available in previous years from AFCARS, and

DHHS has indicated confidence that these data will continue to improve in quantity and quality each year. To that end, DHHS provides ongoing technical assistance to States in improving the quality of their AFCARS data (and child abuse data reported into

NCANDS), as well as in implementing SACWIS systems. This technical assistance also includes the creation of a new national resource center for information technology in child welfare.

Number of children in foster care

Table 11–18 illustrates the ‘‘flow’’ of children through the foster

care system in 1982–99; i.e., the number of children in care at the

724

start of each year, the number who entered or exited foster care

during the course of the year, the total number of children served

during the year, and the number of children who remained in care

at the end of the year. These numbers indicate steady increases in

the foster care population that were most dramatic in the late

1980s and that continue today, as also illustrated in chart 11–2. It

should be remembered that these data reflect the total foster care

population and are not limited to those children receiving subsidies

under title IV–E. DHHS estimates that 55 percent of the total foster care population is eligible for assistance under title IV–E.

TABLE 11–18.—NUMBER AND MOVEMENT OF SUBSTITUTE CARE CHILDREN, 1982–99

Year Start of year Entered care Total served Left care End of year

1982 ............................. 273,000 161,000 434,000 172,000 262,000

1983 ............................. 263,000 184,000 263,000 178,000 263,000

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 ............................. 347,000 222,000 569,000 182,000 387,000

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

1996 ............................. 488,000 237,000 725,000 218,000 507,000

1997 ............................. 507,000 251,000 758,000 231,000 537,000

1998 ............................. 537,000 262,000 799,000 241,000 560,000

1999 ............................. 560,000 266,000 826,000 244,000 568,000

Source: Data for 1997, 1998, and 1999 are estimates from AFCARS, U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services. Data for 1982–96 were obtained from the American Public Human Services Association.

725

CHART 11–2. CHILDREN IN SUBSTITUTE CARE, END OF YEAR, 1982–99

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the American Public Human Services Association.

Table 11–19 shows the number of children who entered care during fiscal year 1998, the number of children who exited care during

fiscal year 1998, and the total number of children who were in care

as of September 30, 1998.

Table 11–20 lists the average monthly number of children in foster care who received Federal funding under title IV–E for the

years 1989, 1993, 1997, and 1999. These figures are lower than

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).

Characteristics of children in foster care

Much of the data collected on children in foster care reflect three

different groupings of children: children who entered foster care

during the study period (fiscal year 1998); children who left care

during the study period; and children who remained in care on the

last day of the study period. Tables 11–21 and 11–22 present data

on the age composition of children in these three categories, for all

States combined whose data was of sufficient quality to be included

in AFCARS; and on the ages of children who were in care on September 30, 1998. In addition, tables 11–23 and 11–24 show the racial and ethnic composition of children in each category for all

States combined, and of children who remained in care on September 30, 1998, for each State.

726

TABLE 11–19.—CHILDREN ENTERING AND EXITING CARE IN FISCAL YEAR 1998, AND

CHILDREN IN CARE ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, BY STATE

State Entering Exiting In care

Alabama ........................................................... 2,803 2,851 5,198

Arizona ............................................................. 4,300 2,190 5,608

Arkansas .......................................................... 2,737 2,094 3,138

California ......................................................... 52,997 50,049 112,767

Colorado ........................................................... 7,147 5,202 7,951

Connecticut ...................................................... 5,222 3,682 6,683

Delaware .......................................................... 1,023 333 1,480

District of Columbia ........................................ 1,039 792 3,188

Florida .............................................................. 13,980 7,934 26,320

Georgia 1 ........................................................... 3,724 3,632 9,937

Hawaii .............................................................. 1,774 1,410 2,441

Idaho ................................................................ 851 572 963

Illinois .............................................................. 9,229 12,627 48,737

Indiana 1 ........................................................... 6,328 9,524 5,070

Kansas 1 ........................................................... 6,683 3,400 8,488

Louisiana .......................................................... 3,051 2,399 6,301

Maine 1 ............................................................. 1,646 712 3,595

Maryland .......................................................... 4,467 3,296 12,890

Minnesota ......................................................... 11,772 10,512 8,618

Mississippi ....................................................... 1,821 1,325 3,359

Missouri ............................................................ 6,504 4,950 12,495

Montana ........................................................... 1,503 1,223 1,991

New Jersey ........................................................ 4,748 4,385 9,191

New Mexico ...................................................... 1,480 1,137 821

New York .......................................................... 19,749 20,324 53,555

North Carolina .................................................. 5,464 3,993 11,314

North Dakota .................................................... 1,067 728 1,125

Oklahoma ......................................................... 6,346 5,337 7,233

Oregon .............................................................. 5,212 4,512 7,266

Pennsylvania .................................................... 13,019 10,933 23,070

Puerto Rico ....................................................... 2,171 1,615 6,629

Rhode Island 1 .................................................. 1,623 915 2,844

South Carolina ................................................. 3,191 3,689 4,644

Texas ................................................................ 6,539 3,760 17,103

Utah ................................................................. 2,196 1,956 2,468

Vermont ............................................................ 783 655 1,316

Virginia 1 .......................................................... 2,683 1,856 6,838

Washington ...................................................... 7,243 6,560 8,980

West Virginia .................................................... 2,011 1,767 3,082

Wisconsin ......................................................... 5,566 4,846 10,076

Wyoming ........................................................... 961 863 883

Total .................................................... 242,653 210,540 475,656

1 State indicated general concern with reliability of 1998 data due to conversion process to SACWIS.

Note.—Delaware reports underreporting in the above number for children exiting foster care and overreporting in the number of those remaining in foster care at the end of 1998. Oklahoma, Texas, and

Utah report underreporting in the above numbers for children exiting foster care.

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service from data provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

727

TABLE 11–20.—TITLE IV–E FOSTER CARE AVERAGE MONTHLY NUMBER OF CHILDREN,

SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1989–99

State

Fiscal year Percent change

1989 1 1993 1997 1999 1993–

99

1989–

99

Alabama ..................................... 1,119 810 1,152 1,304 61 17

Alaska ......................................... 253 303 317 487 61 93

Arizona ........................................ 714 1,774 3,382 3,634 105 409

Arkansas ..................................... 372 715 1,299 1,624 127 337

California .................................... 35,659 48,928 71,042 78,222 60 119

Colorado ...................................... 1,866 2,529 2,874 2,653 5 42

Connecticut ................................. 1,646 1,482 3,192 4,528 205 175

Delaware ..................................... 244 183 342 378 107 55

District of Columbia ................... 356 748 1,101 1,297 73 264

Florida ......................................... 2,464 4,191 6,545 8,842 111 259

Georgia ....................................... 2,244 3,254 4,382 4,208 29 88

Hawaii ......................................... 42 326 1,172 1,101 238 2521

Idaho ........................................... 272 225 375 510 126 87

Illinois ......................................... 8,578 11,514 30,668 28,592 148 233

Indiana ....................................... 1,559 2,541 4,061 3,963 56 154

Iowa ............................................ 1,157 1,502 2,197 2,810 87 143

Kansas ........................................ 1,167 1,371 466 2,356 72 102

Kentucky ..................................... 1,509 1,797 2,796 3,018 68 100

Louisiana .................................... 3,061 2,824 3,850 2,908 3 ¥5

Maine .......................................... 815 1,000 1,482 2,013 101 147

Maryland ..................................... 869 3,073 4,533 5,090 66 486

Massachusetts 2 ......................... 2,021 7,839 7,910 7,340 ¥6 263

Michigan ..................................... 7,914 8,672 8,609 9,338 8 18

Minnesota ................................... 2,030 2,984 3,696 4,115 38 103

Mississippi .................................. 673 868 1,088 1,000 15 49

Missouri ...................................... 2,139 4,570 5,263 5,620 23 163

Montana ...................................... 426 557 782 950 71 123

Nebraska ..................................... 924 1,291 1,549 1,477 14 60

Nevada ........................................ 436 620 759 1,345 117 209

New Hampshire 3 ........................ 444 526 639 625 19 41

New Jersey .................................. 3,064 3,873 5,453 6,124 58 100

New Mexico ................................. 746 875 869 1,183 35 59

New York ..................................... 34,607 53,475 42,679 38,049 ¥29 10

North Carolina ............................ 1,557 2,983 4,586 4,854 63 212

North Dakota .............................. 309 402 504 486 21 57

Ohio ............................................ 4,513 6,546 7,849 4,936 ¥25 9

Oklahoma .................................... 732 1,379 2,555 4,039 193 452

Oregon ........................................ 2,067 1,882 3,129 3,193 70 54

Pennsylvania ............................... 9,638 14,760 14,816 15,054 2 56

Puerto Rico 4 ............................... NA NA NA 5,110 NA NA

Rhode Island .............................. 569 673 775 629 ¥7 11

South Carolina ............................ 1,123 1,652 1,695 1,146 ¥31 2

South Dakota .............................. 210 225 211 340 51 62

Tennessee ................................... 1,586 6,533 6,269 6,327 ¥3 299

Texas ........................................... 3,588 4,920 6,434 6,757 37 88

Utah ............................................ 436 454 771 730 61 67

Vermont ...................................... 734 874 1,130 1,151 32 57

728

TABLE 11–20.—TITLE IV–E FOSTER CARE AVERAGE MONTHLY NUMBER OF CHILDREN,

SELECTED FISCAL YEARS 1989–99—Continued

State

Fiscal year Percent change

1989 1 1993 1997 1999 1993–

99

1989–

99

Virginia ....................................... 1,986 2,100 3,266 3,260 55 64

Washington ................................. 2,477 2,484 1,748 2,603 5 5

West Virginia .............................. 1,004 1,017 1,949 823 ¥19 ¥18

Wisconsin .................................... 3,174 4,834 4,995 4,037 ¥16 27

Wyoming ..................................... 104 97 198 242 149 133

Total .............................. 157,197 231,055 289,404 297,312 29 89

1 Based on accrual method accounting.

2 Fiscal year 1999 data include estimates for the third and fourth quarters.

3 Fiscal year 1999 data include estimates for the average monthly number of children.

4 Did not begin to participate in title IV–E foster care until fiscal year 1999. It is not included in the

fiscal year 1999 total. If Puerto Rico were included, the total average monthly number of children in fiscal year 1999 would be 302,422.

NA—Not applicable.

Note.—Totals may differ from sum of State amounts because of rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

TABLE 11–21.—AGES OF CHILDREN ENTERING AND EXITING CARE IN FISCAL YEAR

1998, AND IN CARE ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1998

[In percent]

Age range Entering Exiting In care

Under 1 year .......................................................... 13 4 4

1–5 years ............................................................... 25 26 26

6–10 years ............................................................. 22 23 27

11–15 years ........................................................... 29 24 27

16–18 years ........................................................... 11 20 14

19 years or older ................................................... 0 2 1

Mean age (years) ................................................... 8.57 10.24 9.62

Median age (years) ................................................ 8.47 10.25 9.55

Source: Compiled by the Congressional Research Service from information provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

TABLE 11–22.—AGES OF CHILDREN IN CARE ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, BY STATE

[In percent; 469,578 total cases]

State

Age

Mean

years

Median

Under years

1 1–5 6–10

11–

15

16–

18 19+

Alabama .............................. 4 24 25 29 17 2 10.20 10.50

Arizona ................................ 5 27 26 28 14 0 9.33 9.41

Arkansas ............................. 4 23 24 31 18 1 10.30 10.93

California ............................ 4 28 29 27 12 0 9.25 9.11

729

TABLE 11–22.—AGES OF CHILDREN IN CARE ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, BY STATE—

Continued

[In percent; 469,578 total cases]

State

Age

Mean

years

Median

Under years

1 1–5 6–10

11–

15

16–

18 19+

Colorado .............................. 4 19 22 34 20 1 10.83 11.92

Connecticut ......................... 4 29 28 28 11 1 9.23 8.97

Delaware ............................. 4 25 25 26 20 0 10.12 10.14

District of Columbia ........... 2 26 28 23 15 6 10.25 9.66

Florida ................................. 5 31 30 24 10 1 8.62 8.18

Georgia 1 ............................. 3 28 29 27 12 1 9.31 9.18

Hawaii ................................. 7 33 27 23 11 0 8.35 7.79

Idaho ................................... 4 26 30 28 13 0 9.35 9.21

Illinois ................................. 3 28 30 24 12 3 9.49 9.05

Indiana 1 ............................. 4 27 24 25 15 4 9.88 9.79

Kansas 1 .............................. 6 15 18 36 25 1 11.52 13.55

Louisiana ............................. 3 21 25 36 15 (2) 10.45 11.19

Maine 1 ................................ 5 22 26 30 16 2 10.14 10.43

Maryland ............................. 3 23 30 28 13 3 10.09 9.99

Minnesota ............................ 3 16 22 35 23 1 11.47 12.76

Mississippi .......................... 4 26 27 27 14 2 9.71 9.56

Missouri ............................... 4 23 26 30 15 2 10.05 10.21

Montana .............................. 5 25 26 29 14 0 9.58 9.85

New Jersey ........................... 7 32 23 24 13 0 8.64 8.19

New Mexico ......................... 7 33 30 23 7 (2) 8.02 7.72

New York ............................. 4 27 28 26 13 3 9.67 9.50

North Carolina ..................... 5 28 27 29 12 1 9.32 9.30

North Dakota ....................... 6 13 19 35 26 1 11.55 13.41

Oklahoma ............................ 5 27 26 26 16 0 9.55 9.48

Oregon ................................. 5 30 29 27 9 0 8.76 8.60

Pennsylvania ....................... 4 21 23 30 20 1 10.58 11.27

Puerto Rico .......................... 3 29 32 27 9 (2) 8.94 8.61

Rhode Island 1 .................... 4 21 20 28 23 4 11.06 12.16

South Carolina .................... 5 23 25 30 16 2 10.04 10.50

Texas ................................... 5 30 28 26 11 0 8.91 8.71

Utah .................................... 4 20 23 33 20 1 10.75 11.71

Vermont ............................... 2 12 16 39 30 0 12.53 14.37

Virginia 1 ............................. 2 19 23 31 22 3 11.24 12.15

Washington ......................... 6 32 27 24 11 0 8.63 8.14

West Virginia ....................... 3 18 21 32 25 2 11.48 12.78

Wisconsin ............................ 2 21 26 31 18 3 10.78 11.23

Wyoming .............................. 2 19 20 38 21 0 11.26 13.03

Total ...................... 4 26 27 27 14 1 9.62 9.55

1 State indicated general concern with reliability of 1998 data due to conversion process to Statewide

Automated Child Welfare Information Systems (SACWIS). 2 No cases were reported; a 0 indicates that the percentage of reported cases rounded to zero.

Note.—Vermont reports that foster care population includes children in the juvenile justice system,

which accounts for the significant percentage of children in foster care who are 11–18 years of age.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

730

TABLE 11–23.—RACIAL/ETHNIC BACKGROUND OF CHILDREN ENTERING AND EXITING

CARE IN FISCAL YEAR 1998, AND IN CARE ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1998

[In percent]

Race/ethnicity Entering Exiting In care

White ........................................................................................................ 45 44 34

Black ........................................................................................................ 30 33 44

Hispanic ................................................................................................... 16 15 15

Other ........................................................................................................ 4 4 3

Unknown ..................................................................................................544

Source: Compiled by the Congressional Research Service from information provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

TABLE 11–24.—RACE/ETHNICITY OF CHILDREN IN CARE ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1998

[In percent; 474,906 total cases]

State White Black

American

Indian/

Alaska

Native

Asian/

Pacific

Islander

Hispanic Unknown

Alabama ........................... 44 550010

Arizona ............................. 51 13 4 0 27 4

Arkansas .......................... 56 410021

California ......................... 30 35 1 2 31 1

Colorado ........................... 53 16 2 1 25 3

Connecticut ...................... 33 35 0 0 32 (1)

Delaware .......................... 31 59 0 (1)55

District of Columbia ........ 1 97 (1) (1)02

Florida .............................. 45 500050

Georgia 2 .......................... 35 590013

Hawaii .............................. 12 2 1 77 2 5

Idaho ................................ 86 2 4 (1)71

Illinois .............................. 17 770051

Indiana 2 .......................... 59 350014

Kansas 2 ........................... 69 191172

Louisiana ......................... 34 650010

Maine 2 ............................. 9121024

Maryland .......................... 19 80 0 0 1(1)

Minnesota ........................ 56 24 13251

Mississippi ....................... 40 58 (1)010

Missouri ........................... 55 430010

Montana ........................... 64 2 27034

New Jersey ....................... 22 640094

New Mexico ...................... 28 8 5 (1) 56 2

New York .......................... 14 46 0 0 15 25

North Carolina ................. 40 521060

North Dakota .................... 61 2 34030

Oklahoma ......................... 55 24 15040

Oregon .............................. 63 11 4 1 6 15

Pennsylvania .................... 36 52 0 1 11 0

Puerto Rico ...................... 0 0 0 0 99 0

731

TABLE 11–24.—RACE/ETHNICITY OF CHILDREN IN CARE ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1998—

Continued

[In percent; 474,906 total cases]

State White Black

American

Indian/

Alaska

Native

Asian/

Pacific

Islander

Hispanic Unknown

Rhode Island 2 ................. 56 23 2 1 14 4

South Carolina ................. 36 620011

Texas ................................ 33 33 0 0 31 2

Utah ................................. 74 4 4 1 14 4

Vermont ............................ 9620011

Virginia 2 .......................... 42 540131

Washington ...................... 63 18 10270

West Virginia ................... 86 12 (1)011

Wisconsin ......................... 43 48 3 1 4(1)

Wyoming ........................... 8432082

Total ................... 34 44 2 1 15 4

1 State indicated general concern with reliability of 1998 data due to conversion process to SACWIS.

2 No cases were reported; a 0 indicates that the percentage of reported cases rounded to zero.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Characteristics of foster care

As table 11–25 shows, 40 percent of the children who were in foster care on September 30, 1998, had permanency plans of reunification with their families, while 20 percent had plans of adoption.

For 7 percent of the children, the permanency plan was long-term

foster care. As for the living arrangements of these children, table

11–26 shows that slightly less than half were in foster family

homes with people unrelated to them, while another 29 percent

were in foster care with relatives, and 15 percent of these children

were either in a group home or institution. As shown in table 11–

27, almost two-thirds of the children in care on September 30,

1998, had experienced between one and two placements during

their current spell in foster care, while 21 percent had experienced

three or four, and 16 percent had experienced five or more.

TABLE 11–25.—PERMANENCY PLANS OF CHILDREN IN CARE ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1998,

BY STATE

[In percent; 470,431 total cases]

State Reunify

Live with

relative(s)

Adoption

Longterm

foster

care

EmancipationGuardianshipNot yet

established

Alabama ............................. 45 14 15 23 (1) (1) 3

Arizona ............................... 42 8 24 8 9 3 7

Arkansas ............................ 40 6 10 7 7 0 29

California ........................... 14 4 3 4 (1) 2 73

732

TABLE 11–25.—PERMANENCY PLANS OF CHILDREN IN CARE ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1998,

BY STATE—Continued

[In percent; 470,431 total cases]

State Reunify

Live with

relative(s)

Adoption

Longterm

foster

care

EmancipationGuardianshipNot yet

established

Colorado ............................. 59 3 16 11 6 3 1

Connecticut ........................ (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 100

Delaware ............................ 23 4 9 4 4 1 54

District of Columbia .......... 23 7 32 12 17 (1) 10

Florida ................................ 71 2 16 10 2 (1) (1)

Georgia 2 ............................ 67 2 21 4 6 0 0

Hawaii ................................ 54 4 16 6 (1) 3 17

Idaho .................................. 67 0 8 6 1 2 17

Illinois ................................ 24 0 45 1 19 8 3

Indiana 2 ............................ 34 3 8 2 2 3 48

Kansas 2 ............................. 70 0 21 3 3 1 1

Louisiana ........................... 58 5 18 16 3 0 (1)

Maine 2 ............................... 28 1 32 21 2 0 15

Maryland ............................ 31 14 15 18 9 10 4

Minnesota .......................... 55 4 12 13 2 1 14

Mississippi ......................... 55 17 18 3 3 1 3

Missouri ............................. 64 2 17 5 6 3 3

Montana ............................. 40 4 19 18 4 1 14

New Jersey ......................... 53 8 32 5 2 (1) 0

New Mexico ........................ 25 (1) 13 0 6 1 55

New York ............................ 57 (1) 30 (1) 10 1 3

North Carolina ................... 37 14 34 (1) 2 12 2

North Dakota ...................... 42 3 19 15 5 0 15

Oklahoma ........................... 56 1 21 12 4 1 5

Oregon ................................ 70 1 17 11 1 1 (1)

Pennsylvania ...................... 51 2 20 18 4 2 3

Puerto Rico ........................ 72 11 8 6 2 0 1

Rhode Island 2 ................... 53 1 20 13 12 0 1

South Carolina ................... 35 3 39 12 10 0 1

Texas .................................. 24 9 39 10 8 4 6

Utah ................................... 29 (1) 1 1 0 0 70

Vermont .............................. 53 2 12 17 9 1 7

Virginia 2 ............................ 25 7 29 24 15 0 0

Washington ........................ 59 3 24 5 1 6 2

West Virginia ..................... 33 4 29 31 1 1 1

Wisconsin ........................... 79 2 8 4 1 (1) 6

Wyoming ............................. 53 3 6 19 6 1 11

Total ..................... 40 3 20 7 5 3 23

1 No cases were reported; a 0 indicates that the percentage of reported cases rounded to zero.

2 State indicated general concern with reliability of 1998 data due to conversion process to SACWIS.

Note.—Connecticut reports that missing data is an indication of the complexity of the system, and/or

a mapping difficulty between the State elements and the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

733

TABLE 11–26.—PLACEMENT SETTINGS OF CHILDREN IN CARE ON SEPTEMBER 30,

1998, BY STATE

[In percent; 455,411 total cases]

State

Preadoptive

home

Foster

home

(relative)

Foster

home

(nonrelative)

Group

home

Institution

Supervised

independent

living

Runaway

Trial

home

visit

Alabama ..................... 1 14 57 3 16 0 2 7

Arizona ....................... (1) 26 42 20 10 (1)11

Arkansas .................... 9 11 67 (1) 10 1 2 0

California ................... 0 46 38 10 3 (1)13

Colorado ..................... 4 10 60 3 20 1 2 0

Connecticut ................ 4 25 50 3 17 0 (1) (1)

Delaware .................... 2 16 61 6 14 1 (1) (1)

District of Columbia .. 8 (1) 66 12 8 2 0 5

Florida ........................ 4 46 41 6 1 1 1 (1)

Georgia 2 ..................... 6 19 60 7 6 0 1 2

Hawaii ........................ 2 37 53 2 4 1 1 0

Idaho .......................... 2 8 74 9 7 (1) (1) 1

Illinois ........................ 6 46 35 1 6 3 2 2

Indiana 2 ..................... 0 21 54 4 20 0 (1) 1

Kansas 2 ..................... 2 10 38 12 8 1 1 27

Louisiana .................... 0 11 62 8 14 0 0 4

Maine 2 ....................... 2 3 74 4 8 2 0 6

Maryland .................... 1 28 58 9 4 0 0 0

Minnesota ................... 5 16 55 16 7 0 0 (1)

Mississippi ................. 2 26 36 15 7 1 1 12

Missouri ...................... 7 25 41 2 20 2 1 3

Montana ..................... (1) 25 64 10 1 (1) (1) (1)

New Jersey .................. 2 2 68 8 18 2 (1) (1)

New Mexico ................ 5 29 56 5 3 2 0 (1)

New York .................... 0 24 54 2 14 0 (1) 4

North Carolina ............ 5 18 45 7 7 0 5 13

North Dakota .............. 6 9 54 6 25 (1) 0(1)

Oklahoma ................... 2 28 49 14 6 0 0 0

Oregon ........................ (1) 27 63 1 9 0 (1) (1)

Pennsylvania .............. 2 8 61 9 18 1 0 1

Puerto Rico ................. 2 40 41 8 7 0 1 1

Rhode Island 2 ............ 2 22 32 33 2 3 6 (1)

South Carolina ........... 6 2 50 38 2 0 0 1

Texas .......................... 14 13 46 5 16 0 1 5

Utah ........................... 3 6 37 13 3 2 3 33

Vermont ...................... 3 10 58 14 3 3 (1) 9

Virginia 2 .................... 6 2 69 18 1 1 1 2

Washington ................ 2 34 57 5 1 0 2 0

West Virginia .............. 5 6 61 14 11 2 1 (1)

Wisconsin ................... 2 6 75 6 11 (1) (1) (1)

734

TABLE 11–26.—PLACEMENT SETTINGS OF CHILDREN IN CARE ON SEPTEMBER 30,

1998, BY STATE—Continued

[In percent; 455,411 total cases]

State

Preadoptive

home

Foster

home

(relative)

Foster

home

(nonrelative)

Group

home

Institution

Supervised

independent

living

Runaway

Trial

home

visit

Wyoming ..................... 0 18 47 13 22 1 0 (1)

Total .............. 3 29 48 7 8 1 1 3

1 No cases were reported; a 0 indicates that the percentage of reported cases rounded to zero.

2 State indicated general concern with reliability of 1998 data due to conversion process to SACWIS.

Note.—Minnesota reports that 80 percent of placements in the largest county are initially in emergency shelters, which may be characterized as institutional settings. Oklahoma reports that group home

data include children experiencing brief shelter stays. South Carolina reports that an estimated one-third

of the children in group homes, shown above, are misidentified.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

TABLE 11–27.—NUMBER OF PLACEMENTS OF CHILDREN IN CARE ON SEPTEMBER 30,

1998, BY STATE

[In percent; 394,707 total cases]

State 1–2 3–4 5–6 7 or

more

Alabama ............................................................................ 74 15 5 5

Arizona ............................................................................... 14 9 8 68

Arkansas ............................................................................ 67 19 7 8

California ........................................................................... 69 21 6 4

Colorado ............................................................................ 63 22 8 7

Connecticut ....................................................................... 77 18 3 1

Delaware ............................................................................ 90722

District of Columbia .......................................................... 59 21 9 10

Georgia 1 ............................................................................ 71 18 6 6

Hawaii ............................................................................... 67 21 7 5

Idaho ................................................................................. 57 33 5 5

Illinois ................................................................................ 53 26 11 10

Indiana 1 ............................................................................ 97211

Kansas 1 ............................................................................ 48 23 11 17

Louisiana ........................................................................... 46 25 13 16

Maine 1 .............................................................................. 47 20 10 23

Maryland ............................................................................ 85 13 2 0

Minnesota .......................................................................... 65 21 8 6

Mississippi ........................................................................ 74 14 6 6

Missouri ............................................................................. 53 25 10 12

Montana ............................................................................ 59 25 10 5

New Jersey ......................................................................... 69 19 7 5

New Mexico ........................................................................ 97310

North Carolina ................................................................... 47 26 12 15

North Dakota ..................................................................... 83 13 3 1

735

TABLE 11–27.—NUMBER OF PLACEMENTS OF CHILDREN IN CARE ON SEPTEMBER 30,

1998, BY STATE—Continued

[In percent; 394,707 total cases]

State 1–2 3–4 5–6 7 or

more

Oklahoma .......................................................................... 56 27 10 8

Oregon ............................................................................... 64 21 8 7

Pennsylvania ..................................................................... 62 22 9 7

Puerto Rico ........................................................................ 96310

Rhode Island 1 ................................................................... 56 22 10 12

South Carolina .................................................................. 61 22 9 7

Texas ................................................................................. 46 28 12 14

Utah ................................................................................... 29 29 22 19

Vermont ............................................................................. 38 27 15 20

Virginia 1 ............................................................................ 94510

Washington ........................................................................ 53 24 10 14

West Virginia ..................................................................... 87922

Wisconsin .......................................................................... 83 14 3 1

Wyoming ............................................................................ 78 16 4 2

Total ..................................................................... 64 21 8 8

1 State indicated general concern with reliability of 1998 data due to conversion process to SACWIS.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The amount of time that children spend in foster care is an issue

of public policy concern. As shown in table 11–28, children who left

care during fiscal year 1998 had generally shorter lengths of stay

from the time of removal from home than those children who remained in care on September 30, 1998. Table 11–29 shows the

length of stay, by State, for children in care on September 30, 1998.

TABLE 11–28.—LENGTH OF STAY FOR CHILDREN EXITING CARE DURING FISCAL YEAR

1998, AND FOR CHILDREN IN CARE ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1998

[In percent]

Length of stay Exiting care In care

Under 1 month ........................................................................... 20 4

1–5 months ................................................................................ 18 15

6–11 months .............................................................................. 14 15

12–17 months ............................................................................ 10 11

18–23 months ............................................................................ 7 9

24–29 months ............................................................................ 5 7

30–35 months ............................................................................ 4 5

3–4 years .................................................................................... 11 16

5 years or longer ........................................................................ 10 18

Mean (months) ........................................................................... 22.45 33.26

Median (months) ........................................................................ 11.2 21.19

Source: Compiled by the Congressional Research Service from information provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

TABLE 11–29.—LENGTH OF STAY FOR CHILDREN IN CARE ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, BY STATE

[In percent; 474,839 total cases]

State

Less

than 1

month

1–5

months

6–11

months

12–17

months

18–23

months

24–29

months

30–35

months

3–4

years

5 years

or more

Mean

months

Alabama ........................................... 4 15 13 11 10 8 5 13 21 38.35 Arizona ............................................. 7 25 24 11 8 5 4 11 7 20.02 Arkansas .......................................... 8 25 16 13 10 7 4 10 7 20.95 California ......................................... 3 13 16 12 9 7 5 14 20 35.17 Colorado ........................................... 7 26 19 12 7 5 4 11 8 21.16 Connecticut ...................................... 7 24 20 15 108593 16.46 

Delaware .......................................... 7 29 19 12 6 6 4 10 6 18.31 

District of Columbia ........................ 2 9 12 11 8 7 6 21 23 41.40 Florida .............................................. 5 21 21 13 9 7 5 11 9 22.53 Georgia 1 ........................................... 0 10 14 12 11 9 8 19 18 36.58 

Hawaii .............................................. 5 22 22 13 10 5 5 11 7 20.80 Idaho ................................................ 7 22 19 15 8 6 4 12 6 19.73 

Illinois .............................................. 2 7 7 7 8 8 7 28 27 45.26 Indiana 1 ........................................... 5 17 16 11 7 8 6 17 13 28.89 

Kansas 1 ........................................... 5 28 31 1264365 15.82 

Louisiana .......................................... 4 20 14 10 7 6 5 15 18 33.40 Maine 1 ............................................. 2 17 20 9 6 6 5 15 19 33.57 

Maryland .......................................... 3 11 12 11 9 8 6 20 20 36.08 Minnesota ......................................... 8 25 18 10 7 6 4 11 13 25.30 Mississippi ....................................... 5 18 16 12 9 8 4 14 15 30.06 Missouri ............................................ 4 17 15 12 9 8 6 15 13 28.83 Montana ........................................... 5 20 15 11 8 8 6 15 11 26.96 New Jersey ........................................ 4 16 15 12 10 8 6 18 12 29.45 New Mexico ...................................... 10 36 21 33 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 7.62 

New York .......................................... 3 11 12 10 8 7 6 15 27 42.54 

North Carolina .................................. 4 19 16 14 10 8 5 13 11 25.93 North Dakota .................................... 6 25 26 10 6 6 9 11 1 15.79 Oklahoma ......................................... 5 25 18 13 9 7 5 10 8 21.88 Oregon .............................................. 6 20 17 14 11 8 4 14 7 22.71 Pennsylvania .................................... 5 18 16 10 8 7 5 14 20 34.42 Puerto Rico ....................................... 2 12 14 11 7 7 8 22 17 35.12 Rhode Island 1 .................................. 4 22 20 12 11 6 4 12 9 23.67 

South Carolina ................................. 4 17 14 9 6 6 6 19 19 35.03 

Texas ................................................ 4 16 14 12 8 7 5 17 17 31.89 Utah ................................................. 6 23 19 16 10 7 4 10 4 18.01 Vermont ............................................ 5 17 18 12 9 8 7 15 10 26.16 Virginia 1 .......................................... 4 13 13 8 9 8 5 19 21 37.70 

Washington ...................................... 5 16 17 13 10 8 5 16 10 26.37 West Virginia .................................... 4 19 17 11 9 6 6 14 14 29.49 Wisconsin ......................................... 4 15 12 10 9 9 7 19 14 31.61 Wyoming ........................................... 7 25 20 14 10 3 3 12 7 19.54 

Total .................................... 4 15 15 11 9 7 5 16 18 33.26 

1 State indicated general concern with reliability of 1998 data due to conversion process to SACWIS.2 No cases were reported; a 0 indicates that the percentage of reported cases rounded to zero.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

738

Finally, table 11–30 shows the reasons for discharge for children

who left foster care during fiscal year 1998, and indicates that the

majority (62 percent) of these children were reunified with their

families. Another 14 percent were adopted, 9 percent left to live

with other relatives, and 7 percent were emancipated (i.e., ‘‘aged

out’’).

TABLE 11–30.—DISCHARGE REASONS FOR CHILDREN EXITING CARE, BY STATE, FISCAL

YEAR 1998

[In percent; 166,035 total cases]

State Reunification

Live with

other relativeAdoption Emancipation

Guardianship Other

Alabama ........................... 58 33 (1) 3(1) 5

Arizona ............................. 95 (1) (1) 2(1) 3

Arkansas .......................... 66 21 3 3 (1) 7

California ......................... 73 (1) 10 8 4 5

Colorado ........................... 69 6 7 5 1 12

Connecticut ...................... 63 7 15 2 10 4

Delaware .......................... 95 (1) (1) 1(1) 4

District of Columbia ........ 28 27 20 11 1 13

Florida .............................. 30 41 16 9 (1) 4

Georgia 2 .......................... 53 19 15724

Hawaii .............................. 62 2 23742

Idaho ................................ 77 8 5 3(1) 7

Illinois .............................. 52 6 35501

Indiana 2 .......................... 100 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

Kansas 2 ........................... 66 5 9 6 1 14

Louisiana ......................... 49 24 10 13 2 2

Maine 2 ............................. 73 4 6 11 1 5

Maryland .......................... 48 15 11 7 3 16

Minnesota ........................ 9032202

Mississippi ....................... 56 25 10533

Missouri ........................... 67 3 13 10 3 4

Montana ........................... 59 14 16514

New Jersey ....................... 71 (1) 16 8 (1) 5

New Mexico ...................... 76 100158

New York .......................... 49 11 24 7 (1) 8

North Carolina ................. 47 16 17 6 10 4

North Dakota .................... 70 8 1 6 0 15

Oklahoma ......................... 71 10 11215

Oregon .............................. 68 2 17257

Pennsylvania .................... 61 11 12 6 1 10

Rhode Island 2 ................. 56 3 13 4 2 22

South Carolina ................. 61 13 17801

Texas ................................ 48 37 2 11 (1) 2

Utah ................................. 54 (1) 14 6 22 4

Vermont ............................ 62 3 16918

Virginia 2 .......................... 50 23 10 11 0 6

Washington ...................... 71 (1) 13 6 7 3

West Virginia ................... 54 13 11 7 1 14

Wisconsin ......................... 58 10 11 6 (1) 16

739

TABLE 11–30.—DISCHARGE REASONS FOR CHILDREN EXITING CARE, BY STATE, FISCAL

YEAR 1998—Continued

[In percent; 166,035 total cases]

State Reunification

Live with

other relativeAdoption Emancipation

Guardianship Other

Wyoming ........................... 56 9 2 2 4 27

Total ................... 62 9 14726

1 No cases were reported; a 0 indicates that the percentage of reported cases rounded to zero.

2 State indicated general concern with reliability of 1998 data due to conversion process to SACWIS.

Note.—California reports that its foster care population includes probation children who enter at older

ages and may not be good candidates for adoption; therefore, their inclusion skews data to show a lower

rate of adoption. Also, the data conversion process resulted in missing cases for this data element.

Delaware reports that no exits to adoption, as shown in the table, is an error. Florida reports that children exiting to reunification include guardianship cases.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Characteristics of children awaiting adoption

Tables 11–31 through 11–33 show characteristics of children who

were awaiting adoption at the end of fiscal year 1998; i.e., children

in foster care who had permanency plans of adoption and/or whose

parental rights had been terminated. Children whose permanency

plan was emancipation are not included in these tables. As the tables show, nearly 60 percent were between the ages of 6 and 15;

more than half (53 percent) were black; and more than half (54

percent) had been in foster care for 3 years or longer.

TABLE 11–31.—AGE DISTRIBUTION OF CHILDREN AWAITING ADOPTION, BY STATE,

FISCAL YEAR 1998

[In percent; 103,329 total cases]

State less than

1 1–5 6–10 11–15 16–18

Alabama ........................................... 2 31 39 21 6

Arizona .............................................. 5 38 39 17 1

Arkansas ........................................... 4 30 33 30 2

California .......................................... 8 55 26 9 2

Colorado ............................................ 2 30 39 26 3

Connecticut ....................................... 1 37 40 19 3

Delaware ........................................... 1 39 46 13 1

District of Columbia ......................... 1 40 43 15 1

Florida ............................................... 3 32 37 25 3

Georgia 1 ........................................... 2 33 36 24 5

Hawaii ............................................... 2 32 31 24 10

Idaho ................................................. 3 31 39 21 6

Illinois ............................................... 2 36 40 21 2

Indiana 1 ........................................... 2 44 32 18 4

Kansas 1 ............................................ 8 20 23 39 11

Louisiana .......................................... 2 31 41 24 2

740

TABLE 11–31.—AGE DISTRIBUTION OF CHILDREN AWAITING ADOPTION, BY STATE,

FISCAL YEAR 1998—Continued

[In percent; 103,329 total cases]

State less than

1 1–5 6–10 11–15 16–18

Maine 1 .............................................. 5 30 36 22 7

Maryland ........................................... 1 31 43 22 2

Minnesota ......................................... 3 23 37 29 8

Mississippi ........................................ 1 27 37 26 9

Missouri ............................................ 2 30 36 27 5

Montana ............................................ 2 27 28 34 9

New Jersey ........................................ 5 43 28 18 6

New Mexico ....................................... 5 33 37 23 2

New York ........................................... 1 30 38 28 3

North Carolina .................................. 5 35 33 23 4

North Dakota .................................... 25 27 30 17 2

Oklahoma .......................................... 3 33 36 25 3

Oregon .............................................. 3 43 39 14 1

Pennsylvania ..................................... 3 36 37 21 3

Puerto Rico ....................................... 3 18 41 31 6

Rhode Island 1 .................................. 1 40 41 15 2

South Carolina .................................. 3 30 34 28 5

Texas ................................................. 3 35 35 24 3

Utah .................................................. 7 35 37 19 2

Vermont ............................................ 3 28 26 34 8

Virginia 1 ........................................... 3 38 41 16 1

Washington ....................................... 7 45 32 14 3

West Virginia .................................... 4 34 40 21 2

Wisconsin .......................................... 2 32 36 25 6

Wyoming ........................................... 2 26 38 28 6

Total .................................... 3 35 37 22 3

1 State indicated general concern with reliability of 1998 data due to conversion process to Statewide

Automated Child Welfare Information Systems (SACWIS).

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

TABLE 11–32.—RACE/ETHNICITY OF CHILDREN AWAITING ADOPTION, BY STATE, FISCAL

YEAR 1998

[In percent; 103,217 total cases]

State White Black Hispanic

American

Indian/

Alaska

Native

Asian/

Pacific

Islander

Unknown

Alabama ........................... 43 56 1 0 (1) 0

Arizona ............................. 53 14 26403

Arkansas .......................... 55 43 0 (1) (1) 2

California ......................... 40 27 30110

Colorado ........................... 47 22 27212

Connecticut ...................... 36 39 25 (1) 0(1)

741

TABLE 11–32.—RACE/ETHNICITY OF CHILDREN AWAITING ADOPTION, BY STATE, FISCAL

YEAR 1998—Continued

[In percent; 103,217 total cases]

State White Black Hispanic

American

Indian/

Alaska

Native

Asian/

Pacific

Islander

Unknown

Delaware .......................... 27 57 6 (1) (1) 10

District of Columbia ........ 1 97 (1) (1) (1) 1

Florida .............................. 44 504000

Georgia 2 .......................... 38 571004

Hawaii .............................. 14 3 3 2 76 3

Idaho ................................ 86 3 10 1 (1) (1)

Illinois .............................. 12 834001

Indiana 2 .......................... 55 39 2 0 (1) 4

Kansas 2 ........................... 62 28 4 1 (1) 4

Louisiana ......................... 37 61 1 0 (1) 1

Maine 2 ............................. 9331111

Maryland .......................... 20 79 1 0 0(1)

Minnesota ........................ 48 35 6 11 1 0

Mississippi ....................... 35 64 (1) (1) 1(1)

Missouri ........................... 53 451000

Montana ........................... 73 1 3 19 1 4

New Jersey ....................... 18 709002

New Mexico ...................... 23 5 69 3 (1) (1)

New York .......................... 10 51 14 0 0 25

North Carolina ................. 39 545101

North Dakota .................... 54 2 2 41 1 (1)

Oklahoma ......................... 47 35 5 14 (1) 0

Oregon .............................. 68 10 7 3 0 11

Pennsylvania .................... 30 58 11000

Puerto Rico ...................... 0 (1) 100 (1) (1) (1)

Rhode Island 2 ................. 50 27 15205

South Carolina ................. 31 671001

Texas ................................ 30 35 32003

Utah ................................. 73 4 18113

Vermont ............................ 96 2 1 (1) (1) 1

Virginia 2 .......................... 38 564011

Washington ...................... 65 207610

West Virginia ................... 84 15 1 (1) (1) 0

Wisconsin ......................... 56 33 4 7 0(1)

Wyoming ........................... 77 8 13 2 (1) (1)

Total ................... 29 53 11115

1 No cases were reported; a 0 indicates that the percentage of reported cases rounded to zero.

2 State indicated general concern with reliability of 1998 data due to conversion process to SACWIS.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

TABLE 11–33.—LENGTH OF STAY FOR CHILDREN AWAITING ADOPTION, BY STATE, FISCAL YEAR 1998

[In percent; 103,325 total cases]

State

Less

than

1

month

1–5

months

6–11

months

12–17

months

18–23

months

24–29

months

30–35

months

36–59

months

Alabama ..................................................................................................... 1 2 4 6 9 13 9 22 Arizona ........................................................................................................ 2 9 20 9 11 11 7 24 Arkansas ..................................................................................................... (1) 7 10 9 11 10 11 31 California .................................................................................................... 1 6 11 16 17 15 9 16 Colorado ..................................................................................................... 3 12 11 11 9 10 8 23 Connecticut ................................................................................................ 7 31 25 169623Delaware ..................................................................................................... (1) 6 5 13 9 14 7 36 District of Columbia ................................................................................... 0 2 6 8 9 9 10 30 Florida ........................................................................................................ 1 10 11 10 10 11 9 23 Georgia 2 ..................................................................................................... 0 2 4 7 9 11 10 28 

Hawaii ........................................................................................................ 0 3 9 9 19 7 9 28 Idaho .......................................................................................................... (1) 3 8 3 9 12 12 32 

Illinois ......................................................................................................... 0 1 3 5 8 9 8 35 Indiana 2 ..................................................................................................... 0 2 5 9 12 8 7 27 

Kansas 2 ..................................................................................................... 5 22 36 4 4 5 2 9 

Louisiana .................................................................................................... (1) 2 3 6 9 10 9 28 

Maine 2 ....................................................................................................... 1 9 22 13 9 7 6 17 

Maryland ..................................................................................................... 0 1 4 6 8 9 8 32 Minnesota ................................................................................................... 3 10 9 9 10 9 7 18 Mississippi ................................................................................................. 0 4 5 6 7 9 5 28 Missouri ...................................................................................................... 0 2 5 8 9 12 10 28 Montana ..................................................................................................... 1 3 8 12 11 12 10 25 New Jersey .................................................................................................. 1 7 7 9 10 11 8 29 New Mexico ................................................................................................. (1) 21 24 55 (1) (1) (1) (1) 

New York .................................................................................................... 0 1 2 3 5 7 6 24 North Carolina ............................................................................................ 2 9 11 14 12 10 7 20 North Dakota .............................................................................................. 3 13 18 12 10 8 19 15 Oklahoma ................................................................................................... 1 5 8 12 12 13 9 25 Oregon ........................................................................................................ 1 4 9 14 12 14 9 30 Pennsylvania .............................................................................................. 0 2 5 8 10 10 8 26 Puerto Rico ................................................................................................. 1 3 3 4 2 4 8 27 Rhode Island 2 ............................................................................................ 0 5 7 11 19 12 10 21 

South Carolina ........................................................................................... 1 6 7 7 6 9 10 30 Texas .......................................................................................................... 0 4 9 12 10 9 8 25 Utah ............................................................................................................ 2 11 18 22 13 10 6 14 Vermont ...................................................................................................... 1 3 9 10 13 10 7 23 Virginia 2 ..................................................................................................... 1 7 10 8 10 11 8 27 

Washington ................................................................................................. 1 6 11 14 12 11 8 24 West Virginia .............................................................................................. 1 6 10 11 13 12 9 24 Wisconsin ................................................................................................... 2 7 8 6 8 12 9 28 

Wyoming ..................................................................................................... (1) 8 8 8 8(1) 4 43 

Total .............................................................................................. 1 4 7 8 9 10 8 27 

1 No cases were reported; a 0 indicates that the percentage of reported cases rounded to zero.2 State indicated general concern with reliability of 1998 data due to conversion process to SACWIS.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

744

Number and characteristics of adopted children

The Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System

(AFCARS) collects data on children who were adopted with the involvement of public child welfare agencies (see table 11–34). As explained earlier, this is not necessarily the same as the number of

adoptions reported by States for purposes of earning adoption incentive payments, which are based specifically on adoptions of children from foster care. Table 11–35 compares the racial and ethnic

composition of children who were adopted through the child welfare

system in fiscal year 1998 with the race and ethnicity of children

who were waiting for adoption during that year. Black children

were the largest racial group in either category, but comprised a

larger share of waiting children (53 percent) than of children for

whom adoptions had been finalized (46 percent). The opposite was

true for white children, who made up 14 percent of waiting children but 34 percent of adopted children. Table 11–36 shows the racial and ethnic background of children adopted in fiscal year 1998,

by State.

TABLE 11–34.—NUMBER OF AGENCY-INVOLVED ADOPTIONS BY STATE, FISCAL YEAR

1998

State Number of

adoptions

Alabama .......................................................................................................... 47

Alaska .............................................................................................................. 95

California ......................................................................................................... 3,965

Colorado ........................................................................................................... 265

District of Columbia ........................................................................................ 75

Florida .............................................................................................................. 1,549

Georgia 1 .......................................................................................................... 646

Hawaii .............................................................................................................. 293

Illinois .............................................................................................................. 4,566

Indiana 1 .......................................................................................................... 99

Iowa ................................................................................................................. 296

Kansas 1 .......................................................................................................... 254

Kentucky .......................................................................................................... 111

Louisiana ......................................................................................................... 198

Maine 1 ............................................................................................................ 18

Maryland .......................................................................................................... 400

Massachusetts ................................................................................................. 1,060

Michigan .......................................................................................................... 1,941

Minnesota ........................................................................................................ 403

Mississippi ....................................................................................................... 135

Missouri ........................................................................................................... 585

Montana ........................................................................................................... 130

New Hampshire ............................................................................................... 51

New Jersey ....................................................................................................... 713

New York .......................................................................................................... 4,561

North Carolina ................................................................................................. 797

North Dakota ................................................................................................... 39

Ohio ................................................................................................................. 1,212

Oklahoma ......................................................................................................... 472

745

TABLE 11–34.—NUMBER OF AGENCY-INVOLVED ADOPTIONS BY STATE, FISCAL YEAR

1998—Continued

State Number of

adoptions

Oregon ............................................................................................................. 490

Pennsylvania .................................................................................................... 504

Puerto Rico ...................................................................................................... 35

Rhode Island 1 ................................................................................................. 101

South Carolina ................................................................................................. 278

South Dakota ................................................................................................... 85

Tennessee ........................................................................................................ 272

Texas ................................................................................................................ 1,388

Utah ................................................................................................................. 190

Vermont ........................................................................................................... 69

Virginia 1 .......................................................................................................... 107

Washington ...................................................................................................... 441

West Virginia ................................................................................................... 207

Wisconsin ......................................................................................................... 621

Wyoming .......................................................................................................... 28

Total ................................................................................................... 29,792

1 State indicated general concern with reliability of 1998 data due to conversion process to SACWIS.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

TABLE 11–35.—RACIAL AND ETHNIC BACKGROUND OF CHILDREN AWAITING ADOPTION

AND ADOPTED, FISCAL YEAR 1998

[In percent]

Race/ethnicity Waiting

children

Adopted

children

White ............................................................................................................... 29 34

Black ............................................................................................................... 53 46

Hispanic .......................................................................................................... 11 12

Other ............................................................................................................... 2 2

Unknown ......................................................................................................... 5 5

Source: Compiled by the Congressional Research Service from information provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Additional State-by-State information on children adopted

through the public child welfare system is shown in tables 11–37

through 11–40, including age at the time of adoption finalization,

the prior relationship between adoptive parents and children, the

length of time between termination of parental rights (TPR) and

adoption finalization, and the basis of children’s special needs.

Readers should note (table 11–38) that most children who are

adopted out of foster care are adopted by their foster parents. In

table 11–40, the percentages shown are of all children identified in

the individual States as having special needs. Note also that slightly more than half the children classified as ‘‘special needs’’ received

this classification because of either their age or their membership

in a sibling group.

746

TABLE 11–36.—RACE/ETHNICITY OF CHILDREN ADOPTED IN FISCAL YEAR 1998, BY

STATE

[In percent; 29,773 total cases]

State White Black Hispanic

Asian/

Pacific

Islander

American Indian/Alaska

Native

Unknown

Alabama ..................... 45 55 (1) (1) (1) (1)

Alaska ........................ 22 22 3 (1) 53 (1)

California ................... 37 25 34 3 1 1

Colorado ..................... 60 14 23 0 2 1

District of Columbia .. 1 99 (1) (1) (1) (1)

Florida ........................ 49 40 10 0 (1) 0

Georgia 2 .................... 37 59 2 (1) (1) 2

Hawaii ........................ 12 1 4 79 2 2

Illinois ........................ 18 76 5 0 0 1

Indiana 2 .................... 80 11 3 (1) (1) 6

Iowa ........................... 71 19 3 2 5 1

Kansas 2 ..................... 69 19 8 (1) 22

Kentucky ..................... 60 25 5 (1) (1) 9

Louisiana ................... 28 71 (1) (1) (1) 1

Maine 2 ....................... 94 (1) 6(1) (1) (1)

Maryland .................... 32 63 3 1 (1) 1

Massachusetts ........... 46 23 23 1 0 7

Michigan .................... 37 58 3 0 1 1

Minnesota .................. 40 43 6 1 9 (1)

Mississippi ................. 44 52 2 (1) 1(1)

Missouri ..................... 58 41 0 0 1 0

Montana ..................... 82 2 4 (1) 12 (1)

New Hampshire .......... 84 8 6 (1) 2(1)

New Jersey ................. 21 70 9 (1) (1) 1

New York .................... 9 53 14 0 0 23

North Carolina ........... 40 55 3 0 2 1

North Dakota .............. 97 (1) (1) (1) 3(1)

Ohio ............................ 46 47 2 (1) (1) 5

Oklahoma ................... 58 26 3 0 12 0

Oregon ........................ 76 11 10 1 2 1

Pennsylvania .............. 52 35 13 1 (1) (1)

Puerto Rico ................ (1) (1) 100 (1) (1) (1)

Rhode Island 2 ........... 33 38 7 (1) (1) 23

South Carolina ........... 30 67 0 (1) 02

South Dakota ............. 65 2 1 (1) 32 (1)

Tennessee .................. 51 45 4 (1) 0(1)

Texas .......................... 27 40 28 0 0 5

Utah ........................... 74 5 17 2 3 1

Vermont ...................... 99 1 (1) (1) (1) (1)

747

TABLE 11–36.—RACE/ETHNICITY OF CHILDREN ADOPTED IN FISCAL YEAR 1998, BY

STATE—Continued

[In percent; 29,773 total cases]

State White Black Hispanic

Asian/

Pacific

Islander

American Indian/Alaska

Native

Unknown

Virginia 2 .................... 48 49 1 (1) (1) 3

Washington ................ 67 19 7 1 5 1

West Virginia ............. 84911 (1) 4

Wisconsin ................... 42 48 5 0 5 (1)

Wyoming ..................... 68 4 14 (1) 77

Total ............. 34 46 12 1 1 5

1 No cases were reported; a 0 indicates that the percentage of reported cases rounded to zero.

2 State indicated general concern with reliability of 1998 data due to conversion process to SACWIS.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

TABLE 11–37.—CHILD’S AGE AT ADOPTION FINALIZATION, BY STATE, FISCAL YEAR 1998

[In percent; 29,791 total cases]

State under 1 1–5 6–10 11–15 16–18 19+

Alabama ........................... (1) 47 34 19 (1) (1)

Alaska .............................. (1) 48 37 15 (1) (1)

California ......................... 3 62 28 7 1 (1)

Colorado ........................... 3 50 38 7 2 (1)

District of Columbia ........ (1) 48 32 17 3 (1)

Florida .............................. 1 47 35 15 2 0

Georgia 2 .......................... 2 47 35 15 2 (1)

Hawaii .............................. 2 53 36 9 1 (1)

Illinois .............................. 0 38 42 17 2 0

Indiana 2 .......................... (1) 37 39 21 2 (1)

Iowa ................................. 0 36 45 15 3 (1)

Kansas 2 ........................... 1 37 37 22 3 (1)

Kentucky ........................... (1) 35 49 13 3 (1)

Louisiana ......................... 1 28 52 18 1 (1)

Maine 2 ............................. (1) 33 50 17 (1) (1)

Maryland .......................... 2 42 43 13 1 (1)

Massachusetts ................. 1 46 40 13 1 (1)

Michigan .......................... 1 44 40 13 2 (1)

Minnesota ........................ 0 34 48 15 2 (1)

Mississippi ....................... (1) 16 44 31 8 (1)

Missouri ........................... 1 42 38 17 2 (1)

Montana ........................... (1) 36 42 19 2 (1)

New Hampshire ................ (1) 51 33 14 2 (1)

New Jersey ....................... 1 56 32 11 0 (1)

New York .......................... 0 31 43 22 4 0

North Carolina ................. 3 43 34 16 3 0

North Dakota .................... 3 64 18 15 (1) (1)

Ohio .................................. 3 53 30 13 2 (1)

748

TABLE 11–37.—CHILD’S AGE AT ADOPTION FINALIZATION, BY STATE, FISCAL YEAR

1998—Continued

[In percent; 29,791 total cases]

State under 1 1–5 6–10 11–15 16–18 19+

Oklahoma ......................... 1 44 35 17 3 (1)

Oregon .............................. 0 49 38 12 1 (1)

Pennsylvania .................... 1 48 38 12 2 (1)

Puerto Rico ...................... (1) 51 31 17 (1) (1)

Rhode Island 2 ................. 1 52 39 8 (1) (1)

South Carolina ................. (1) 26 46 26 3 (1)

South Dakota ................... 1 44 36 18 1 (1)

Tennessee ........................ 0 38 38 20 4 (1)

Texas ................................ 2 47 37 13 1 (1)

Utah ................................. 4 49 33 13 1 (1)

Vermont ............................ (1) 48 39 12 1 (1)

Virginia 2 .......................... (1) 30 49 19 3 (1)

Washington ...................... 0 60 31 8 1 (1)

West Virginia ................... 1 44 39 14 3 (1)

Wisconsin ......................... 1 43 38 16 3 (1)

Wyoming ........................... (1) 50 25 25 (1) (1)

Total ................... 1 44 38 15 2 0

1 No cases were reported; a 0 indicates that the percentage of reported cases rounded to zero.

2 State indicated general concern with reliability of 1998 data due to conversion process to SACWIS.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

TABLE 11–38.—PRIOR RELATIONSHIP OF ADOPTIVE PARENT(S) TO CHILD, BY STATE,

FISCAL YEAR 1998

[In percent; 23,014 total cases]

State Nonrelative

Foster

parent

StepparentOther

relative

Alaska ................................................................ 1 59 (1) 40

Arkansas ............................................................ 30 60 (1) 10

California ........................................................... 7 58 (1) 35

Colorado ............................................................ 15 60 1 24

Connecticut ....................................................... 24 52 (1) 23

Delaware ............................................................ 14 83 (1) 3

District of Columbia .......................................... 2 98 (1) (1)

Florida ............................................................... 36 54 (1) 10

Georgia 2 ............................................................ 1 89 (1) 10

Hawaii ............................................................... 3 40 (1) 58

Indiana 2 ............................................................ 83 11 (1) 6

Kansas 2 ............................................................ 21 60 (1) 19

Kentucky ............................................................ 78 21 0 1

Louisiana ........................................................... 24 75 (1) 1

Maine 2 .............................................................. 82 14 (1) 4

Maryland ............................................................ 19 60 (1) 21

Michigan ............................................................ 12 55 (1) 33

749

TABLE 11–38.—PRIOR RELATIONSHIP OF ADOPTIVE PARENT(S) TO CHILD, BY STATE,

FISCAL YEAR 1998—Continued

[In percent; 23,014 total cases]

State Nonrelative

Foster

parent

StepparentOther

relative

Minnesota .......................................................... 36 31 (1) 33

Mississippi ........................................................ 32 58 2 8

Missouri ............................................................. 15 66 0 18

Montana ............................................................ (1) 78 (1) 22

New Hampshire ................................................. 20 65 (1) 16

New Jersey ......................................................... 21 79 (1) (1)

New Mexico ........................................................ 65 6 (1) 29

North Carolina ................................................... 32 51 1 17

North Dakota ..................................................... 52 45 (1) 4

Oklahoma .......................................................... 37 38 (1) 25

Oregon ............................................................... 30 39 (1) 31

Pennsylvania ..................................................... 53 45 0 2

Puerto Rico ........................................................ 22 32 9 37

Rhode Island 2 ................................................... 10 53 (1) 37

South Carolina .................................................. 37 58 (1) 5

South Dakota ..................................................... 38 51 (1) 12

Tennessee .......................................................... 34 64 (1) 3

Texas ................................................................. 27 59 0 14

Utah ................................................................... 37 57 0 6

Vermont ............................................................. 42 55 (1) 3

Virginia 2 ............................................................ 10 84 (1) 6

Washington ........................................................ 40 58 2 0

West Virginia ..................................................... 8 74 (1) 18

Wisconsin .......................................................... 13 76 (1) 11

Wyoming ............................................................ 29 55 (1) 16

Total ..................................................... 26 55 0 19

1 No cases were reported; a 0 indicates that the percentage of reported cases rounded to zero.

2 State indicated general concern with reliability of 1998 data due to conversion process to SACWIS.

Note.—Relative foster parents are shown as ‘‘other relative.’’

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

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 since it began in

1981. Based on administration estimates for fiscal year 1999, Federal title IV–E expenditures have increased thirteenfold, from

$308.8 million to $4 billion, between 1981 and 1999. Funding for

the Title IV–B Child Welfare Services Program increased by almost

80 percent from 1981 to 1999 ($163.6 million to $292 million).

Funding for the Title XX Social Services Block Grant (SSBG),

which States may use for child welfare services, has actually fallen.

TABLE 11–39.—TIME BETWEEN TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AND ADOPTION FINALIZATION, BY STATE, FISCAL YEAR 1998

[In percent; 28,339 total cases]

State Less than 1 month 1–5 months 6–11 months 12–17 months 18–23 months 24–29 months 30–35 months 3–4 years 

Alabama ...................................................................... (1) 13 29 21 4 8 8 12 Alaska .......................................................................... 2 20 27 19 7 3 11 7 Arkansas ...................................................................... 2 26 27 206856California ..................................................................... 0 13 34 22 12745Colorado ....................................................................... 1 30 22 22 12534Connecticut .................................................................. (1) 12 44 21 10 6 3 3 

Delaware ...................................................................... (1) 25 48 3 11 2 (1) 2 

District of Columbia .................................................... 26 23 17 108655Florida .......................................................................... 0 12 27 21 15968Georgia 2 ...................................................................... 0 3 27 25 19868

Hawaii .......................................................................... 3 25 33 158634Illinois .......................................................................... 1 25 41 168423Indiana 2 ...................................................................... 9 21 22 219736

Iowa ............................................................................. (1) 19 27 29 13 4 3 4 

Kansas 2 ....................................................................... 1 5 33 20 21534

Kentucky ...................................................................... 12 3 27 22 9 1338Louisiana ..................................................................... 0 8 32 19 13 8 4 14 Maryland ...................................................................... (1) 27 30 18 11 6 3 4 

Massachusetts ............................................................. 1 24 27 18 13754Michigan ...................................................................... 0 10 31 25 13955Minnesota .................................................................... 0 6 13 15 20 14 16 12 Mississippi ................................................................... 3 8 26 20 10 11 9 11 Missouri ....................................................................... 15 14 22 199638Montana ....................................................................... 3 13 25 19 10 3 8 13 New Hampshire ........................................................... 22 14 38 14 3 5 (1) (1) New Jersey ................................................................... 4 13 32 25 10744

New Mexico .................................................................. 2 8 43 14 12 1145North Carolina ............................................................. 1 21 31 209545North Dakota ............................................................... 4 14 64 10 6 1 1(1) 

Oklahoma ..................................................................... 2 7 24 27 14 9 4 11 Oregon ......................................................................... (1) 5 27 30 20 8 4 4 

Pennsylvania ................................................................ 20 22 24 177334Puerto Rico .................................................................. 70 4 9 5 8 2(1)1

Rhode Island 2 ............................................................. 12 41 19 115435

South Carolina ............................................................. 4 10 49 19 10203

South Dakota ............................................................... (1) 11 31 34 8 5 6 5 

Tennessee .................................................................... 2 13 25 20 13 8 4 12 Texas ............................................................................ 1 17 31 19 11837Utah ............................................................................. 6 42 22 17 5 6 1 1

Vermont ....................................................................... (1) 7 37 17 23 12 2 3 Virginia 2 ...................................................................... (1) 1 31 22 10 11 7 12 

Washington .................................................................. 1 16 27 19 12 8 4 11 West Virginia ............................................................... 4 5 15 20 15 16 9 12 Wisconsin ..................................................................... 1 43 28 166311Wyoming ...................................................................... 16 34 34 6 (1) (1) (1)6

Total ............................................................... 3 17 31 20 11746

1 No cases were reported; a 0 indicates that the percentage of reported cases rounded to zero.2 State indicated general concern with reliability of 1998 data due to conversion process to SACWIS.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

752

TABLE 11–40.—BASIS OF SPECIAL NEEDS FOR ADOPTED CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL

NEEDS, BY STATE, FISCAL YEAR 1998

[In percent; 29,764 total cases]

State

Racial/

original

background

Age Sibling

group

Medical condition

or mental, physical, emotional

disabilities

Other

Alabama ............................... 51 32 (1) 13 4

Alaska ................................... 2 14 4 74 6

California .............................. 13 13 23 14 38

Colorado ................................ 2 3 6 89 (1)

District of Columbia ............. (1) 40 32 23 5

Florida ................................... 41 22 (1) (1) 37

Georgia 2 ............................... 19 10 41 4 26

Hawaii ................................... 0 13 58 15 14

Illinois ................................... (1) 92 6 2 (1)

Indiana 2 ............................... (1) (1) (1) 100 (1)

Iowa ...................................... 2 4 6 88 (1)

Kansas 2 ................................ 4 27 14 55 (1)

Kentucky ............................... 18 13 7 55 6

Louisiana .............................. 28 5 4 64 (1)

Maryland ............................... 18 13 36 29 5

Massachusetts ...................... 19 3 18 2 59

Michigan ............................... 18 74 4 3 0

Minnesota ............................. 9 9 24 40 19

Mississippi ............................ 2 25 38 36 (1)

Missouri ................................ 23 14 37 20 6

Montana ................................ 2 72 20 6 (1)

New Hampshire .................... 4 29 47 10 10

New Jersey ............................ 30 2 17 30 21

New York ............................... (1) 17 32 31 21

North Carolina ...................... 2 2 24 50 22

North Dakota ........................ (1) 44 18 38 (1)

Ohio ...................................... 43 32 15 11 (1)

Oklahoma .............................. 13 30 33 7 17

Oregon .................................. (1) (1) 59 41 (1)

Pennsylvania ......................... 22 16 16 40 6

Puerto Rico ........................... (1) 3 66 31 (1)

Rhode Island 2 ...................... 42 3 25 2 29

South Carolina ...................... (1) 38 31 31 (1)

South Dakota ........................ 14 2 33 39 12

Tennessee ............................. 17 15 8 57 3

Texas ..................................... 14 18 45 24 (1)

Utah ...................................... 6 25 44 18 6

Vermont ................................ (1) 28 43 14 14

753

TABLE 11–40.—BASIS OF SPECIAL NEEDS FOR ADOPTED CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL

NEEDS, BY STATE, FISCAL YEAR 1998—Continued

[In percent; 29,764 total cases]

State

Racial/

original

background

Age Sibling

group

Medical condition

or mental, physical, emotional

disabilities

Other

Virginia 2 ............................... 12 24 32 22 9

Washington ........................... 4 35 0 61 (1)

West Virginia ........................ 47 36 11 (1) 6

Wisconsin .............................. 7 2 2 83 5

Wyoming ............................... 11 7 39 36 7

Total ........................ 12 31 20 21 15

1 No cases were reported; a 0 indicates that the percentage of reported cases rounded to zero.

2 State indicated general concern with reliability of 1998 data due to conversion process to Statewide

Automated Child Welfare Information Systems (SACWIS).

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

In recent years, an increasing proportion of title IV–E costs has

been expended on child placement services, administration, and

training. Table 11–42 shows U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services (DHHS) and Congressional Budget Office (CBO)

estimates of title IV–E expenditures through fiscal year 2005.

Table 11–41 shows Federal foster care expenditures by State in

1987, 1991, 1996, and 1999. Between 1991 and 1999, total foster

care expenditures increased by 103 percent. Over this same time

period, foster care maintenance costs increased by 75 percent. Because of the large increase in administrative and placement costs

relative to maintenance costs, the share of total costs represented

by maintenance costs decreased between 1991 and 1999.

In an effort to gain more complete information on total child welfare spending, including sources in addition to titles IV–B and IV–

E of the Social Security Act, the Urban Institute conducted a survey to which 49 States responded with information about spending

in fiscal year 1996 (Geen, Boots, & Tumlin, 1999). Geen et al.

found that States spent $14.4 billion in that year, and estimated

that Federal funds accounted for 44 percent of total spending, that

State funds also constituted 44 percent, and that local sources accounted for 13 percent. Of Federal expenditures, 49 percent was

from title IV–E and 16 percent was from the SSBG. Medicaid and

the former Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)-Emergency Assistance (EA) Program each accounted for 13 percent, 6

percent came from title IV–B, and other sources accounted for the

rest. Thus, the authors concluded that nontraditional funding

streams (i.e., Medicaid, SSBG, and EA) were surprisingly important sources of funds. The report also found that the financing of

child welfare services varies considerably by State, and that the

largest single category of expenditure was for out-of-home care,

with residential or group care being the most costly.

TABLE 11–41.—FEDERAL FOSTER CARE EXPENDITURES BY STATE, 1987–99 1

State

Fiscal year total expenditures (in millions of

dollars)

Maintenance costs (in

millions of dollars)

Maintenance costs as

a percentage of total

P

g

1987 

2 1991 1996 3 1999 3 1991 1999 1991 1999

Alabama ..................................................................................... $2.09 $5.17 $5.23 $13.24 $1.43 $2.53 0.28 0.19 Alaska ......................................................................................... 0.39 3.75 7.99 9.42 1.67 2.34 0.45 0.25 Arizona ........................................................................................ 3.02 11.43 44.12 54.32 3.72 25.63 0.33 0.47 Arkansas ..................................................................................... 1.06 4.85 26.64 32.06 1.76 8.17 0.36 0.25 California .................................................................................... 163.61 354.69 727.89 911.80 185.50 437.77 0.52 0.48 Colorado ...................................................................................... 5.65 7.46 20.35 42.55 4.49 7.99 0.60 0.19 Connecticut ................................................................................. 4.32 24.04 66.83 91.78 8.18 33.04 0.34 0.36 Delaware ..................................................................................... 0.4 1.35 7.40 8.31 0.57 1.65 0.42 0.20 District of Columbia ................................................................... 6.62 4.70 22.89 42.95 2.68 22.38 0.57 0.52 Florida ......................................................................................... 6.61 25.36 78.70 120.77 10.98 39.09 0.43 0.32 Georgia ....................................................................................... 9.77 24.19 24.52 42.89 7.39 19.98 0.31 0.47 Hawaii ......................................................................................... 0.07 1.23 11.77 15.81 0.09 4.92 0.07 0.31 Idaho ........................................................................................... 0.41 1.23 6.70 7.92 0.28 1.29 0.23 0.16 Illinois ......................................................................................... 37.03 67.45 238.33 273.27 40.36 100.77 0.60 0.37 Indiana ....................................................................................... 1.27 7.12 50.82 53.32 2.49 30.43 0.35 0.57 Iowa ............................................................................................ 3.73 14.02 16.96 29.62 3.60 19.55 0.26 0.66 Kansas ........................................................................................ 3.98 12.94 23.90 30.89 6.36 20.20 0.49 0.65 Kentucky ..................................................................................... 6.86 30.68 51.58 46.11 11.96 22.46 0.39 0.49 Louisiana .................................................................................... 13.15 26.12 36.68 50.14 14.67 29.73 0.56 0.59 Maine .......................................................................................... 4.19 8.01 18.78 32.18 4.79 27.84 0.60 0.86 Maryland ..................................................................................... 15.43 28.95 76.46 96.73 14.23 42.42 0.49 0.44 Massachusetts 4 ......................................................................... 12.42 29.47 95.20 75.23 17.01 28.41 0.58 0.38 

Michigan ..................................................................................... 55.87 128.27 104.57 135.96 52.49 67.91 0.41 0.50 

Minnesota ................................................................................... 16.09 24.83 44.55 72.59 12.60 30.45 0.51 0.42 Mississippi .................................................................................. 0.85 2.16 8.74 9.49 1.07 2.77 0.50 0.29 Missouri ...................................................................................... 14.04 29.29 45.96 73.62 14.29 33.76 0.49 0.46 Montana ...................................................................................... 1.77 6.72 8.31 7.79 2.47 4.03 0.37 0.52 Nebraska ..................................................................................... 3.27 7.15 20.40 25.89 3.73 13.22 0.52 0.51 Nevada ........................................................................................ 0.59 2.54 5.18 14.76 0.92 4.41 0.36 0.30 

New Hampshire .......................................................................... 1.12 5.06 10.24 11.85 1.97 5.76 0.39 0.49 New Jersey .................................................................................. 14.33 16.30 41.38 45.64 8.07 32.53 0.50 0.71 New Mexico ................................................................................. 3.32 6.28 13.78 14.37 3.04 4.14 0.48 0.29 New York .................................................................................... 224.01 672.62 471.46 482.04 451.66 302.38 0.67 0.63 North Carolina ............................................................................ 2.36 8.64 37.44 64.54 6.55 33.49 0.76 0.52 North Dakota .............................................................................. 1.25 3.84 8.12 11.21 1.90 4.14 0.49 0.37 Ohio ............................................................................................ 27.66 52.52 135.55 207.89 26.40 116.13 0.50 0.56 Oklahoma .................................................................................... 4.39 11.64 24.99 32.42 8.21 14.71 0.71 0.45 Oregon ........................................................................................ 8.51 14.02 24.82 31.50 6.91 12.63 0.49 0.40 Pennsylvania ............................................................................... 14.21 118.44 149.79 316.40 82.01 169.27 0.69 0.53 Puerto Rico 5 ............................................................................... NA NA NA 7.28 NA 7.28 NA NA 

Rhode Island .............................................................................. 3.74 5.77 9.17 12.59 2.57 4.54 0.45 0.36 South Carolina ............................................................................ 3.35 9.70 18.78 17.23 4.74 8.07 0.49 0.47 South Dakota .............................................................................. 1.8 2.02 3.04 4.60 1.07 2.26 0.53 0.49 Tennessee ................................................................................... 2.1 19.63 27.15 25.19 11.22 13.90 0.57 0.55 

Texas ........................................................................................... 18.94 54.75 77.22 86.96 28.54 63.76 0.52 0.73 Utah ............................................................................................ 0.96 3.84 13.19 20.95 2.05 3.52 0.53 0.17 Vermont ...................................................................................... 3.61 6.59 8.24 12.00 4.32 8.71 0.66 0.73 Virginia ....................................................................................... 5.15 12.48 32.67 44.32 5.09 16.76 0.41 0.38 Washington ................................................................................. 7.4 17.06 24.83 29.30 6.02 11.27 0.35 0.38 West Virginia .............................................................................. 6.77 7.60 8.51 17.73 5.69 11.47 0.75 0.65 Wisconsin .................................................................................... 15.62 32.27 45.97 91.65 15.88 29.56 0.49 0.32 Wyoming ..................................................................................... 0.31 0.89 1.92 2.19 0.61 1.21 0.69 0.55 

Total ................................................................ 765.47 1,977.13 3,085.71 4,003.96 1,116.30 1,955.33 0.56 0.49 

1 Does not include disputes and reconciliations. 2 Fiscal year 1987 claims are based on accrual accounting. 3 Fiscal year 1996 and 1999 include SACWIS exp

4 Fiscal year 1999 data include estimates for the third and fourth quarters. 5 Did not begin to participate in title IV–E foster care until fiscal year 1999. It is not includ

fiscal year 1999 total.

NA—Not applicable.Note.—Totals may differ from sum of State amounts because of rounding.Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

756

TABLE 11–42.—PROPORTION OF TITLE IV–E FOSTER CARE EXPENDITURES SPENT ON

CHILD PLACEMENT, ADMINISTRATION, AND TRAINING, FISCAL YEARS 1989–2005

Fiscal year

Total Federal

title IV–E expenditures (in

millions of dollars)

Placement administration and training

expenditures (in

millions of dollars) 1

Placement administration and training

proportion of total

Actual:

1989 ...................................... $1,153 $507 0.44

1990 ...................................... 1,473 638 0.43

1991 ...................................... 1,819 789 0.43

1992 ...................................... 2,233 1,029 0.46

1993 ...................................... 2,534 1,222 0.48

1994 ...................................... 2,750 1,375 0.50

1995 ...................................... 3,066 1,467 0.48

1996 ...................................... 3,098 1,595 0.51

1997 ...................................... 3,692 1,967 0.53

1998 ...................................... 3,714 1,782 0.48

1999 2 .................................... 4,011 2,048 0.51

DHHS estimates:

2000 ...................................... 4,398 2,278 0.52

2001 ...................................... 5,013 2,629 0.52

2002 ...................................... 5,426 2,846 0.52

2003 ...................................... 5,759 2,976 0.52

2004 ...................................... 6,214 3,216 0.52

2005 ...................................... 6,702 3,471 0.52

CBO estimates:

2000 ...................................... 4,139 2,105 0.51

2001 ...................................... 4,417 2,243 0.51

2002 ...................................... 4,702 2,384 0.51

2003 ...................................... 4,983 2,523 0.51

2004 ...................................... 5,259 2,660 0.51

2005 ...................................... 5,546 2,802 0.51

1 Includes regular administration, training, and for fiscal years 1994–2005, SACWIS costs.

2 Beginning in fiscal year 1999, data includes Puerto Rico.

Source: Compiled by the Congressional Research Service from data provided by the U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services and Congressional Budget Office.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

(For legislative history before 1996, see previous editions of the

Green Book.)

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 are eligible for title IV–E subVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 00756 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.011 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
757

sidies if their families would have been eligible for AFDC, as it was

in effect in their State on June 1, 1995. (Technical amendments enacted in 1997, Public Law 105–33, subsequently changed this date

to July 16, 1996.) Children eligible for SSI continue to be eligible

for title IV–E adoption assistance, and foster and adoptive children

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 DHHS 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.

In 1997, Congress enacted the most significant changes to titles

IV–B and IV–E of the Social Security Act since they were established in their current form in 1980. This legislation, the Adoption

and Safe Families Act (Public Law 105–89), was intended to promote adoption and ensure safety for children in foster care. The

law established that a child’s health and safety must be of paramount concern in any efforts made by the State to preserve or reunify the child’s family. The law retained, but clarified the requirement that States make ‘‘reasonable efforts’’ to preserve or reunify

a child’s family, establishing exceptions to this requirement. Also

to promote safety, Public Law 105–89 required States to conduct

criminal background checks for all prospective foster or adoptive

parents, and required States to develop standards to ensure quality

services that protect children’s health and safety while in foster

care. To promote permanency, the law required States to make reasonable efforts to place children, in a timely manner, who have permanency plans of adoption or another alternative to family reunification, and to document these efforts. Further, provisions were included intended to eliminate interjurisdictional barriers to adoption. Public Law 105–89 changed the name of dispositional hearings to ‘‘permanency’’ hearings, and required that they occur within

12 months of a child’s placement in foster care, rather than the

first 18 months. The law also revised the list of permanency goals,

eliminating specific reference to long-term foster care, and required

that foster parents, preadoptive parents, and relative care givers be

given notice and opportunity to be heard at reviews and hearings.

The Adoption and Safe Families Act required that States initiate

or join proceedings to terminate parental rights on behalf of children who have been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22

months, although certain exceptions are allowed. The law also authorized incentive payments to States to increase the number of

foster and special-needs children who are placed for adoption. The

law contains some provisions intended to expand health insurance

coverage for special-needs adopted children who are not eligible

under title IV–E, and also reauthorized and renamed the Family

Preservation and Family Support Program. The program was authorized through fiscal year 2001, as the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program. In addition, Public Law 105–89 established

a new outcome measures reporting system for States, and authorVerDate 20-JUL-2000 13:14 Sep 29, 2000 Jkt 061710 PO 00000 Frm 00757 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 J:\SKAYNE\GB96\61710.011 WAYS3 PsN: WAYS3
758

ized an expansion of the child welfare waiver demonstration authority established earlier.

Public Law 106–169 was enacted during the 106th Congress, revising the Independent Living Program and renaming it in honor

of the late Senator John Chafee. The legislation provided greater

flexibility to States in their use of funds to help older foster children obtain the education and employment services necessary for

a successful transition to adult living, increased the entitlement

ceiling for the program, and revised the State allocation formula.

The law also established an option under Medicaid for States to

cover certain former foster care youth aged 18–20.

REFERENCES

Boots, S.W., & Geen, R. (1999, July). Family care or foster care:

How State policies affect kinship providers (Series A, No. A–

34). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Committee on Ways and Means. (1990). The enemy within: Crackcocaine and America’s families (WMCP: 101–30). Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Cook, R. (1990). A national evaluation of title IV–E foster care independent living programs for youth, phase 1. Rockville, MD:

Westat.

Cook, R. (1992). A national evaluation of title IV–E foster care independent living programs for youth, phase 2. Rockville, MD:

Westat.

Courtney, M.E., & Piliavin, I. (1998). Foster youth transitions to

adulthood: Outcomes 12 to 18 months after leaving out-of-home

care. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.

Geen, R., Boots, S.W., & Tumlin, K.C. (1999, January). The cost of

protecting vulnerable children: Understanding Federal, State,

and local child welfare spending. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

James Bell Associates. (1999a, March). Family preservation and

family support implementation study: Interim report. Arlington,

VA: Author.

James Bell Associates. (1999b, June). Review and analysis of State

program reports related to the court improvement program. Arlington, VA: Author.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (1995). National pregnancy and

health survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (1999). Research on the nature

and extent of drug use in the United States: The sixth triennial

report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. 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. (1990). Opportunities for cost containment by modifying Federal reimbursement to States for administrative costs of title IV–E program (A–07–90–00274). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

759

Office of Inspector General. (1992). Using relatives for foster care

(OEI–06–90–02390). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services.

Paxson, C., & Waldfogel, J. (1999, September). Work, welfare, and

child maltreatment (Working paper 7343). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Sedlak, A.J., & Broadhurst, D.D. (1996, September). Third national

incidence study of child abuse and neglect: Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Shook, K. (1999). Does the loss of welfare income increase the risk

of involvement with the child welfare system? Child and Youth

Services Review, 21 8/9.

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. (1995a, May). A

review of family preservation and family reunification programs. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1995b, May). A

synthesis of research on family preservation and family reunification programs. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1997). National

study of protective, preventive and reunification services delivered to children and their families. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1997, June). Informal and formal kinship care. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1998, November). Children placed in foster care with relatives: A multi-state

study. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1999a, April).

Blending perspectives and building common ground: A report to

Congress on substance abuse and child protection. Washington,

DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1999b, November). Title IV–E independent living programs: a decade in review. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000a, March).

Dynamics of children’s movement among the AFDC, Medicaid

and Foster Care Programs prior to welfare reform: 1995–96.

Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000b, June). Report to the Congress on kinship foster care (Contract #HHS–

100–96–0011). 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.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1999, May). Foster care: Kinship

care quality and permanency issues (GAO–HEHS–99–32).

Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1999, November). Foster care: Effectiveness of independent living services unkown (GAO–

HEHS–00–13). Washington, DC: Author.

Westat, Chapin Hall Center for Children, & James Bell Associates.

(1998, September). Evaluation of the New York City

760

HomeRebuilders Demonstration. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Wulczyn, F.H., Brunner, K., & Goerge, R.M. (1999). An update

from the multistate foster care data archive: Foster care dynamics, 1983–97. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children.