Child Welfare: Additional Federal Action Could Help States Address Challenges in Providing Services to Children and Families
Published: 2007-05-15T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Despite substantial federal and state investment, states have had difficulty ensuring the safety, well-being, and permanency of children in foster care. Ensuring these outcomes becomes even more difficult in the event of disasters such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, when children and families may become displaced across state lines. This testimony discusses (1) the issues that states reported as most important to resolve now and in the future to improve outcomes for children under their supervision (2) initiatives states reported taking to address these issues and how recent law provides support for additional state efforts and (3) federal action taken to assist states' efforts in developing child welfare disaster plans. This testimony is primarily based on our October 2006 report on state child welfare challenges (GAO-07-75) and our July 2006 report on state child welfare disaster planning (GAO-06-944). The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Congress took action that addressed our July report recommendations. However, HHS disagreed with our October report recommendation to improve awareness of and access to federal social services by modifying the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance or other means. We continue to believe that taking such action would help improve services to children and families.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: States reported in our survey that inadequate levels of mental health and substance abuse services, the high average number of child welfare cases per worker, and the difficulty finding homes for children with special needs were the most important challenges to resolve in order to improve outcomes for children under states' care. Child welfare officials cited various reasons these challenges existed in their states, such as a lack of funding for family support services and a lack of caseload standards. Over the next 5 years, major challenges for state child welfare systems were cited as serving a growing population of children with special needs or who have been exposed to illegal drugs, and changing demographic trends that will require greater multicultural sensitivity in providing services to some groups of children and their families. States have some initiatives in place to address these challenges, but these initiatives do not always address areas of states' greatest concern. For example, only 4 of 31 states dissatisfied with substance abuse services reported initiatives to improve the level of these services. Similarly, states reported little or no action to address two of the most frequently reported factors underlying the challenge to recruit and retain caseworkers - the administrative burden on caseworkers and effective supervision. Recent law provides additional requirements and funding to help states address these challenges. Some states implemented initiatives under federal demonstration projects, including those to improve substance abuse services and permanent homes for children. However, outcome evaluations of these initiatives have shown mixed results. Several actions have been taken by HHS and the Congress to better ensure that states are prepared to continue child welfare services for children displaced by disaster. Our earlier work showed that although 29 states, plus Puerto Rico, experienced a federally declared disaster in 2005, only 8 of these states reported having a written child welfare disaster plan. Since that time, HHS has updated its guidance to states and provided technical assistance. In addition, the Congress passed the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006, requiring that states have procedures in place concerning how state child welfare agencies would respond in the event of a disaster. The deadline set by HHS for submission of these plans is June 30, 2007.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to present information from our recent  reports on the challenges that state foster care systems face in serving the  more than half a million children under their care. For fiscal year 2006,  Congress appropriated about $8 billion to support the ability of state child  welfare systems to provide services that protect children from abuse and  neglect, promote their physical and mental well-being, find them  permanent homes, and enable families to successfully care for their  children. State and local governments contributed more than $12 billion  for these purposes, according to information available from 2004. Despite  this substantial investment, federal evaluations of state child welfare  programs showed that states continue to struggle to meet federal outcome  goals established by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)  to ensure the safety, well-being, and permanency of children in foster care.  Ensuring these outcomes becomes even more difficult in the event of  disasters such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita for states that do not have  plans in place to continue child welfare services for children and families  who may become displaced within or across state lines.
State child welfare agencies are responsible for administering their  programs within federal policies established by the Children’s Bureau  under the Administration for Children and Families within the Department  of Health and Human Services. This federal agency oversees states’ child  welfare programs in part through its child and family services reviews  (CFSR), which measure states’ performance in meeting federal outcome  goals. During its first round of CFSRs, completed in the 3 year period  ending March 2004, HHS reported that no state had substantially  conformed with all federal performance goals, and half or more states did  not meet performance indicators such as providing adequate services for  children and families, providing child welfare staff with the ongoing  training needed to fulfill their duties, and ensuring the diligent recruitment  of foster and adoptive homes. Further, while HHS requested states to  submit plans that address the challenges of serving child welfare families  in times of disaster, we reported that as of July 2006, few states had  comprehensive plans in place. Since our reports, HHS and the Congress  have taken action to help states address some of these long-standing  challenges and HHS has begun its next round of CFSRs. My testimony  today will focus on (1) the issues that states reported as most important to  resolve now and in the future to improve outcomes for children under  their supervision, (2) initiatives states reported taking to address these  issues and how recent law provides support for additional state efforts,  and (3) federal action taken to assist states’ efforts in developing child  welfare disaster plans. My testimony is based primarily on findings from  our July and October 2006 reports. Those findings were based on multiple  methodologies including a survey of child welfare directors on challenges  they face in improving outcomes for children and the extent that they had  developed child welfare disaster plans. We supplemented these surveys by  conducting multiple site visits to states and counties and by interviewing  child welfare experts and HHS child welfare officials. We conducted our  work in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards.
In summary, states reported that inadequate levels of mental health and  substance abuse services, the high average number of child welfare cases  per worker, and the difficulty of finding homes for children with special  needs were the most important challenges to resolve in order to improve  outcomes for children under states’ care. Child welfare officials cited  various reasons these challenges existed in their states. One reason  maintaining an adequate level of services is difficult, for example, is that  the funding for family support services has not kept up with the need,  which in turn may result in children entering foster care and staying there  longer. Some states did not have caseload standards to ensure that  caseworkers had enough time to adequately serve each child and family,  and caseworkers in some areas of most states often carried more than  double the caseload standard established by the Child Welfare League of  America (CWLA). State child welfare officials predict that these caseloads  will continue to become increasingly complex and culturally diverse.  Growing challenges for state child welfare systems in the next 5 years  were cited as serving the population of children with special needs or who  have been exposed to illegal drugs, and changing demographic trends that  will require greater multicultural sensitivity in providing services to some  groups of children and their families. States have some initiatives in place  to address challenges, but the frequency of initiatives states reported did  not always mirror the levels of dissatisfaction with the major challenges.  For example, 4 of 39 states dissatisfied with the level of service in finding  homes for children with developmental disabilities or other needs  reported initiatives in this area. Recently enacted legislation, the Child and  Family Services Improvement Act of 2006, assists states in addressing  some important challenges by targeting funds to children affected by  substance abuse and to activities designed to recruit and retain  caseworkers. Our October report had recommended that HHS also take  action to improve awareness of and access to federal social services by  such means as modifying the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. In  its comments, however, HHS disagreed with this recommendation, stating  that it was insufficient to address the problem and incorrectly implied that  caseworkers were not already aware of existing resources. We continue to  support the recommendation based on the results of our work. HHS has  taken action along with the Congress to better ensure that states are  planning for the challenges they will face in safeguarding children and  families displaced by disaster, per our July report recommendations. HHS  has updated its guidance and provided technical assistance. In addition,  the law now requires all states to submit child welfare disaster plans to  HHS. The deadline set by HHS for submission of these plans is June 30,  2007.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The well-being of children and families has traditionally been understood  as a primary duty of state governments, and state and local governments  are the primary administrators of child welfare programs designed to  protect children from abuse or neglect. Child welfare caseworkers  investigate allegations of child maltreatment and determine what services  can be offered to stabilize and strengthen a child’s own home. If remaining  in the home is not a safe option for the child, he or she may be placed in  foster care while efforts to improve the home are made. In these  circumstances, foster care may be provided by a family member (this is  known as kinship care), caregivers previously unknown to the child, or a  group home or institution. In those instances in which reuniting the child  with his or her parents is found not to be in the best interest of the child,  caseworkers must seek a new permanent home for the child, such as an  adoptive home or guardianship. Some children remain in foster care until  they “age out” of the child welfare system. Such children are transitioned  to independent living, generally at the age of 18 years.
States use both dedicated and nondedicated federal funds for operating  their child welfare programs and providing services to children and  families. In fiscal year 2006, the federal government provided states with  about $8 billion in dedicated child welfare funds, primarily authorized  under Title IV-B and Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. Nearly all of this  funding is provided under Title IV-E, which provides matching funds to  states for maintaining eligible children in foster care, providing subsidies  to families adopting children with special needs, and for related  administrative and training costs. About 9 percent of funding is provided  under Title IV-B, which provides grants to states primarily for improving  child welfare services and requires that most funds be spent on services to  preserve and support families.
A significant amount of federal funding for child welfare services also  comes from federal funds not specifically dedicated to child welfare— including the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block  grant, Medicaid, and the Social Services Block Grant. These and hundreds  of other federal assistance programs for children and families, including  many that serve low-income populations, are listed in a centralized  database administered by the General Services Administration that has a  search feature by type of assistance and eligible population. The  Congressional Research Service conservatively estimated that the median  share of total federal child welfare spending derived from nondedicated  federal funding equaled nearly half of all the federal dollars (47 percent)  expended by state child welfare agencies, based on state child welfare  agency data reported to the Urban Institute for state fiscal year 2002.
The Congress has authorized funds for state child welfare programs and  required states to enact policies and meet certain standards related to  those programs. HHS evaluates how well state child welfare systems  achieve federal standards for children through its child and family services  reviews. The CFSR process begins with a state assessment of its efforts,  followed by an on-site review by an HHS team that interviews various  stakeholders in the child welfare system and usually reviews a total of   50 child welfare case files for compliance with federal requirements. After  receiving the team’s assessment and findings, the state develops a program  improvement plan (PIP) to address any areas identified as not in  substantial conformity with federal requirements. Once HHS approves the  PIP, states are required to submit quarterly progress reports. Pursuant to  CFSR regulations, federal child welfare funds can be withheld if states do  not show adequate PIP progress, but these penalties are suspended during  the 2-year PIP implementation term. HHS conducted its first round of  CFSRs for all states from March 2001 through March 2004 and began the  second round of CFSRs in March 2007.
States must also meet a set of program requirements that are described in  their 5-year Child and Family Services Plans to receive federal child  welfare funds. Until recently, however, there were no federal  requirements for states to develop plans that address the needs of children  during disasters. In 2005, 29 states and Puerto Rico experienced federally  declared disasters—most commonly severe storms and flooding. However,  a disaster can affect states that do not directly experience the disaster  when they receive children evacuated from affected states. For example,  two 2005 disasters—Hurricanes Katrina and Rita—resulted in a prolonged  interruption of child welfare services and the dispersion of thousands of  Louisiana’s child welfare recipients to 19 states.
section_title: Current and Future Issues That Challenge States’ Ability to Improve Child Outcomes
paragraphs: States reported that their ability to improve child outcomes was  challenged most by inadequate levels of mental health and substance  abuse services available to children and families, too few caseworkers for  too many child welfare cases, and a lack of homes that can meet the needs  of certain children, such as those with developmental disabilities.  Challenges are expected to grow in future years related to serving children  with special needs or who have been exposed to illegal drugs, and  changing demographic trends that will require greater multicultural  sensitivity in providing services to an increasingly diverse child welfare  population.
subsections: section_title: Inadequate Levels of Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Other Services Challenge States’ Ability to Meet the Needs of Children and Families
paragraphs: State child welfare agencies identified specific services underlying their  challenge to serve children and families, citing constraints on federal  funding, service gaps, and limited awareness of services outside the child  welfare system as contributing factors. Regarding services provided to  children, more than half of states reported that they were dissatisfied with  the level of mental health services, substance abuse services, housing for  foster youth transitioning to independence, and dental care. (See fig. 1.)
States also reported that they were dissatisfied with the level of services  provided to at-risk families in the child welfare system. These services are  needed to help prevent the removal of children from their homes or to  help facilitate the reunification of children with their parents after  removal. Specifically, more than half of states responded that they were  dissatisfied with mental health services, substance abuse services,  transportation services, and housing for parents in at-risk families.   (See fig. 2.)
States we visited reported that funding constraints were among the  reasons maintaining an adequate level of services was difficult. For  example, while maintenance payments to foster families for children  under state care are provided as an open-ended entitlement for federal  funding under Title IV-E, federal funding for family support services is  capped at a much lower level under Title IV-B. In addition, many states  experienced budget deficits that adversely affected overall funding for  social services. In prioritizing funding needs, child welfare officials in   40 states responding to our survey reported that family support services,  such as those that could prevent removal of a child or help with  reunification of a family, were the services most in need of greater federal,  state, or local resources. Officials from 29 states responded that child  protective services such as investigation, assessment of the need for  services, and monitoring were next in need of additional resources.
Another reason providing services may be challenging in some states or  areas is that some caseworkers and families may be unaware of the array  of existing services offered by numerous public and private providers. In  North Carolina, for example, state officials reported that about 70 percent  of children and families in the child welfare system received services from  multiple public agencies, and the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance  (CFDA)—a repository of information on all federal assistance programs  that is periodically updated—lists over 300 federal programs that provide  youth and family services. However, caseworkers and families are not  always aware of the range of services that are available to support children  and families, and child welfare officials cited the need for additional  information to help link children and families with needed services. In  October 2003, the White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth  recommended that the CFDA be modified to provide a search feature that  can be used to identify locations where federally funded programs were  operating.
section_title: High Caseloads and Other Factors Challenge the Ability of Child Welfare Staff to Adequately Serve Children and Families
paragraphs: State child welfare officials most frequently reported dissatisfaction with  the current status of three underlying factors that affect the state’s ability  to recruit and retain caseworkers to serve children and families in the  child welfare system. Specifically, more than half of the states reported  dissatisfaction with the average number of cases per worker,  administrative responsibilities of caseworkers, and effectiveness of  caseworker supervision. (See fig. 3.)
Child welfare officials in each of the states we visited reported having  trouble recruiting and retaining caseworkers because many caseworkers  are overwhelmed by large caseloads. According to the Child Welfare  League of America, some child welfare programs lack caseload standards  that reflect time needed to investigate allegations of child maltreatment,  visit children and families, and perform administrative responsibilities.  CWLA set caseload standards of no more than 12 cases per caseworker  investigating allegations of child maltreatment, and no more than 15 cases  for caseworkers responsible for children in foster care. However,  according to CWLA, in most states, average caseloads in some areas are  often more than double the CWLA standards.
State child welfare officials we interviewed also reported that increasing  amounts of time spent on administrative duties made it difficult to recruit  and retain staff and limited the amount of time caseworkers could spend  visiting families. For example, child welfare officials in three states we  visited estimated that some caseworkers spent a significant amount of  time on administrative duties such as entering case data in automated  systems, completing forms, and providing informational reports to other  agencies. This administrative burden has limited caseworker ability to  ensure timely investigations of child maltreatment and to make related  decisions concerning the removal of children from their homes, according  to officials, and influenced caseworker decisions to seek other types of  employment.
Some states we visited reported that the lack of effective supervision also  adversely affected staff retention and sometimes resulted in delays  providing appropriate services to children and families. Lack of  supervisory support was cited as a problem in terms of supervisor  inexperience and inaccessibility. For example, a Texas state official said  that because of high turnover, caseworkers are quickly promoted to  supervisory positions, with the result that the caseworkers they supervise  complain of poor management and insufficient support. In Arizona,  caseworkers have also expressed dissatisfaction with the support they  received from their supervisors, and this has negatively affected  recruitment and retention. Child welfare officials reported that lack of  access to supervisors was frustrating to caseworkers because it delayed  their ability to specify appropriate permanency goals for children and to  develop case plans to meet the needs of children and families in their care.
section_title: Serving Children with Special Needs Is among Factors Challenging States’ Ability to Place Children in Appropriate Homes
paragraphs: State child welfare officials most frequently identified four factors  underlying the challenge to find appropriate homes for children. (See fig.  4.) More than half of the states reported that finding homes for children  with special needs, recruiting and retaining foster and adoptive parents,  serving older youth and youth transitioning into independent living, and  finding and supporting kinship or guardianship homes were among their  greatest concerns.
Child welfare officials in two states we visited said that the lack of  therapeutic foster care homes that can properly care for children who  have significant physical, mental, or emotional needs makes it challenging  to find them an appropriate home. In addition, these officials said that  some of the existing facilities are inappropriate for child placement  because they are old and in poor condition or provide outmoded treatment  services. Because of the absence of high-quality therapeutic settings, child  welfare officials said that it has become increasingly difficult to place  children in homes that can appropriately address their individual needs.
Recruiting and retaining foster and adoptive parents has become an  increasingly difficult aspect of placement for a variety of reasons, such as  the lack of a racially and ethnically diverse pool of potential foster and  adoptive parents, and inadequate financial support. For example, child  welfare officials said that some locations have relatively small populations  of certain races and ethnicities, making it difficult to recruit diverse foster  and adoptive parents. Inadequate financial support also hinders  recruiting and retaining foster and adoptive families. Financial support for  foster and adoptive families varies widely among states and local areas,  and may not keep up with inflation. According to a California child  advocacy organization, for example, the state’s payments to foster parents  of $450 per month per child have not been adjusted for inflation since  2001. As a result, according to the organization, the supply of foster care  providers has not increased markedly during this time.
Obtaining permanent homes for older youth and for youth aging out of  foster care is a continuing placement challenge for states. For example,  Texas child welfare officials said that it is difficult to place adolescents  with adoptive parents because older youth can choose not to be adopted.  Finding housing for youth transitioning into independence also can be  difficult in high-cost areas or in areas where special arrangements have  not been made with housing agencies and landlords that typically require a  cosigner on the rental application or a large deposit before moving in.
More than half of the states also reported that limitations in their ability to  identify and support placements with family members or legal guardians  limited opportunities to place children in appropriate homes. For example,  child welfare officials in Ohio reported a lack of resources to conduct  outreach to family members that may be able to provide a stable home for  children in foster care with less disruption to the child. Michigan officials  also reported that the lack of financial resources made it difficult for the  state to meet its placement goals for those children who had been  removed from their home and who had been directed by the court to be  placed with other family members.
section_title: Increasing Complexity and Diversity of Child Welfare Population Expected to Challenge States in the Future
paragraphs: While states have experienced child welfare challenges for many years,  states identified several emerging issues that are of increasing concern  because of their impact on the well-being of children in the child welfare  system. Most states reported a high likelihood that three issues will affect  their systems over the next 5 years: children’s exposure to illegal drugs,  caring for special or high-needs children, and changing demographics and  cultural sensitivities. (See fig. 5.)
Although the overall percentage of drug-related child welfare cases has  not increased, officials in the states we visited reported that the type and  location of drug abuse underlying maltreatment cases is changing,  requiring increased attention by child welfare agencies in certain areas.  For example, child welfare officials reported an increasing number of  children entering state care as a result of methamphetamine use by  parents, primarily in rural areas. Child welfare agencies in these areas may  need to train caseworkers on how this drug is likely to affect parents or  caregivers who use it in order to safely investigate and remove children  from homes, as well as assess the service needs of affected families to  develop an appropriate case plan.
State child welfare officials in all five states we visited said that finding  homes for special needs children is a growing issue because it is hard to  find parents who are willing to foster or adopt these children and who live  near the types of services required to meet the children’s needs. For  example, child welfare officials in Texas reported that the state does not  have a sufficient number of adoptive homes for children with special  needs. As a result, these children generally stay in foster care for longer  periods of time.
Child welfare officials we interviewed also said that the growing cultural  diversity of the families who come in contact with the child welfare system  has prompted the need for states to reevaluate how they investigate  allegations of maltreatment and the basis on which they make decisions  that could result in the removal of children from their homes. Child  welfare officials in several states reported that the current protocols for  investigating and removing children from their homes do not necessarily  reflect the cultural norms of some immigrant and other minority families.  These differences include limitations in family functioning that may be  caused by poverty, the environment, or culture as opposed to those that  may be due to unhealthy family conditions or behaviors. In response to  growing cultural diversity, several states we visited stated that they are  revising their protocols to account for religious and language differences  among families who come in contact with the child welfare system.
section_title: State Initiatives to Resolve Challenges
paragraphs: States reported implementing various initiatives to improve child  outcomes, but these initiatives did not always mirror those factors states  reported as most necessary to address in overcoming their primary  challenges. For example, with respect to services, states most frequently  reported that they were challenged by the lack of mental health and  substance abuse services for children and families, yet only four states  reported having initiatives to improve the level of these services. (See fig.  6.) This may be because these services are typically provided outside the  child welfare system by other agencies. Recent legislation supports  states’ efforts to improve substance abuse services. For each fiscal year  from 2007 through 2011, the Child and Family Services Improvement Act  of 2006 reserves funds under the Promoting Safe and Stable Families  program for competitive grants to improve outcomes of children affected  by parent/caretaker abuse of methamphetamine or another substance.
Most states also reported that they had implemented initiatives to improve  recruitment and retention of child welfare caseworkers, but few states  reported initiatives to address two of the most frequently reported factors  underlying this challenge—the administrative burden on caseworkers and  effective supervision. (See fig. 7.) Recent law supports states’ efforts in  this area as well. For fiscal years 2008 through 2011, the Child and Family  Services Improvement Act reserves funds to support monthly caseworker  visits to children who are in foster care with an emphasis on activities  designed to improve caseworker retention, recruitment, training, and  ability to access the benefits of technology. In addition, the law  reorganized the Child Welfare Services program funded under Title IV-B,  adding a purpose section to the law that  included: “providing training,  professional development, and support to ensure a well-qualified child  welfare workforce.”
Almost all states reported implementing initiatives to improve their ability  to find appropriate homes for children, but few states reported initiatives  that addressed two of the three most frequently reported factors  underlying this challenge (see fig. 8). For example, three states reported  initiatives to find appropriate homes for older youth transitioning to  independence, and four states reported initiatives to find appropriate  homes for children with special needs.
Some states implemented initiatives under federal demonstration projects,  and evaluations of outcomes states were required to conduct under these  projects showed mixed results. In general, the demonstration projects  offered states the flexibility to use federal funding under Title IV-B and  Title IV-E in eight different program areas in an effort to improve services  and placements—addressing the three primary challenges reported by  states. As of 2006, 24 states had implement 38 child welfare demonstration  projects. However, evaluation results were mixed across child welfare  outcomes. For example, while Illinois found strong statistical support for  the finding that funding for assisted guardianships increased attainment of  permanent living arrangements, none of the other four reporting states  found similar conclusive evidence of this finding. Similarly, among four  states using Title IV-E funds to fund services and supports for caregivers  with substance abuse disorders, Illinois was the only state that  demonstrated success in connecting caregivers to treatment services.
section_title: Federal Action Taken To Ensure States Develop Plans to Serve Children and Families Displaced by Disaster
paragraphs: Several actions have been taken by HHS and the Congress to better ensure  that states are prepared to continue child welfare services for children and  families displaced by disaster across county or state lines. We reported in  July 2006 that although 29 states, plus Puerto Rico, experienced a federally  declared disaster in 2005, only 8 of these states reported having a written  child welfare disaster plan. (See fig. 9.)
R.I.
D.C.
In addition, while 21 states in all reported having a disaster plan in place,  there was great variance in the extent to which they addressed selected  child welfare program elements. For example, most states included  strategies to preserve information, but few states had included strategies  for placing children from other states. (See fig.10) The need for such plans  was highlighted when close to 2,000 of the 5,000 children in Louisiana’s  child welfare system were displaced in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
At the time of our review, HHS had issued guidance to states in 1995 to  help states develop child welfare disaster plans and also provided nearly  $3 million for technical assistance to states. This guidance, however, did  not address strategies states needed to continue services to child welfare  families displaced across county or states lines. State child welfare  officials reported that additional federal assistance would be helpful,  including information on disaster planning requirements or criteria,  training on how to develop a disaster plan, examples of good plans, and  forums for exchanging information with other states.
HHS took action that addressed states’ concerns and our report  recommendations including updating its 1995 disaster plan guidance,  providing technical assistance, and asking states to voluntarily submit  copies of their disaster plans for review by December 2006. Further, the  Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006 also established a  legislative requirement for states to submit child welfare disaster plans to  HHS that prepare for displacement of children. The deadline set by HHS  for submission of these plans is June 30, 2007.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: State challenges in serving the children and families in the child welfare  system are long-standing and continuing. Resolving these problems has  been difficult, however, in part due to the child welfare system’s heavy  reliance on various nondedicated funding streams at the federal and state  levels that require an interagency approach to establish appropriate  priority and funding for child welfare families across different programs  and populations. As funding fluctuates or declines, full awareness of  resources outside the child welfare system becomes especially important,  and we recommended in our October 2006 report that the Secretary of  HHS improve awareness of and access to various social services funded by  the federal government.
HHS disagreed with our recommendation, stating that it was insufficient to  address the need for additional services and that the recommendation  incorrectly implied that local child welfare agencies were not already  aware of and using such resources. We acknowledged that increasing  awareness of existing federal resources is not the only action needed, but  in the course of our work we found that caseworkers sometimes were  unaware of the full array of federal resources, such as health and housing,  available in their locale or had not coordinated with other agencies to use  them. We continue to support the view that federal action, such as  modifying the CFDA, would allow caseworkers and others to more easily  identify services and service providers funded by federal agencies in  closest proximity to the families they serve.
History has shown that in the absence of specific federal requirements or  dedicated child welfare funding, many states have been slow to address  existing and future challenges, such as recruiting and retaining child  welfare workers or preparing child welfare disaster plans. Recent federal  action has been taken to establish requirements and dedicate funding to  states to help address these specific problems now and in the future. The  next round of HHS state oversight reviews will determine the extent that  these actions and others taken by states have been able to improve child  outcomes.
section_title: GAO Contacts
paragraphs: For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me at  (202) 512-7215. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony  include Lacinda Ayers and Cathy Roark.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Child Welfare: Improving Social Service Program, Training, and  Technical Assistance Information Would Help Address Longstanding  Service-Level and Workforce Challenges. GAO-07-75. Washington, D.C.:  October 6, 2006.
Child Welfare: Federal Action Needed to Ensure States Have Plans to  Safeguard Children in the Child Welfare System Displaced by Disasters.  GAO-06-944. Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2006.
Foster Care and Adoption Assistance: Federal Oversight Needed to  Safeguard Funds and Ensure Consistent Support for States’  Administrative Costs. GAO-06-649. Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2006.
Child Welfare: Federal Oversight of State IV-B Activities Could Inform  Action Needed to Improve Services to Families and Statutory  Compliance. GAO-06-787T. Washington, D.C.: May 23, 2006.
Lessons Learned for Protecting and Educating Children after the Gulf  Coast Hurricanes, GAO-06-680R. Washington, D.C.: May 11, 2006.
Hurricane Katrina: GAO’s Preliminary Observations Regarding  Preparedness, Response, and Recovery, GAO-06-442T. Washington, D.C.:  March 8, 2006.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Provision of Charitable Assistance,   GAO-06-297T. Washington, D.C.: December 13, 2005.
Child Welfare: Better Data and Evaluations Could Improve Processes  and Programs for Adopting Children with Special Needs. GAO-05-292.  Washington, D.C.: June 13, 2005.
Indian Child Welfare Act: Existing Information on Implementation  Issues Could Be Used to Target Guidance and Assistance to States.   GAO-05-290. Washington, D.C.: April 4, 2005.
Foster Youth: HHS Actions Could Improve Coordination of Services and  Monitoring of States’ Independent Living Programs. GAO-05-25.  Washington, D.C.: November 18, 2004.
D.C. Child and Family Services Agency: More Focus Needed on Human  Capital Management Issues for Caseworkers and Foster Parent  Recruitment and Retention. GAO-04-1017. Washington, D.C.: September  24, 2004.
Child and Family Services Reviews: States and HHS Face Challenges in  Assessing and Improving State Performance. GAO-04-781T. Washington,  D.C.: May 13, 2004.
D.C. Family Court: Operations and Case Management Have Improved,  but Critical Issues Remain. GAO-04-685T. Washington, D.C.: April 23,  2004.
Child and Family Services Reviews: Better Use of Data and Improved  Guidance Could Enhance HHS’s Oversight of State Performance.   GAO-04-333. Washington, D.C.: April 20, 2004.
Child Welfare: Improved Federal Oversight Could Assist States in  Overcoming Key Challenges. GAO-04-418T. Washington, D.C.: January 28,  2004.
D.C. Family Court: Progress Has Been Made in Implementing Its  Transition. GAO-04-234. Washington, D.C.: January 6, 2004.
Child Welfare: States Face Challenges in Developing Information  Systems and Reporting Reliable Child Welfare Data. GAO-04-267T.  Washington, D.C.: November 19, 2003.
Child Welfare: Enhanced Federal Oversight of Title IV-B Could Provide  States Additional Information to Improve Services. GAO-03-956.  Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2003.
Child Welfare: Most States Are Developing Statewide Information  Systems, but the Reliability of Child Welfare Data Could Be Improved.  GAO-03-809. Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2003.
D.C. Child and Family Services: Better Policy Implementation and  Documentation of Related Activities Would Help Improve Performance.  GAO-03-646. Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2003.
Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice: Federal Agencies Could Play a  Stronger Role in Helping States Reduce the Number of Children Placed  Solely to Obtain Mental Health Services. GAO-03-397. Washington, D.C.:  April 21, 2003.
Foster Care: States Focusing on Finding Permanent Homes for Children,  but Long-Standing Barriers Remain. GAO-03-626T. Washington, D.C.:  April 8, 2003.
Child Welfare: HHS Could Play a Greater Role in Helping Child Welfare  Agencies Recruit and Retain Staff. GAO-03-357. Washington, D.C.: March  31, 2003.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further  permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or  other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to  reproduce this material separately.