Funding authorization for the Victims of Child Abuse Act programs expired with FY2005. Congress nonetheless provided FY2006 funding for these programs in the conference report to H.R. 2862 ( H.Rept. 109-272 ), which was signed by the President on November 22,2005 ( P.L. 109-108 ). That law provided for a 0.28% reduction in all the discretionary fundingamounts provided in the bill. Subsequently, Congress approved a conference agreement to theDepartment of Defense Appropriations Act ( H.R. 2863 , enacted as P.L. 109-148 ),which includes a 1% rescission in nearly all FY2006 discretionary appropriations. Each of theVictims of Child Abuse Act programs is discretionary and subject to this combined 1.28% reductionin FY2006 funding. (Both laws stipulate that these reductions are to be applied proportionately toall accounts and activities funded.) Unless otherwise noted, the FY2006 appropriations levelsdiscussed in this report estimate the effect of this 1.28% reduction on each of the programs assuminga proportionate application of the reduction. Children's Advocacy Centers. Neither the Housenor the Senate followed the President's FY2006 budget request to significantly reduce funding forChildren's Advocacy Centers (and its related training and technical assistance). Congress provided$14.8 million in FY2006 appropriations for this program rather than the $11.8 million proposed bythe President. The conference report ( H.Rept. 109-272 ) accompanying this FY2006 appropriation(and as adjusted proportionately by the 1.28% funding reduction) specified that, of this amount,$12.6 million is for Children's Advocacy Centers and $2.2 million is for specialized training andtechnical assistance. For FY2007, the Administration has again requested reduced funding for theprogram, totaling $11.679 million. (2) Court Appointed Special Advocates. The House,Senate, and President proposed roughly the same FY2006 funding levels (ranging between $11.846million and $11.897 million) for the Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) program. Thefinal estimated FY2006 funding level for this program is approximately $11.745 million. ForFY2007, the Administration has proposed $11.750 million in CASA funding. Training for Judicial Personnel and Practitioners. Floor amendments approved in both the House and Senate (to their respective versions of H.R. 2862 ) would have significantly raised the funding levels for Training for JudicialPersonnel and Practitioners for FY2006. (3) However, conferees to the Department of Justice AppropriationsAct stripped this extra money from the final agreement, and the FY2006 appropriation for thisprogram is estimated as $2.258 million. For FY2007, the President's budget requests $2.263 millionfor this program. Congress often uses the expiration of a program's funding authorization to both amendprogram authority and extend funding authorization. Children's Advocacy Centers. Legislation toreauthorize grants to support Children's Advocacy Centers has not been introduced in the 109thCongress. However, the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act( P.L. 109-162 ) includes an authorization of $7.5 million (in each of FY2006-FY2010) for specializedtechnical assistance and training programs related to the purposes of Children's Advocacy Centers. The Victims of Child Abuse Act provided an authorization of $5 million (for each ofFY2004-FY2005) for grants to "national organizations" to provide technical assistance and training... for the purpose of improving the quality of criminal prosecution of [child abuse and neglect]cases." As recently enacted, P.L. 109-162 stipulates that the training and technical assistancefunding authorized for FY2006-FY2010 is "in addition" to any other funding under the Victims ofChild Abuse Act for this purpose, and that this new funding authorization is specifically for grantsto the American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI). (There are currently no other fundsauthorized for this purpose.) Congress has often -- via appropriations conference report language --made grants to APRI out of this funding authority. However, funds provided under this authorityhave not been exclusively devoted to that organization. (See the program discussion under Children's Advocacy Centers below for more information.) During the first session of the 109th Congress, bills that sought to ensure funds would be sentto the APRI were introduced in the House ( H.R. 3687 , by Representative Gutknecht)and Senate ( S. 885 , by Senator Dayton), and the provisions of these bills have nowlargely been approved as part of the Violence Against Women and Department of JusticeReauthorization Act of 2005 ( P.L. 109-162 ). (However, Senator Dayton's bill would have furtherprovided that in each of FY2006 to FY2010, $4.5 million of the funds would be authorized forAPRI's National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse, while the remaining $3.0 million wouldbe authorized for APRI's National Child Protection Training Center at Winona State University. (4) ) Court Appointed Special Advocates. TheViolence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 ( P.L. 109-162 )also amended the CASA program and reauthorized its funding for FY2007-FY2011. (As notedabove, FY2006 funding for CASA was provided in P.L. 109-108 despite the lapsed fundingauthorization.) Legislation to amend CASA and reauthorize its funding had earlier passed the Senate( S. 1197 ) as part of a bill to extend Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)programs. (5) S.1197 would have raised the annual funding authorization for the CASA program to $17million for FY2006-FY2010. By contrast, P.L. 109-162 reauthorizes funding for CASA for fiveyears but maintains the FY2005 funding authorization level of $12 million and changes the first yearof the extension to FY2007. Like S. 1197, however, P.L. 109-162 clarifies that fundsprovided for CASA may be used to "initiate, sustain, and expand" CASA programs. (Prior lawgenerally limited the purpose of these funds to initiating or expanding CASA programs.) Also, likeS. 1197, the final legislation authorizes state and local CASA programs to request criminalbackground checks for prospective volunteers from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) andstipulates that programs that make such a request are required to pay for "reasonable costs"associated with the FBI check. (6) Finally, P.L. 109-162 includes two provisions that were not in S.1197. These are: 1) a requirement the Inspector General of the Department of Justiceprepare a report on the CASA program that looks at the types of activities funded by the NationalCourt-Appointed Special Advocate Association since 1993 and compares outcomes in cases whereCASA volunteers are appointed to assist children to those where no CASA is appointed; and 2) aprohibition on the use of funds provided under this authority for lobbying. (7) Training for Judicial Personnel and Practitioners. No legislation to reauthorize funding for grants to provide Training for Judicial Personnel andPractitioners has been introduced during the 109th Congress. The House and Senate Judiciary Committees reported the 1990 legislation that establishedthe Victims of Child Abuse Act and, in general, those committees have exercised jurisdiction overits programs. In both 1994 ( P.L. 103-322 ) and 2000 ( P.L. 106-386 ), reauthorization of funding forthe Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) program and for the Training Program for JudicialPersonnel and Practitioners occurred as part of the legislation creating and amending the ViolenceAgainst Women Act (VAWA). While the 2005 VAWA reauthorization extends CASA fundingauthorization (FY2007-FY2011) it does not do so for the judicial training program. Neither does the legislation that reauthorizes VAWA include reauthorization of theChildren's Advocacy Centers, although it does include reauthorization of training funds related tothe work done by the centers (FY2006-FY2010). Past reauthorizations of Children's AdvocacyCenters have occurred as part of separate legislation and in different years. The 1992 amendmentsto the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act ( P.L. 102-586 ) rewrote and reauthorized theoriginal provisions of the Victims of Child Abuse Act to authorize the current Children's AdvocacyCenters and related training program. The 1996 amendments ( P.L. 104-235 ) to the Child AbusePrevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) (which was handled by the committees that are currentlycalled House Education and the Workforce and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions)extended this authorization without any changes to the program. (8) The program's fundingauthorization was expired from FY2001 through FY2003, although the program continued toreceive funding. In 2003, a House floor amendment to the legislation that would become P.L.108-21 (PROTECT Act) reauthorized funding for the program in FY2004 and FY2005. Regional children's advocacy centers, local children's advocacy centers, and related technicalassistance and training (to improve the quality of criminal prosecution of child abuse cases) areauthorized under Subtitle A (Sections 213, 214, and 214A) of the Victims of Child Abuse Act. Funding for these programs is authorized under Section 214B of this subtitle. Children's Advocacy Centers are intended to coordinate a multi-disciplinary response to childabuse (e.g., law enforcement, social service, medical, mental health) in a manner that ensures childabuse victims (and any non-offending family members) receive the support services they need anddo not experience the investigation of child abuse as an added trauma. Since the inception of thefederal program, the Department of Justice, through its Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention (OJJDP), has provided funds to the National Children's Alliance (NCA) to fosterdevelopment of local children's advocacy centers. (9) (Children's advocacy centers solicit private or other non-federalfunds.) NCA provides subgrants to create or help maintain local children's advocacy centers, whichcurrently exist in approximately 400 communities. And, together with the four federally supportedregional children's advocacy centers (located in Philadelphia, PA; St. Paul, MN; Huntsville, AL; andColorado Springs, CO), federal funds are used to provide training and technical assistance to thoselocal child advocacy centers. (10) Funding for the regional and local children's advocacy centers is authorized under Section214B(a) of the Victims of Child Abuse Act, and is to be administered within the Department ofJustice in coordination with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). (11) For FY2005, funding wasauthorized at $15 million for the centers, and approximately $12.5 million was appropriated for thesecenters. No Children's Advocacy Center funding is authorized for FY2006 but Congress nonethelessappropriated an estimated $12.6 million for them. Separately, Subtitle A of the Victims of Child Abuse Act (Section 214A) authorizes grantsto national organizations for "specialized technical assistance and training programs" for attorneysand others instrumental to the criminal prosecution of child abuse cases and to improve the qualityof criminal prosecution of such cases. For FY2005 funding for this purpose was authorized [Section214B(b)] at $5 million and Congress appropriated about half that amount. Funding for this trainingprogram is not authorized for FY2006 but Congress nonetheless appropriated an estimated $2.2million for this purpose. In every year, beginning with FY1992, the American Prosecutors Research Institute's (APRI)National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse has received funding under this grant authority. The Center provides publication services, as well as training and technical assistance for prosecutorsand other professionals involved in the prosecution of child abuse at the state, local and federallevels. While the Congress has designated the Center as the recipient of most of these funds, sometraining and technical assistance funds provided under this legislative authority have also beendirected by the appropriators to the National Children's Alliance and, in a few years, to the NationalChildren's Advocacy Center in Huntsville, AL. The annual appropriation for the Children's Advocacy Centers and related training andtechnical assistance has never reached the combined funding authorization level of $20 million(which was originally set for FY1991). At the same time, combined federal funding has grown forthese purposes from $1.5 million in FY1992 to an estimated $14.8 million in FY2006. Table 1 shows a funding history for the Children's Advocacy Centers and related training andtechnical assistance. Readers should note that certain funding reductions were applied in thelegislation that appropriated funds for this program, and which were applicable to the program inFY2003 (0.65%), FY2004 (1.055%), FY2005 (1.34%) and FY2006 (1.28%). These reductions,which may or may not have been applied proportionately by the Department, are not reflected in thetable but are discussed in the table notes. Table 1. Authorized and Appropriated Funding for Children'sAdvocacy Centers and for Training and Technical Assistance ($ in millions) Amounts shown do not reflect any across-the-board funding reductions that affected theappropriation amount, including those passed by Congress in each of FY2003-FY2006 . Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on appropriations acts and accompanyingconference reports. Figures may not sum to the total due to rounding. a. P.L. 101-647 provided total funding authorization of $20 million in FY1991 and such sums asnecessary for each of FY1992 - FY1993; it also stipulated that not less than 90% of anyfunding was for developing and implementing multi-disciplinary child abuse andinvestigation programs. However, in FY1992 and FY1993 the appropriators stipulatedotherwise. b. P.L. 108-7 , which included the FY2003 appropriation for this program, made an across-the-boardfunding reduction of 0.65% on most discretionary accounts, including this program. Thisbrought total funding to $10.9 million in this year. c. P.L. 108-199 , which included the FY2004 appropriation for this program made anacross-the-board funding reduction of 0.59% on most discretionary accounts and anadditional reduction of 0.465% on Justice programs. This brought total program funding to$12.9 million in FY2004. d. The conference report provided only that of the $13 million appropriated for these purposes, notless than $9 million was to be available to regional or local child advocacy centers. e. The omnibus funding bill ( P.L. 108-447 ), which included the FY2005 appropriation for thisprogram included an across-the-board funding reduction on most discretionary accounts of0.80% and an additional reduction of 0.54% on Commerce-State-Justice programs, includingthis program. This brought total program funding to $14.8 million in FY2005. f. The Defense Appropriations Act ( P.L. 109-148 ) reduced most FY2006 discretionary appropriationamounts by 1% and P.L. 109-108 reduced discretionary funding of Justice programs anadditional 0.28%. This lowered the total FY2006 appropriation to an estimated $14.8million. g. This funding authorization is provided in freestanding law, which refers to the Victims of ChildAbuse Act (Section 214A), but does not amend that act. Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs) are volunteers who are appointed by judgesand who work to ensure that children who are in foster care (or who because of abuse or neglect areat risk of placement in foster care) receive strong effective representation in dependency courtproceedings. The first CASA pilot program began in Seattle, Washington in 1977 and the NationalCourt Appointed Special Advocate Association was founded in 1982 to help replicate and supportCASA programs across the nation. Local CASA programs are located in every state, the District ofColumbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands. (12) Federal support for the National CASA Association preceded by more than a decade thespecific authorization of funds for this purpose in Subtitle B of the 1990 Victims of Child AbuseAct. These funds are administered by OJJDP within the Department of Justice. In authorizing fundsspecifically for CASA programs, the 1990 Act asserted that only a small fraction of children independency proceedings received CASA representation and declared that its purpose was to ensurethat each of these children would have a CASA made available to them. Although this goal has notyet been reached, there are more than 950 CASA/Guardian Ad Litem programs in 49 states, theDistrict of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. In FY2005, almost 200,000 children were served byapproximately 60,000 CASA volunteers. Many children, however, were represented through CASAprograms that did not receive federal support. For FY2005, about 89,700 children were served byfederally supported centers, and those centers recruited approximately 15,600 volunteers. (13) Funds appropriated for CASA are awarded to the National CASA Association, which awardssubgrants (on a competitive basis) to be used for new local program development or expansion ofexisting programs; state CASA organizations; urban program demonstrations; and to increase thediversity of CASA staff and volunteers. The National CASA also uses this federal funding toprovide training and technical assistance to CASA programs, child welfare professionals, attorneys,judges, social workers, and volunteer advocates. (14) Table 2 shows authorization and appropriation levels for the Court Appointed SpecialAdvocates program. Federal funding of CASA programs has grown from half a million dollars in1989 (before specific authorization was given by the Victims of Child Abuse Act) to nearly $12million in FY2006. Readers should note that certain funding reductions were applied in thelegislation that appropriated funds for this program, and which were applicable to the program inFY2003 through FY2006. These reductions are shown in the table and are discussed in the tablenotes. However, for certain years the Department of Justice may have applied additional transfersof funds between programs; any of these funding changes are not shown. Table 2. Authorized and Appropriated Funding for the CourtAppointed Special Advocates (CASA) Program, as included in the Victims of Child AbuseAct Amounts shown for FY2003 through FY2006 do reflect across-the-board funding reductionsincluded in appropriations acts for each of those years. Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS). Data for FY1989 through FY1993 is based oninformation provided by the U.S. Department of Justice. Information for FY1994 through FY2006is based on appropriations acts for those years. a. Although the Victims of Child Abuse Act ( P.L. 101-647 ) authorized funding for CASA as earlyas FY1991 no money was appropriated under this authority until FY1994. However, fundingfor CASA programs was provided in prior years out of money appropriated for Part C of theJuvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention Act (as it was then written). b. The amount of funding for the CASA program was specified in the appropriations acts for eachof these years but the money was derived from the Crime Victims Fund. c. The omnibus funding bill ( P.L. 108-7 ) for FY2003 initially included $11.975 million for CASA.However the bill also included an across-the-board funding reduction of of 0.65% on mostdiscretionary accounts, including this program. This reduced the actual appropriation forFY2003 to $11.897 million. d. The omnibus funding bill ( P.L. 108-199 ) for FY2004 initially included $11.897 million forCASA. However, the bill also included an across-the-board funding reduction (on mostdiscretionary accounts) of 0.59% and an additional reduction of 0.465% onCommerce-State-Justice programs. This reduced the actual appropriation for FY2004 to$11.629 million. e. The omnibus funding bill ( P.L. 108-447 ) for FY2005 initially included $11.897 million forCASA. However, the bill also included an across-the-board funding reduction on mostdiscretionary accounts of 0.80% and an additional reduction of 0.54% onCommerce-State-Justice programs, including this program. This reduced the actualappropriation for FY2005 to $11.738 million. f. Subject to an across-the -board rescission of 0.28%, P.L. 109-108 provided $11.897 million. Thisamount was further reduced by a 1% reduction in most FY2006 discretionary appropriations( P.L. 109-148 ), which brought the actual FY2006 funding to an estimated $11.745 million. Citing an increase in abuse and neglect cases attributed to drug-related maltreatment ofchildren and the new requirements placed on juvenile and family courts by the Adoption Assistanceand Child Welfare Act of 1980 ( P.L. 96-272 ), (15) Subtitle C of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 requiredthe Department of Justice's OJJDP to "provide expanded technical assistance and training to judicialpersonnel and attorneys ... to improve the judicial system's handling of child abuse and neglect caseswith specific emphasis on the role of the courts in addressing reasonable efforts that can safely avoidunnecessary and unnecessarily prolonged foster care placement." (16) The statute authorizesgrants for these purposes to be made to 1) national organizations to develop model technicalassistance and training programs for these purposes; and 2) juvenile and family courts. Congress has never appropriated separate funds under the authority of this act for grants tostate courts. All funding under this authorization is awarded to the National Council of Juvenile andFamily Court Judges. Drawing on the experience and reform initiatives in more than 30 ModelCourts across the country, the National Council has developed publications, and provides technicalassistance and training programs to improve handling of child abuse and neglect cases across thenation. (17) Table 3 provides a funding history for this program authorization. Readers should note thatcertain funding reductions were applied in the legislation that appropriated funds for this program,and which were applicable to the program in FY2003 (0.65%), FY2004 (1.055%), FY2005 (1.34%)and FY2006 (1.28%). These reductions, which may or may not have been applied proportionatelyby the Department, are not reflected in the table below but are discussed in the table notes. Table 3. Authorization Level and Appropriations for the TrainingPrograms for Judicial Practitioners and Personnel as Authorized by the Victims of Child AbuseAct Amounts shown do not reflect any across-the-board funding reductions that were included insome of the funding acts passed in these years Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on appropriations acts andaccompanying conference reports. a. For each of FY1991 through FY1994 the statute provided that of the total fundingprovided for grants to courts and for grants to a national organization to developtraining and technical assistance, no less then 80% must be provided for the grantsto state courts program. However funds appropriated in those years were alldesignated (in the appropriations acts) for training and technical assistance. P.L.103-322 lowered the funding authorization level, beginning with FY1996 andremoved the language that required a share of funds to be granted to state courts. b. The omnibus funding bill for FY2003 ( P.L. 108-7 ) included an across-the-board fundingreduction of of 0.65% on most discretionary accounts, including this program. Thisreduction is not reflected in the table. c. The omnibus funding bill for FY2004 ( P.L. 108-199 ) included an across-the-boardfunding reduction (on most discretionary accounts) of 0.59% and an additionalreduction of 0.465% on Commerce-State-Justice programs. This reduction is notreflected in the table. d. The omnibus funding bill for FY2005 ( P.L. 108-447 ) included an across-the-boardfunding reduction on most discretionary accounts of 0.80% and an additionalreduction of 0.54% on Commerce-State-Justice programs, including this program. This reduction is not reflected in the table. e. Subject to a 0.28% across-the-board reduction, P.L. 109-108 appropriated $2.287 millionfor this program. After applying the additional 1% across-the-board reduction onmost FY2006 discretionary appropriations, final program funding is estimated to be$2.258 million. A number of programs, primarily within HHS, have similar or related purposes tothose supported by the Victims of Child Abuse Act funding. The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) seeks to encouragemulti-disciplinary approaches to study, prevent and respond to child abuse and neglect. Theeffort to establish multi-disciplinary teams to investigate child abuse and neglect, a primaryaim of Children's Advocacy Centers, is echoed in CAPTA's state grant program. Theprogram provides formula grant money to each eligible state to improve their child protectiveservices generally, and lists among the approved uses of these funds, the creation and use ofmulti-disciplinary teams and interagency protocols to enhance child abuse investigations andto improve legal preparation and representation. However, CAPTA state grant money, whichis administered by HHS, is also available for a wide range of additional activities intendedto improve how states assess and investigate child abuse reports, including worker training,case management and tracking, and public education on the role of child protective services. In FY2006, a total of $27.0 million was appropriated for CAPTA's state grants to improvechild protective services, and the Administration has requested this same funding level forFY2007. Section 107 of CAPTA now incorporates authorization for the Children's Justice Actgrants. First authorized in 1986 by P.L. 99-401 , these are formula grants to each eligiblestate for programs related to the investigation and prosecution of child abuse and neglectcases, including funds for handling of child maltreatment cases (especially cases of childsexual abuse and exploitation) in a way that limits additional trauma to the child victim; cases of suspected child maltreatment-related fatalities; and cases involving children withdisabilities or serious health-related problems who are victims of child maltreatment and,finally, for the investigation and prosecution of child maltreatment cases (especially casesof child sexual abuse and exploitation). State eligibility for this grant money rests in part onestablishment of a multi-disciplinary task force, including representatives of the lawenforcement, judicial, mental health, health, and child protective services communities, aswell as parents and others, to make recommendations regarding improving laws, regulationsor protocols for the handling of child abuse and neglect cases and to recommend use ofexperimental or model programs for this purpose. The grants are to be administered by HHS in consultation with the Department ofJustice. Funding for the grants is not appropriated but is instead provided for in the Victimsof Crime Act of 1984, which stipulates an annual set-aside out of the Crime Victims Fundof up to $20 million. For FY2006, $20 million is expected to be available from thesenon-appropriated funds. In recent years, $17 million of this amount has been made availableto eligible states (administered by HHS), and the remaining $3 million has been distributedto tribes (and administered by the Department of Justice). As enacted in late December 2005however, P.L. 109-162 permits the Department of Justice to set aside an additional part (5%)of this $20 million for tribes. If the Department of Justice elects to make this additionalset-aside, funds to states for Children's Justice Act grants would be reduced to $16 million,and the remaining $4 million would be available to tribes. As it was originally enacted in 1974, P.L. 93-247 made the appointment of a guardian ad litem for every abused or neglected child who was part of a judicial proceeding acondition of eligibility for CAPTA state grants. In 1996 amendments to CAPTA ( P.L.104-235 ), Congress specified that this guardian ad litem could be an attorney or acourt-appointed special advocate and noted that the duties of this individual includedobtaining a first hand, clear understanding of the situation and needs of the child and "tomake recommendation to the court concerning the best interests of the child." The 2003amendments to CAPTA ( P.L. 108-36 ) further amended this provision to require that thisindividual receive "training appropriate to the role." P.L. 106-314 , The Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act of 2000 (SANCA)authorized an additional $5 million for FY2001 through FY2005 for the Department ofJustice to make grants to the National Court Appointed Special Advocate Association toexpand recruitment for and the capacity of CASA programs in the 15 largest urban areas; todevelop regional, multi-jurisdictional court-appointed special advocate programs servingrural areas; and to provide training and supervision of volunteers in court-appointed specialadvocate programs. This authority was separate from the provisions in the Victims of ChildAbuse Act discussed earlier in this report; however, no funds were appropriated under thisauthority. Improving court handling of child abuse and neglect cases is a primary purpose of theCourt Improvement Project (CIP). Created in 1993 by P.L. 103-166 , the Court ImprovementProject has, since FY1995, provided grants to each state's highest court for the court toconduct an assessment of its role, responsibilities and effectiveness in handling child welfareproceedings -- including making determinations related to removal of a child from his/herhome, terminating parental rights, and approving permanency goals -- and to make neededimprovements. Funds for this grant ($12.9 million in FY2006), are set aside out of thePromoting Safe and Stable Families program, and are authorized through FY2006. (18) The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 ( P.L. 109-171 ) amended the CIP to add two newkinds of court grants to 1) improve the training of judicial personnel and 2) to ensure thatchildren's safety and permanency needs are acted on in a timely and complete manner. Thatlaw also appropriated a total of $100 million for these grants for FY2006-FY2010. Eligiblestate highest courts may apply, separately, for one or all three of the CIP grants in FY2006. All CIP funds are distributed by formula to the highest court in each of the 50 states, theDistrict of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. (19) These changes, which were consistent with court-relatedrecommendations made in May 2004 by the Pew Commission on Children in FosterCare, (20) wereincorporated into S. 1679 (Senators DeWine and Rockfeller) and H.R. 3758 (Representative Schiff), introduced earlier in the 109th Congress. Court and Child Welfare AgencyCollaboration. The Deficit Reduction Act ( P.L. 109-171 ), as also proposedby the Pew Commission on Children and Foster Care (and in S. 1679 ), enactedseveral measures designed to require and facilitate increased collaboration between courtsand child welfare agencies, including amending certain state plan requirements to ensure thatchild welfare agencies and courts regularly meet to review policies and procedures, sharedata and information, provide joint training, and engage in other ongoing efforts to improvedecisions and outcomes for children served by the child welfare system. (21) Citing in part the increased demands on courts expected to flow from the Adoptionand Safe Families Act of 1997 ( P.L. 105-89 ), P.L. 106-314 authorized several grant programsintended to improve the efficiency with which courts handled child abuse and neglect relatedcases. In addition to the authorization of additional CASA funding cited above, theseincluded a $10 million authorization for FY2001 and FY2002 for grants to stateand local courts to reduce backlogs in handling of child abuse and neglect related cases (tobe administered by the Department of Justice in consultation with HHS);and $10 million for FY2001 through FY2005 for grants to state and localcourts to develop, implement or enhance computer data collection and case-tracking systems(to be administered by the Department of Justice). Through FY2005, Congress made one appropriation of funds ($2 million in FY2002)to support the purposes of SANCA. Although the appropriation did not state which grantprogram was to be funded, the Department of Justice, OJJDP has awarded grants to local orstate courts in six states (Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Florida, New Jersey and Virginia) forpurposes that appear most closely related to the automated case tracking grant programauthorized in SANCA. (22) Both S. 1679 (Senators DeWine and Rockfeller) and H.R. 3758 (Representative Schiff) are omnibus child welfare proposals concerned primarily withcourt/child welfare issues. While a number of their proposals were incorporated into theDeficit Reduction Act (discussed above), other proposed changes have not yet been actedupon. Both H.R. 3758 and S. 1679 (like the Pew Commission onChildren in Foster Care) would require courts to develop specific performance measures asa part of receiving funding to enable them to better track their court performance.(Development of performance measures by courts is not required by the Deficit ReductionAct as a condition of receiving funds to improve timely and complete decision-making onbehalf of children.) Additionally, H.R. 3758 would also require the GovernmentAccountability Office (GAO) to "conduct a study that compares States" with respect to eachof the following issues: 1) legal representation provided to children; 2) children'sparticipation in their own cases; 3) preparation of dependency court judges; 4) case trackingand performance measurement; and 5) statewide collaborative foster care councils. The finalreport of the study would be due within one year of the legislation's enactment. With regard to collaboration between the court and child welfare agencies, S. 1679 makes several proposals that were not included in the Deficit ReductionAct. That bill would require that demonstration of court and child welfare agencycollaboration be a mandatory review item in future Child and Family Service Reviews(CFSRs), and it would provide that 2% of funds appropriated for the Promoting Safe andStable Families program (Subpart 2 of Title IV-B of the Social Security Act) be reserved tosupport such collaboration. Finally, S. 1679 would require the creation of amulti-disciplinary Commission on Child Welfare in each state (jointly chaired by the headof the child welfare agency and the state's chief judge). Other selected provisions. S. 1679 and H.R. 3758 also include provisions related to providing student loanforgiveness for attorneys who work on child abuse and neglect or related cases. (Theattorney loan forgiveness provisions of S. 1679 are identical in effect to those of S. 1431 , introduced earlier this session by Senator DeWine.) In addition, S.1679 would require the state child welfare agency to develop and encourage theimplementation of practice standards for its child welfare attorneys. Separately, H.R. 3576 , an omnibus child welfare measure introduced byRepresentative McDermott includes a provision that would amend Title IV-E of the SocialSecurity Act to permit state child welfare agencies to seek federal reimbursement for 75%of training costs for abuse and neglect court staff, agency attorneys, and attorneysrepresenting children (including guardian ad litem or CASAs), as well as those representingparents. (23) The full text of the Victims of Child Abuse Act is available under "publications" onthe House Education and the Workforce website. This compilation includes the law ascurrently authorized, except that it does not include amendments made by the PROTECT Act( P.L. 108-21 ), which primarily extended funding authorization for Children's AdvocacyCenters and related training and technical assistance through FY2004 and FY2005. Further,it does not indicate that the funding authorization for related training and technical assistancefunds has been extended (FY2006-FY2010) and increased to $7.5 million. Those provisionswere included in the final version (enrolled) of H.R. 3402 as freestanding law. The full text of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (including programauthority for Children's Justice Act grants), as currently authorized, the Strengthening Abuseand Neglect Court Act, and the Court Improvement Project, are available via the U.S.Department of Health and Human Services Children's Bureau website. (The CourtImprovement Program language would be significantly altered by the Deficit Reduction Actof 2005 if it is enacted.) Web links are listed below. Compilation of the Victims of Child Abuse Act (pp. 541-553)http://edworkforce.house.gov/publications/edcomps/vol6nutrition.pdf . P.L. 108-21 amendment to the Victims of Child Abuse Act not includedin this compilation (Subtitle E, Section 381)http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:s151enr.txt.pdf . Compilation of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act(CAPTA), including program authority for the Children's Justice Act grantshttp://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws_policies/cblaws/capta03/capta_manual.pdf . Text of the Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Acthttp://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_bills&docid=f:s2272enr.pdf . Compilation of certain Social Security Act programs, including theCourt Improvement Program (see Section 438) http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/laws_policies/cblaws/safe2003.pdf .

Summary: The Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (Title II, P.L. 101-647 ) authorized three programs: Children's Advocacy Centers, the Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) program, andTraining for Judicial Practitioners and Personnel. Funding authorization for each of these programsexpired with FY2005. In mid-December 2005, Congress approved the Violence Against Womenand Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 ( H.R. 3402 ), which reauthorizesfunding for the CASA program (for FY2007-FY2011) at its FY2005 authorization level of $12million. That legislation (now P.L. 109-162 ) also extends funding for training and technicalassistance related to the Children's Advocacy Centers for FY2006-FY2010, increasing thatauthorization level to $7.5 million (previously $5 million) -- although it does not extend theauthorization for the Children's Advocacy Centers themselves. Despite the expiration of theirspending authorizations, funding for each of the Victims of Child Abuse Act programs was includedin FY2006 appropriations ( P.L. 109-108 ), and the Administration has requested funding for theseprograms in FY2007. Children's Advocacy Centers are authorized to provide services to child victims of abuse (andto their non-offending family members), to coordinate child abuse investigations in ways that reducetheir trauma, and to provide for related training and technical assistance. Funding for the centers andrelated training and technical assistance grew from approximately $13 million in FY2004 to closeto $15 million in each of FY2005 and FY2006. For FY2007, the Administration has requested $11.7million in funding for Children's Advocacy Centers. Under the CASA program, funding is provided to the National Court Appointed SpecialAdvocates Association to initiate and expand local programs that provide volunteer advocates (calledCASAs) to children who are the victims in child abuse or neglect cases. The Violence AgainstWomen and Department of Justice Act reauthorizes funding for CASA for FY2007-FY2011 and,among other changes, includes authority for the use of these funds to "sustain" CASA programs. Funding for CASA was $11.7 million in FY2005. For FY2006, Congress appropriatedapproximately $11.7 million for CASA. The Administration has requested $11.8 million for theprogram in FY2007. Funds appropriated for Training Judicial Practitioners and Personnel have been awarded tothe National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, and have been used to create the ongoing"model courts" initiative. Funding for this program was somewhat lower in FY2005 ($1.9 million)than in each of the seven preceding fiscal years. For FY2006, Congress appropriated approximately$2.3 million for this training program, and the Administration has requested the same level offunding for FY2007. This report will be updated as necessary.