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. 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. 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. 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.