Comparison Chart on Child Welfare Proposals

August 5, 2004

Proposal	Current Structure	Administration Proposed Changes	Pew Commission on Foster Care Proposal	Child SAFE Act (HR 4856)	Alliance Proposal
Initial Funding	Title IV-E of the Social Security Act guarantees open-ended funding to states for foster care services – payments for foster care, administrative costs and training funds – based on the number of eligible children and families. States pay a share of these costs.  Eligibility of children is linked to standards in place under the 1996 AFDC welfare law.	Creates optional block grant for foster care services.  State allocations determined by expenditure history, in consultation with the states. State allocations fixed for five-year period. States may opt to “front-end” funds. If states experience an unanticipated increase in their foster care caseload, they can receive funds from the TANF emergency fund.	Preserves entitlement for foster care maintenance payments and suggests several multi-year strategies to expand services to all children, regardless of income.  Creates flexible, indexed Safe Children, Strong Families grant (pools IV-B and IV-E Training and Administration funds plus $100 million in the first year) to help states build a range of prevention, treatment, and post-treatment services.  Also allows states to reinvest federal and state foster care dollars into other child welfare services if they reduce their use of foster care.	Maintains entitlement for foster care maintenance payments, but places cap on the amount of federal assistance available to a state to provide these services.  IV-E “lookback” is eliminated, enabling all children in foster care and adoptive placements to be eligible for federal supports.  However, to make this measure cost-neutral, the federal reimbursement rate would be reduced by 35% for children in foster care placements. This bill creates Safe Children, Strong Families block grant as proposed in Pew recommendations.	Any funding mechanism of the child welfare system must be consistent, reliable and able to modify and increase funding levels to states based on risk and needs of children and their families. The Alliance is hesitant to support any form of cap or block grant program that does not employ a clear formula that recognizes demographics, the economy, inflation, and other risk factors within the states. The Alliance also support removing the “lookback” provision to assure that all children in need of protection and support are eligible for federally funded, state administered services, regardless of family income.
Adoption Assistance	Guaranteed as an entitlement for eligible children, this program pays monthly payments to adoptive parents.	Remains as entitlement for eligible children. Eligibility depends on 1996 AFDC household income.	Continues Adoption Assistance as an entitlement for eligible children. Proposes providing federal guardianship assistance to all children for which adoption and reunification are not feasible permanency options.	Maintains uncapped funding for IV-E Adoption Assistance and eliminates the link between AFDC and eligibility for adoption assistance payments, but lowers the federal reimbursement rate by 15% to make the provision cost-neutral.	The Alliance supports maintaining IV-E Adoption Assistance as an entitlement with a modified match requirement to ensure cost neutrality, but advocates broadening the scope of the financial assistance to include subsidized guardianship when both reunification and adoption have been ruled out. The Alliance recommends eliminating the income eligibility component of the Adoption Assistance program.
Allowable Uses of Funds	IV-E Training and Administration dollars have strict definitions as to access, activities, and services that are eligible for reimbursement.	States can spend these dollars flexibly – on prevention, maintenance payments, or new services. States can include children from higher income families than current law allows.	Safe Children, Strong Families funds can be used flexibly on activities such as: lowering caseloads, training for public and private child welfare employees, court personnel, guardians ad litem and other court-appointed advocates, as well as any child welfare purpose currently allowed under Title IV-B.	The cap on IV-E maintenance dollars only places a ceiling on the amount of federal reimbursement funds that can be drawn down by a state – it does not allow states to use these dollars more flexibly. The Safe Children, Strong Families grants can be used flexibly on prevention, services, training, caseload management, and professional development of staff.	The Alliance recommends that a sufficient percentage of total child welfare allocations to states be made available, under a matched incentive program, to States, private agencies under child welfare contracts, educational and research institutions. This program would be used to fund innovation in the workforce development, case management tools, agency accreditation, research and evaluation, and court improvement projects.
Inflation Adjustments	None.	None.	Safe Children, Strong Families funds would increase by 2 percent plus inflation after the first year of implementation.	Not addressed.	The Alliance recommends that child welfare funding be driven by demographics, the economy, inflation, and other risk factors within the states.
State Match/MOE Requirements	Maintenance of Effort (MOE) established on a state-by-state basis.	MOE for previous levels of child welfare spending.	MOE for previous levels of state child welfare spending.	Requires that states maintain level of FY2003 child welfare expenditures.	MOE for previous levels of state child welfare spending.
IV-E Waiver Program	Available each year for a limited number of states to implement innovative programs with HHS approval.	N/A	Simplifies the waiver process by providing incentives to states that make and maintain improvements in their child welfare workforce and increase all forms of safe permanence.  Eliminates cap on number of waivers HHS may approve, and permits HHS to approve waiver demonstrations that have already been implemented in other states.	Eliminates the limit on number of states that can receive waivers to conduct demonstration projects, as well as eliminates the limit on the number of waivers that may be granted to a single state. Requires the Secretary of HHS to make available to any state information with regard to a demonstration project that may promote best practices and program improvements.	The Alliance supports eliminating the cap on number of waivers HHS may approve and ability of states to replicate successful program models in more than one jurisdiction across the state. The Alliance supports HHS permitting the implementation of waiver demonstrations that have already been implemented in other states.
Mandatory Provisions	Requires that child safety and permanency provisions be upheld under Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) law.	Requires maintenance of child safety protections under ASFA. Set-asides required for program monitoring, research, technical assistance, and Indian tribes.	Requires maintenance of child safety protections under ASFA. In addition, Pew calls for the creation of an expert advisory group to periodically review recommended outcomes and measures to ensure that they remain timely and appropriate.	Requires maintenance of child safety protections under ASFA. Includes set-asides in Safe Children, Strong Families program for Territories, Indian Tribes, State Court Improvement programs, and Research/Evaluation activities.	Requires maintenance of child safety protections under ASFA. The Alliance supports the improvement of the AFCARS system to assure its ability to track change over time relative to each state’s performance and the inclusion of additional data elements.  An enhanced SACWIS match rate should be available to states to make changes necessitated by AFCARS reforms.