View Research by Author - Jacob Leos-Urbel

Citation URL: http://www.urban.org/JacobLeosUrbel

Federal and state governments are seeking to improve the child welfare system by increasing oversight and making agencies more accountable for outcomes. Installation of new information systems increases accountability. New initiatives, such as alternative response systems, structured decision making, and family group decision making, are efforts to respond to ongoing concerns about the quality of the child welfare system. Some states report increased staff allocations, but most cite difficulty in recruiting and retaining staff. Front-line caseworkers report new, added responsibilities, with more emphasis on documentation and clerical work, less decision making authority, and less time to spend with children and families.

Recent Changes in Welfare and Work, Child Care, and Child Welfare Systems are based on discussions with program administrators, front-line workers, policy advocates, and focus groups in Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Texas, Wisconsin, California, Colorado, New Jersey, New York, and Washington. Recent Changes analyzes what has happened to the cash assistance, employment and training, child care, and child welfare systems in each state since the enactment of federal welfare reform.

In 1996 and 1997, the Urban Institute conducted case studies in 13 states that provided a baseline for understanding changes emerging from welfare reform. This set of state updates describes changes occurring between 1996-97 and 1999-2000 based on a second set of case studies completed in 1999 and 2000. Programs covered include income support through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, employment and training supports for low-income welfare and non-welfare families, child care, and child welfare. It also looks at interactions among these programs.

Michigan implemented few major reforms since 1997, primarily because the state was a leader in welfare reform in the early 1990s. Some policy changes were made to allow current and former welfare recipients to engage in training programs, as opposed to focusing on employment only, but it was unclear at the time of the site visit if many individuals were participating in these programs. Coinciding with the drop in the welfare caseload and additional funding, Michigan did witness a large increase in child care subsidies.

In 1996 and 1997, the Urban Institute conducted case studies in 13 states that provided a baseline for understanding changes emerging from welfare reform. This set of state updates describes changes occurring between 1996-97 and 1999-2000 based on a second set of case studies completed in 1999 and 2000. Programs covered include income support through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, employment and training supports for low-income welfare and non-welfare families, child care, and child welfare. It also looks at interactions among these programs.

This report documents states' total child welfare spending from federal, state, and local sources in state fiscal year (SFY) 1998; changes in total spending since SFY 1996; changes in federal, state, and local spending since SFY 1996; states' spending on contracted services in SFY 1998; and how these funds were used for out-of-home placements, adoption, administration, or other services.

The paper examines the links between the cash assistance and child welfare systems. Interviews with more than 350 child welfare administrators, researchers, supervisors, legislative representatives, and advocates in 13 states found no evidence to suggest that welfare reform had significantly increased the number of families referred to child welfare agencies. The authors conclude that concern for dual-system families may be well-founded as many respondents noted the challenges faced by families involved in both systems. The authors review the few studies that address the effects of welfare reform on child welfare concluding that research on this topic is limited.

This study provides updated information regarding states' kinship care policies. Almost all states give preference to and seek out kin when placing a child in foster care. However, states vary in the way that they assess and support kinship care. Most states assess kin differently than non-kin foster parents. Some kin receive foster care payments while others are supported with lesser payments. This paper analyzes the impacts of the Adoption and Safe Families Act final rule on kinship care and discusses the challenge of creating kinship care policies that both ensure child safety and address the unique needs of kin.

This supplement to the main report The Cost of Protecting Vulnerable Children: Understanding Federal, State, and Local Child Welfare Spending (Occasional Paper 20) provides state-by-state data on spending for child welfare services in state fiscal year 1996. Charts detail sources of funding for child welfare services and spending by type of service, type of out-of-home placement, and type of child welfare expenditure.

Return to list of authors