urban institute nonprofit social and economic policy research

State Child Welfare Spending at a Glance

A Supplemental Report to the Cost of Protecting Vulnerable Children

Read complete document: PDF


PrintPrint this page
Share:
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Digg Share on Reddit
| Email this pageE-mail
Document date: April 01, 1999
Released online: April 01, 1999

This report is part of the Urban Institute's Assessing the New Federalism project, a multi-year effort to monitor and assess the devolution of social programs from the federal to the state and local levels. Alan Weil is the project director. The project analyzes changes in income support, social services, and health programs and their effects. In collaboration with Child Trends, the project studies child and family well-being.

The project has received funding from The Annie E. Casey Foundation, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, The Ford Foundation, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, The Commonwealth Fund, the Stuart Foundation, the Weingart Foundation, The McKnight Foundation, The Fund for New Jersey, and The Rockefeller Foundation. Additional funding is provided by the Joyce Foundation and The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation through a subcontract with the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.


Contents

Introduction
State Data
Data Limitations
Data Sources

United States
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Appendices

Appendix A: Defining Child Welfare Costs
Appendix B: Summary of State Data

Notes

About the Authors


Introduction

Child welfare services are designed to ensure the safety of children. As such, they span a broad range of activities, including supporting and preserving families, investigating reports of abuse or neglect, protecting victimized children, and assisting children temporarily or permanently removed from their parents' homes. Primary responsibility for delivering child welfare services rests with the states or local governments, which use funds from federal, state, and local sources. Unfortunately, little systematic information has been available on either the amount of funding available for state child welfare services generally, or the allocation of that funding across specific services.

To begin to fill this data gap, and to provide a baseline from which to assess changes in the way states finance child welfare services, the Urban Institute conducted a 51-state survey (including the District of Columbia) of child welfare funding sources and expenditures.1 The Cost of Protecting Vulnerable Children: Understanding Federal, State, and Local Child Welfare Spending summarized these data and outlined trends and differences in child welfare funding in certain areas across all states. This supplement to the main report provides data on individual state spending for child welfare services in state fiscal year (SFY) 1996. These additional data provide detailed spending within each state and a baseline against which to compare changes in child welfare spending within a state over time.2 This volume begins by outlining the definitions used to collect state child welfare expenditures. We also briefly describe the limitations of our data and the sources of the contextual information presented in this report. The central part of this report is the state spending summaries. In these summaries we present state child welfare spending in the context of the state's child welfare population and in comparison to the national averages.


State Data

This supplemental report reflects all of the fiscal data collected from states through a mail questionnaire and subsequent phone follow-up conducted during the summer and fall of 1997. We asked states to outline the sources of their child welfare funding, and to the extent possible, how these dollars were used within their programs. Appendix A provides a list of definitions for each of the expenditure variables presented in the state figures that follow. Using these definitions, states provided the following data:

  1. Total child welfare expenditures, from federal, state, and local sources;
  2. Federal and state expenditures, by the type of service funded—adoption, out-of-home placement, and other costs (including administration and child protective services);
  3. Federal spending by the source of funds, including Title IV-E and Title IV-B of the Social Security Act (SSA), Social Services Block Grant (SSBG or Title XX of the SSA), Medicaid (Title XIX of the SSA), Emergency Assistance (EA or Title IV-A of the SSA), and other federal sources;3
  4. Expenditures of state dollars, by type of service funded—adoption, out-of-home placement, administration, and other services; and
  5. State funds used for out-of-home placement by type of placement, including family foster care, residential care, shelter care, correctional care, and other types of placements.

Each of the 49 states (including the District of Columbia) that provided data for our survey (Hawaii and Virginia declined to participate) is included in this analysis. On the basis of data received from states, we also provide a United States average that summarizes the findings from the main report. In addition, we include a brief summary of the child population and child welfare caseload in each state to provide a better picture of state program demands. Finally, we note any limitations to the data and provide comments for interpreting states' results.


Data Limitations

Despite the considerable time committed to working with states, the data presented still contain several limitations, and readers should be cautious in interpreting results. For the analyses summarized in the main report, states with incomplete data were deleted from many of the charts and analyses to ensure that national estimates and spending proportions were not skewed by missing information. However, in this report, our goal is to provide the most complete fiscal information available for each state. Therefore, we include all information provided by the states. Missing data are noted in the appropriate section for each state.

In Appendix B we include a table that summarizes the data reported by each state. In addition, the methodology section of the main report describes in more detail components of the survey, data limitations, and other issues important to understanding these state results.


Data Sources

This supplemental report provides state-by-state information gathered from a variety of sources. The Urban Institute Child Welfare Survey is the source of all child-welfare fiscal data. All data are for SFY 1996, unless otherwise noted. For each state, we provide comparisons with national averages, though state spending practices may differ for a number of reasons. The purpose of this analysis is simply to help put state spending into context, not to demonstrate above- or below-average performance.

In addition, we summarize other useful data to further provide a context for interpreting the results of the survey and to highlight differences across states. These variables represent some, but not all, of the factors that may influence a state's expenditures. Sources include the following:

  • Number of children under 18 in the state, Urban Institute tabulations of the Census Bureau, Current Population Survey. 1995–1997 three-year average.
  • Number of children living in poverty, Urban Institute tabulations of the Census Bureau, Current Population Survey. 1995–1997 three-year average.
  • Number of children subject to a report of abuse and neglect, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, "Child Maltreatment 1996: Reports from the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System" (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1998).
  • Number of children in substitute care, American Public Welfare Association, Voluntary Cooperative Information Systems, number of children in care at the end of fiscal year 1996.


Spending by State

United States

According to our survey, states spent at least $14.4 billion in federal, state, and local funds in state fiscal year (SFY) 1996 on child welfare services. Because we know that our estimate undercounts federal funding for at least 14 states, state spending in four states, and local spending in 12 states, the $14.4 billion estimate is a conservative lower bound.4 Total spending per child across responding states (49) averaged $194.

Of the $12.7 billion we could categorize, states expended $7.0 billion for out-of-home care. States spent an additional $1.0 billion on adoption and the remaining $4.7 billion on all other child welfare services combined (all child protection services, services to prevent child abuse and neglect, family preservation services, and ongoing case management activities).

According to all available data, the 51 states expended approximately $6.5 billion in federal funds for child welfare services in SFY 1996. Of the different federal sources, Title IV-E is by far the largest, accounting for $3.3 billion of states' child welfare spending in SFY 1996. Together, Emergency Assistance, the Social Services Block Grant, and Medicaid, though not dedicated child welfare funding sources, accounted for over $2.6 billion, a significant share of federal child welfare spending.

According to all available data, the 51 states expended approximately $6.4 billion in state funds and $1.6 billion in local funds for child welfare services in SFY 1996. State dollars spent on out-of-home placement include funds used for children placed in foster family homes, residential/group homes, shelter care, correctional facilities, and other settings. Although the vast majority of children are placed in family foster care, survey responses indicated that slightly more state dollars are actually spent on the children placed in residential care ($1.11 billion) than on the children in family foster care ($1.06 billion).

Data Limitations

  • Significant data limitations as outlined in the remaining sections of this paper mandate that missing data be taken into account. The charts below represent the primary findings from the main report.
  • While 49 states responded to the survey (Hawaii and Virginia declined to participate), states often could not provide all of the information requested. As a result, the analyses often reflect information from fewer than 49 states.5

Additional Comments

  • None.

View the pie charts for the United States.


Alabama

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), Alabama spent $89,912,351 on child welfare services, or about $74 per child under 18 in the state. Approximately half of the state's spending came from federal funds, a proportion slightly higher than the national average. Alabama relied far more heavily on Medicaid and Emergency Assistance funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a smaller proportion of federal and state funds on out-of-home placement. The proportion of state out-of-home spending on residential care was far below the national average.

Contextual Data

Of the 1,223,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 303,000 (25 percent) were living in poverty; 39,361 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 3,863 were in out-of-home care. Alabama's child welfare system is state administered and county operated.

Data Limitations

  • Alabama provided data on total Medicaid expenditures but could not estimate the amounts used for out-of-home placement or "other" services. Therefore, the out-of-home placement costs and "other" costs presented do not include Medicaid dollars.
  • Alabama's data on state expenditures by type of service (out-of-home placement, adoption, and other) also include local dollars.

Additional Comments

  • None.

View the pie charts for Alabama.


Alaska

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), Alaska spent $50,275,042 on child welfare services, or about $228 per child under 18 in the state. Less than one-quarter of the state's spending came from federal funds, a proportion considerably lower than the national average. However, this low proportion may result from federal dollars that were not reported by the state. Compared with the national average, the state spent a slightly smaller proportion of federal and state funds on out-of-home placement. The proportion of state out-of-home spending on residential care was near the national average.

Contextual Data

Of the 221,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 26,000 (12 percent) were living in poverty; 10,100 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 1,880 were in out-of-home care. Alaska's child welfare system is state administered.

Data Limitations

  • Alaska reported using Medicaid and SSBG funds for child welfare services. However, because the state could not estimate these expenditures, total federal spending does not include these funds.
  • State administrative child welfare costs included some expenditures for youth corrections.
  • Alaska was unable to estimate the amount of state spending on foster care or other types of out-of-home placement. Therefore, state expenditures for the different types of out-of-home placement could not be analyzed.
  • Total out-of-home placement expenditures included administrative costs for residential care placements. Therefore, for Alaska, administrative costs for residential care placements are included in both total administrative costs and out-of-home expenditures and are double-counted in Alaska's total state expenditures. As most states did not include these administrative costs in their out-of-home expenditures, readers should be cautious when comparing Alaska with other states.

Additional Comments

  • No Emergency Assistance funds were used to finance child welfare services.

View the pie charts for Alaska.


Arizona

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), Arizona spent $142,318,711 on child welfare services, or about $106 per child under 18 in the state. Over half of the state's spending came from state funds, a proportion higher than the national average. Arizona did not rely as heavily on Medicaid, Emergency Assistance, and SSBG funds for child welfare services as the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a smaller proportion of federal and state funds on out-of-home placement, and a larger percentage on adoption-related expenditures. The proportions of state out-of-home spending on adoption and administrative costs were also above the national averages.

Contextual Data

Of the 1,348,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 376,000 (28 percent) were living in poverty; 46,716 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 6,013 children were in out-of-home care. Arizona's child welfare system is state administered.

Data Limitations

  • Arizona indicated that Title IV-B funds were used for several special programs outside the child welfare system that provide children's services (e.g., Healthy Families), but the state was unable to separate these funds from its child welfare expenditures.

Additional Comments

  • None. 

View the pie charts for Arizona.


Arkansas

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), Arkansas spent $91,941,416 on child welfare services, or about $129 per child under 18 in the state. Over half of the state's spending came from federal funds, a proportion higher than the national average. Arkansas' use of Emergency Assistance and SSBG funds for child welfare services mirrored the nation as a whole, though Arkansas used less Medicaid than the majority of other states did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a smaller proportion of federal and state funds on out-of-home placement and adoption. The proportions of state out-of-home spending on residential care and foster family care were both below the national average.

Contextual Data

Of the 715,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 159,000 (22 percent) were living in poverty; 38,211 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 2,107 were in out-of-home care. Arkansas' child welfare system is state administered.

Data Limitations

  • Arkansas' out-of-home placement costs do not include expenditures for children placed out of state. However, these expenditures are included in Arkansas' total state expenditures.
  • Arkansas noted that some of the funds reported include legal fees (approximately $160,000).

Additional Comments

  • None.

View the pie charts for Arkansas.


California

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), California spent $1,895,032,292 on child welfare services, or about $197 per child under 18 in the state. Approximately one-third of the state's spending came from federal funds, a proportion lower than the national average. California used less Medicaid for child welfare services than the nation did as a whole. These low expenditure figures may result from the under-reporting of the source of federal funds used at the county level, as counties bill Medicaid and Emergency Assistance directly. The proportion of state out-of-home spending for foster family care was less than the national average.

Contextual Data

Of the 9,611,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 2,526,000 (26 percent) were living in poverty; 463,072 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 102,480 were in out-of-home care. California's child welfare system is county administered and state supervised.

Data Limitations

  • California's estimate of total local funds includes only required matching funds. Counties provided funds beyond the match requirement but the state could not estimate the total amount of these funds. Therefore, total and local child welfare spending levels are undercounted in California.
  • California's total state expenditures on foster care and other types of out- of-home placement do not equal the estimated total of state out-of-home placement spending. State officials could not explain this discrepancy.

Additional Comments

  • In California no SSBG funds were used to finance child welfare services.

View the pie charts for California.


Colorado

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), Colorado spent $191,305,156 on child welfare services, or about $177 per child under 18 in the state. Approximately half of the state's spending came from federal funds, a proportion slightly higher than the national average. Colorado relied far more heavily on SSBG funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a greater proportion of state funds on out-of-home placement.

Contextual Data

Of the 1,081,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 140,000 (13 percent) were living in poverty; an estimated 49,867 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 7,594 were in out-of-home care. Colorado's child welfare system is county administered and state supervised.

Data Limitations

  • Colorado reported minimum Medicaid spending, including only those funds used for out-of-home placement. Colorado was unable to estimate Medicaid spending for "other" child welfare services.
  • Colorado provided data on total state spending on out-of-home placement but was unable to estimate the amount spent specifically on foster care or all other types of out-of-home placement. Therefore, state expenditures for the different types of out-of-home placement could not be analyzed.

Additional Comments

  • None.

View the pie charts for Colorado.


Connecticut

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), Connecticut spent $202,105,961 on child welfare services, or about $227 per child under 18 in the state. Over 60 percent of the state's spending came from state funds, a proportion higher than the national average. Connecticut did not rely as heavily on Medicaid and Emergency Assistance funds for child welfare services as other states did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a significantly greater proportion of federal and state funds on out-of-home placement. The proportion of state out-of-home spending on residential care was also above the national average.

Contextual Data

Of the 889,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 187,000 (21 percent) were living in poverty; 49,344 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 9,200 were in out-of-home care. Connecticut's child welfare system is state administered.

Data Limitations

  • Connecticut could not estimate the amount of state funds used for administrative expenditures. Therefore, total state expenditures are undercounted in Connecticut.
  • Connecticut's total state expenditures included an unspecified amount of local or county funds.
  • Connecticut reported using SSBG funds for child welfare services but could not provide an estimate for these expenditures. Therefore, federal expenditures within this state are undercounted.

Additional Comments

  • In Connecticut no Medicaid funds were used to finance child welfare services.

View the pie charts for Connecticut.


Delaware

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), Delaware spent $30,171,709 on child welfare services, or about $214 per child under 18 in the state. Almost 70 percent of the state's spending came from state funds, a proportion higher than the national average. Delaware relied far more heavily on SSBG funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a smaller proportion of federal and state funds on out-of-home placement. The proportion of state out-of-home spending on residential care was far below the national average.

Contextual Data

Of the 183,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 26,000 (14 percent) were living in poverty; 9,751 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 821 were in out-of-home care. Delaware's child welfare system is state administered.

Data Limitations

  • Delaware reported using Emergency Assistance funds but was unable to provide an estimate for these expenditures. Therefore, federal expenditures within this state are undercounted.

Additional Comments

  • None.

View the pie charts for Delaware.


District of Columbia

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), the District of Columbia spent $99,893,774 on child welfare services, or about $546 per child under 18 in the district. Approximately two-thirds of the district's spending came from district funds, a proportion significantly higher than the national average. The District of Columbia relied less on Medicaid, SSBG, and Emergency Assistance funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did.

Contextual Data

Of the 141,000 children under the age of 18 living in the district in 1996, 53,000 (38 percent) were living in poverty; 12,018 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation, and 2,172 were in out-of-home care. The District of Columbia's child welfare system is state (district) administered.

Data Limitations

  • The District of Columbia was unable to estimate expenditures for federal Title IV-E adoption training and Title IV-E foster care training.
  • The District of Columbia was unable to estimate district expenditures for adoption and adoption-related costs.
  • The District of Columbia provided data on total district spending on out- of-home placement but was unable to estimate the amount spent specifically on foster care or all other types of out-of-home placement besides residential placements. Therefore, district expenditures for the different types of out- of-home placement could not be analyzed.

Additional Comments

  • In 1996, $4.6 million in residential treatment costs were administered through a separate agency. However, to maintain comparability across states and capture all of the funds expended on "child welfare services," the $4.6 million was added to reported district child welfare expenditures. 

View the pie charts for the District of Columbia.


Florida

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), Florida spent $424,766,984 on child welfare services, or about $117 per child under 18 in the state. Over half of the state's spending came from federal funds, a proportion higher than the national average. Florida relied far more heavily on SSBG and Emergency Assistance funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a smaller proportion of federal and state funds on out-of-home placement. The proportion of state expenditures for out-of-home spending was also significantly lower than other states' averages.

Contextual Data

Of the 3,646,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 885,000 (24 percent) were living in poverty; 184,442 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 8,941 were in out-of-home care. Florida's child welfare system is state administered.

Data Limitations

  • Florida provided data on total state spending on out-of-home placement but was unable to estimate the amount spent specifically on foster care or all other types of out-of-home placement. Therefore, state expenditures for the different types of out-of-home placement could not be analyzed.
  • Florida provided data on total Medicaid, SSBG, and Emergency Assistance expenditures but was unable to estimate the amount used specifically for out-of-home placement or "other" services within each funding source. Therefore, out-of-home placement costs and "other" child welfare costs do not include Medicaid, SSBG, or Emergency Assistance dollars.

Additional Comments

  • None.

View the pie charts for Florida.


Georgia

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), Georgia spent $215,686,041 on child welfare services, or about $104 per child under 18 in the state. Over half of the state's spending came from state funds, a proportion higher than the national average. Georgia relied more heavily on Medicaid and SSBG funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a significantly smaller proportion of federal and state funds on out-of-home placement. The proportion of state out-of-home spending on foster family care was far above the national average.

Contextual Data

Of the 2,079,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 402,000 (19 percent) were living in poverty; 87,006 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 19,148 were in out-of-home care. Georgia's child welfare system is county administered and state supervised.

Data Limitations

  • Georgia was unable to estimate the amount of state child welfare spending on children in juvenile or correctional facilities.

Additional Comments

  • None.

View the pie charts for Georgia.


Idaho

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), Idaho spent $37,152,000 on child welfare services, or about $108 per child under 18 in the state. Over 60 percent of the state's spending came from federal funds, a proportion higher than the national average. Idaho relied far more heavily on SSBG funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a significantly smaller proportion of federal and state funds on out-of-home placement. With the majority of state out-of-home funds going to foster family care, the proportion of state spending on residential care was also far below the national average.

Contextual Data

Of the 346,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 64,000 (19 percent) were living in poverty; 32,496 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 801 were in out-of-home care. Idaho's child welfare system is state administered.

Data Limitations

  • No known data limitations.

Additional Comments

  • None.

View the pie charts for Idaho.


Illinois

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), Illinois spent $1,830,818,036 on child welfare services, or about $537 per child under 18 in the state. Approximately two-thirds of the state's spending came from state funds, a proportion significantly higher than the national average. Illinois relied less on Title IV-E funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a smaller proportion of federal and state funds on adoption costs. The proportion of state out-of-home spending on foster family care was above the national average.

Contextual Data

Of the 3,407,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 711,000 (21 percent) were living in poverty; 124,129 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 50,219 were in out-of-home care. Illinois's child welfare system is state administered.

Data Limitations

  • No known data limitations.

Additional Comments

  • None.

View the pie charts for Illinois.


Indiana

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), Indiana spent $316,285,783 on child welfare services, or about $199 per child under 18 in the state. Over 60 percent of the state's spending came from local funds, a proportion significantly higher than the national average. Indiana relied far less on Medicaid and Emergency Assistance funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a greater proportion of federal and state funds on out-of-home placement. The proportion of state out-of-home spending on residential care was far above the national average.

Contextual Data

Of the 1,591,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 239,000 (15 percent) were living in poverty; 66,097 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 9,781 were in out-of-home care. Indiana's child welfare system is county administered and state supervised.

Data Limitations

  • Indiana was unable to estimate the amount of state child welfare spending on shelter care and "other" placements.
  • Indiana provided data on total Emergency Assistance expenditures but could not estimate the amounts used specifically for out-of-home placement or "other" services. Therefore, out-of-home placement costs and "other" child welfare costs do not include Emergency Assistance dollars.

Additional Comments

  • None.

View the pie charts for Indiana.


Iowa

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), Iowa spent $162,389,629 on child welfare services, or about $191 per child under 18 in the state. Sixty percent of the state's spending came from state funds, a proportion significantly higher than the national average. Iowa relied far more heavily on Medicaid funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a similar proportion of federal and state funds on out-of-home placement, adoption, and other services. The proportion of state out-of-home spending on residential care was far above the national average.

Contextual Data

Of the 849,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 131,000 (15 percent) were living in poverty; 32,801 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 4,135 were in out-of-home care. Iowa's child welfare system is state administered.

Data Limitations

  • In Iowa, counties provided funds beyond a state match requirement, but the state could not estimate the total amount of these funds. Therefore, total and local child welfare spending levels are undercounted in Iowa.
  • Iowa was unable to estimate the amount of state child welfare spending on juvenile or correctional facilities.

Additional Comments

  • None.

View the pie charts for Iowa.


Kansas

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), Kansas spent $127,280,610 on child welfare services, or about $170 per child under 18 in the state. Over half of the state's spending came from state funds, a proportion higher than the national average. Kansas relied more heavily on Medicaid funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a smaller proportion of federal and state funds on out-of-home placement.

Contextual Data

Of the 750,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 121,000 (16 percent) were living in poverty; 30,552 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 4,934 were in out-of-home care. Kansas' child welfare system is state administered.

Data Limitations

  • Kansas provided a total for state expenditures on out-of-home placement other than foster care but was unable to break out that amount by residential care, shelter care, and "other" placements. Therefore, state expenditures for the different types of out-of-home placement other than foster care could not be analyzed.

Additional Comments

  • None.

View the pie charts for Kansas.


Kentucky

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), Kentucky spent $247,750,491 on child welfare services, or about $233 per child under 18 in the state. Approximately 60 percent of the state's spending came from state funds, a proportion significantly higher than the national average. Kentucky relied far more heavily on SSBG funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a similar proportion of federal and state funds on out-of-home placement, adoption, and other services.

Contextual Data

Of the 1,063,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 276,000 (26 percent) were living in poverty; 60,896 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 4,290 were in out-of-home care. Kentucky's child welfare system is state administered.

Data Limitations

  • Kentucky provided data on total state spending on out-of-home placement but was unable to estimate the amount spent specifically on foster care or all other types of out-of-home placement. Therefore, state expenditures for the different types of out-of-home placement could not be analyzed.

Additional Comments

  • Kentucky did not use Medicaid funds to finance child welfare services.

View the pie charts for Kentucky.


Louisiana

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), Louisiana spent $176,143,728 on child welfare services, or about $137 per child under 18 in the state. Almost 70 percent of the state's spending came from federal funds, a proportion significantly higher than the national average. Louisiana relied far more heavily on SSBG funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a slightly larger proportion of federal and state funds on out-of-home placement. The proportion of state out-of-home spending on "other" types of care (specifically, supervised apartments) was far above the national average.

Contextual Data

Of the 1,283,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 425,000 (33 percent) were living in poverty; 45,981 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 6,117 were in out-of-home care. Louisiana's child welfare system is state administered.

Data Limitations

  • Louisiana's total state expenditures on foster care and other types of out-of-home placement do not equal the estimated total out-of-home placement spending provided by the state. State officials could not explain this discrepancy.

Additional Comments

  • None.

View the pie charts for Louisiana.


Maine

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), Maine spent $65,001,014 on child welfare services, or about $220 per child under 18 in the state. Almost 60 percent of the state's spending came from federal funds, a proportion higher than the national average. Maine relied far more heavily on SSBG funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a greater proportion of federal and state funds on out-of-home placement.

Contextual Data

Of the 296,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 45,000 (15 percent) were living in poverty; 9,616 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 2,577 were in out-of-home care. Maine's child welfare system is state administered.

Data Limitations

  • Maine provided data on total state spending on out-of-home placement but was unable to estimate the amount spent specifically on foster care or all other types of out-of-home placement. Therefore, state expenditures for the different types of out-of-home placement could not be analyzed.
  • Maine provided data on total Medicaid, SSBG, and Emergency Assistance expenditures but was unable to estimate the amount spent specifically on out-of-home placement or "other" services within each funding source. Therefore, out-of-home placement costs and "other" child welfare costs do not include Medicaid, SSBG, or Emergency Assistance dollars.

Additional Comments

  • None.

View the pie charts for Maine.


Maryland

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), Maryland spent $188,895,827 on child welfare services, or about $136 per child under 18 in the state. Approximately half of the state's spending came from federal funds, a proportion slightly higher than the national average. Maryland relied far more heavily on SSBG funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a significantly greater proportion of federal and state funds on out-of-home placement.

Contextual Data

Of the 1,385,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 234,000 (17 percent) were living in poverty; an estimated 48,160 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 7,939 were in out-of-home care. Maryland's child welfare system is state administered.

Data Limitations

  • Maryland was unable to estimate federal Title IV-E expenditures for adoption training and independent living.
  • Maryland provided a total for state expenditures on out-of-home placement other than foster care (e.g., residential care, shelter care, juvenile and correctional facilities, and "other") but was unable to estimate the amount spent specifically on each type of placement. Therefore, state expenditures for the different types of out-of-home placement could not be analyzed.
  • Maryland provided data on total Medicaid and Emergency Assistance expenditures but was unable to estimate the amount spent specifically on out-of-home placement and "other" services within each funding source. Therefore, out-of-home placement costs and "other" child welfare costs do not include Medicaid or Emergency Assistance dollars.
  • Maryland indicated that it received "other" federal funding from the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN) Grants and the Children's Justice Act and provided totals for these funding sources, but was unable to provide estimates for the amount of these funds used specifically for children in out-of-home-placement.

Additional Comments

  • None.

View the pie charts for Maryland.


Massachusetts

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), Massachusetts spent $487,449,407 on child welfare services, or about $312 per child under 18 in the state. Close to 60 percent of the state's spending came from state funds, a proportion higher than the national average. Massachusetts relied far more heavily on SSBG funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a significantly smaller proportion of federal and state funds on out-of-home placement. The proportion of state out-of-home spending on residential care was similar to the national average.

Contextual Data

Of the 1,564,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 245,000 (16 percent) were living in poverty; 60,199 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 13,046 were in out-of-home care. Massachusetts' child welfare system is state administered.

Data Limitations

  • In Massachusetts, the total child welfare budget (including federal reimbursable costs) was allocated from the state General Fund. Federal funds were later reimbursed to this fund. Total state spending on child welfare was estimated by subtracting all federal reimbursable funds from the total child welfare budget. All other figures for state expenditures, besides total state spending (e.g., administrative costs, foster care, residential care), included both federal and state dollars.
  • Massachusetts was unable to estimate state spending for administrative expenditures. Therefore, total state expenditures are undercounted in Massachusetts.
  • Massachusetts provided data on total SSBG and Emergency Assistance expenditures but was unable to estimate the amount spent specifically on out-of-home placement and other services within each funding source. Therefore, out-of-home placement costs and "other" child welfare costs do not include SSBG or Emergency Assistance dollars.

Additional Comments

  • None.

View the pie charts for Massachusetts.


Michigan

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (10/1/95–9/30/96), Michigan spent $386,364,482 on child welfare services, or about $140 per child under 18 in the state. Because of missing data, no comparisons with national averages can be made.

Contextual Data

Of the 2,754,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 532,000 (19 percent) were living in poverty; 142,700 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 10,530 were in out-of-home care. Michigan's child welfare system is state administered.

Data Limitations

  • Michigan's reported state spending included only state funds spent on out-of-home placement. Michigan was unable to estimate any other state expenditures.
  • Michigan was unable to estimate local funds expended on child welfare services.
  • Michigan reported using Medicaid and SSBG funds but was unable to estimate the amount of these expenditures. Therefore, federal expenditures in Michigan are undercounted.
  • Michigan was unable to estimate the amount of state funds expended on adoption costs and adoption administration expenditures.
  • Michigan provided data on total state spending on out-of-home placement but was unable to estimate the amount spent specifically on foster care or all other types of out-of-home placement. Therefore, state expenditures for the different types of out-of-home placement could not be analyzed.

Additional Comments

  • None.

View the pie charts for Michigan.


Minnesota

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (1/1/96–12/31/96), Minnesota spent $344,315,453 on child welfare services, or about $253 per child under 18 in the state. Approximately half of the state's spending came from local funds, a proportion significantly higher than the national average. Minnesota relied far more heavily on Medicaid funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a smaller proportion of federal and state funds on out-of-home placement. The proportion of state out-of-home spending on residential care was far below the national average.

Contextual Data

Of the 1,359,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 184,000 (14 percent) were living in poverty; 25,435 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 8,654 were in out-of-home care. Minnesota's child welfare system is county administered and state supervised.

Data Limitations

  • Minnesota's breakouts for the different types of out-of-home placement besides foster care contain some federal dollars. Therefore, the sum of state expenditures on foster care and other types of out-of-home placement is greater than the total state out-of-home placement spending (which does not contain federal funds) originally reported by the state.

Additional Comments

  • None.

View the pie charts for Minnnesota.


Mississippi

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), Mississippi spent $49,353,675 on child welfare services, or about $61 per child under 18 in the state. Approximately two-thirds of the state's spending came from federal funds, a proportion higher than the national average. Mississippi relied far more heavily on SSBG and Title IV-B funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a greater proportion of state funds on administrative costs. The proportion of state out-of-home spending on residential care was far below the national average, while the proportion of state out-of-home spending on foster family care was above the national average.

Contextual Data

Of the 804,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 258,000 (32 percent) were living in poverty; an estimated 29,179 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 3,193 were in out-of-home care. Mississippi's child welfare system is state administered.

Data Limitations

  • Mississippi provided data on total SSBG expenditures but was unable to estimate the amount spent specifically on out-of-home placement and "other" services. Therefore, out-of-home placement costs and "other" child welfare costs do not include SSBG dollars.

Additional Comments

  • Mississippi did not use Medicaid or Emergency Assistance funds to finance child welfare services.

View the pie charts for Mississippi.


Missouri

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), Missouri spent $263,082,611 on child welfare services, or about $193 per child under 18 in the state. Almost three-fourths of the state's spending came from federal funds, a proportion significantly higher than the national average. Missouri relied far more heavily on SSBG and Emergency Assistance funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. The proportion of state out-of-home spending on foster family care was above the national average.

Contextual Data

Of the 1,364,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 228,000 (17 percent) were living in poverty; 83,875 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 9,992 were in out-of-home care. Missouri's child welfare system is state administered.

Data Limitations

  • Missouri reported minimum Medicaid spending, including only those funds used for out-of-home placement. Missouri was unable to estimate Medicaid spending for "other" child welfare services.
  • Missouri was unable to estimate the amount of Title IV-E adoption training funds used.
  • Missouri provided data on total Emergency Assistance expenditures but could not estimate the amounts used for out-of-home placement and "other" services. Therefore, out-of-home placement costs and "other" child welfare costs do not include Emergency Assistance dollars.

Additional Comments

  • None.

View the pie charts for Missouri.


Montana

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), Montana spent $28,974,839 on child welfare services, or about $115 per child under 18 in the state. Almost two-thirds of the state's spending came from federal funds, a proportion significantly higher than the national average. Montana relied far more heavily on Medicaid funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a smaller proportion of federal and state funds on out-of-home placement.

Contextual Data

Of the 251,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 55,000 (22 percent) were living in poverty; 17,732 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 1,763 were in out-of-home care. Montana's child welfare system is state administered.

Data Limitations

  • Montana was unable to estimate local funds expended on child welfare services.
  • Montana provided an estimate for total state spending on out-of-home placement but was unable to estimate the amount of state spending on specific types of out-of-home placement other than foster care. Therefore, state expenditures for the different types of out-of-home placement could not be analyzed.
  • Montana reported minimum Emergency Assistance spending, including only those funds used for "other" child welfare services. Montana was unable to estimate Emergency Assistance expenditures for out-of-home placement.

Additional Comments

  • None.

View the pie charts for Montana.


Nebraska

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), Nebraska spent $102,963,954 on child welfare services, or about $206 per child under 18 in the state. Approximately 70 percent of the state's spending came from federal funds, a proportion significantly higher than the national average. Nebraska relied far more heavily on Medicaid, Title IV-B, and Emergency Assistance funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a smaller proportion of federal and state funds on adoption.

Contextual Data

Of the 500,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 69,000 (14 percent) were living in poverty; 16,749 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 3,440 were in out-of-home care. Nebraska's child welfare system is state administered.

Data Limitations

  • Nebraska reported using SSBG funds but was unable to provide an estimate for these expenditures. Therefore, total federal expenditures are undercounted in Nebraska.
  • Nebraska was unable to estimate the amount of local funds expended for child welfare services. Therefore, total and local child welfare spending levels are undercounted in Nebraska.
  • Nebraska provided data on total state spending on out-of-home placement but was unable to estimate specifically the amount of state spending on foster care and all other types of out-of-home placement. Therefore, state expenditures for the different types of out-of-home placement could not be analyzed.
  • Nebraska was unable to estimate Title IV-E independent living costs.
  • Nebraska provided data on total Medicaid funds but was unable to estimate the amount spent specifically on children in out-of-home placement and "other" expenditures. Therefore, out-of-home placement costs and "other" child welfare costs do not include Medicaid dollars.

Additional Comments

  • None.

View the pie charts for Nebraska.


Nevada

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), Nevada spent $44,040,354 on child welfare services, or about $105 per child under 18 in the state. Almost two-thirds of the state's spending came from federal funds, a proportion significantly higher than the national average. Nevada relied far more heavily on Medicaid, SSBG, and Emergency Assistance funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a greater proportion of state funds on administrative costs.

Contextual Data

Of the 421,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 62,000 (15 percent) were living in poverty; an estimated 21,838 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 2,136 were in out-of-home care. Nevada's child welfare system is county administered and state supervised (see additional comments below).

Data Limitations

  • Nevada's estimate of total local funds includes only required matching funds. Counties provided funds beyond the state match requirement, but the state could not estimate the total amount of these funds. Therefore, total and local child welfare spending levels are undercounted in Nevada.
  • Nevada's total state expenditures on foster care and other types of out-of-home placement do not equal the state's estimated total out-of-home placement spending. State officials could not explain this discrepancy.

Additional Comments

  • In Nevada, the two largest counties (Clark and Washoe) have county administered child welfare systems supervised by the state. Apart from these two counties, the rest of the state is served by a state administered system. However, for the purposes of this report, because these two counties account for the vast majority of the child welfare population in Nevada, the child welfare system in Nevada is considered county administered.

View the pie charts for Nevada.


New Hampshire

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), New Hampshire spent $99,007,826 on child welfare services, or about $333 per child under 18 in the state. Nearly half of the state's spending came from federal funds, a proportion slightly higher than the national average. New Hampshire relied far more heavily on Medicaid funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Because of missing data, no other comparisons with national averages can be made.

Contextual Data

Of the 297,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 27,000 (9 percent) were living in poverty; 8,337 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 1,953 were in out-of-home care. New Hampshire's child welfare system is state administered.

Data Limitations

  • New Hampshire was unable to estimate state administrative expenditures for child welfare services. Therefore, total state expenditures are undercounted in New Hampshire.
  • New Hampshire reported minimum Medicaid spending, including only those funds used for out-of-home placement. New Hampshire was unable to estimate Medicaid spending for "other" child welfare services.
  • New Hampshire provided data on total state spending on out-of-home placement but was unable to estimate specifically the amount of state spending on foster care and all other types of out-of-home placement. Therefore, state expenditures for the different types of out-of-home placement could not be analyzed.
  • New Hampshire was unable to estimate Title IV-E independent living costs.
  • New Hampshire was unable to estimate federal IV-E nonrecurring adoption expenditures, but these dollars were included in the figure for total IV-E funds. These IV-E nonrecurring adoption dollars were therefore not included in breakouts of adoption expenditures.

Additional Comments

  • None.

View the pie charts for New Hampshire.


New Jersey

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), New Jersey spent $434,654,523 on child welfare services, or about $210 per child under 18 in the state. Approximately two-thirds of the state's spending came from state funds, a proportion significantly higher than the national average. New Jersey relied far more heavily on Medicaid and SSBG funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a significantly smaller proportion of federal and state funds on out-of-home placement. The proportion of state out-of-home spending on foster family care was below the national average.

Contextual Data

Of the 2,073,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 265,000 (13 percent) were living in poverty; 67,817 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 8,127 were in out-of-home care. New Jersey's child welfare system is state administered.

Data Limitations

  • No known data limitations.

Additional Comments

  • None.

View the pie charts for New Jersey.


New Mexico

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), New Mexico spent $28,492,471 on child welfare services, or about $47 per child under 18 in the state. New Mexico relied far more heavily on SSBG, Title IV-B, and Emergency Assistance funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Because of missing data, no other comparisons with national averages can be made.

Contextual Data

Of the 607,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 209,000 (34 percent) were living in poverty; 28,661 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 1,636 were in out-of-home care. New Mexico's child welfare system is state administered.

Data Limitations

  • New Mexico's reported state funds were the minimum amount required to draw down total federal funds. No additional state funds were reported. Therefore, total and state child welfare spending levels are undercounted in New Mexico.
  • New Mexico was unable to provide an estimate for federal Title IV-E nonrecurring adoption expenditures.
  • New Mexico was unable to estimate the amount of spending on the State Automated Child Welfare Information System.
  • New Mexico was unable to estimate the amount of state spending on out-of-home placement, adoption, and "other" child welfare expenditures. Therefore, state funds used for different types of services could not be analyzed.
  • New Mexico provided data on total federal funding from other sources but was unable to estimate the amount spent specifically on children in out-of-home placement and "other" expenditures. Therefore, out-of-home placement costs and "other" child welfare costs do not include federal funding from other sources.

Additional Comments

  • New Mexico did not use Medicaid funds to finance child welfare services.

View the pie charts for New Mexico.


New York

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1997 (4/1/96–3/31/97), New York spent $1,704,624,306 on child welfare services, or about $337 per child under 18 in the state. Close to 60 percent of the state's spending came from federal funds, a proportion higher than the national average. New York relied heavily on SSBG funds but used Medicaid and Title IV-E less often for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Because of missing data, no other comparisons with national estimates can be made.

Contextual Data

Of the 5,057,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 1,317,000 (26 percent) were living in poverty; 236,241 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 52,605 were in out-of-home care. New York's child welfare system is county administered and state supervised.

Data Limitations

  • New York provided data for total state spending on child welfare but was unable to estimate expenditures for specific child welfare services.
  • Local matching funds represented a minimum amount of local spending. These funds, in addition to state dollars, represented the amount needed to draw down the reported Title IV-E, Medicaid, Title IV-A EA, and Title IV-B federal reimbursements. Counties received state funds in the form of block grants, and the state did not monitor amounts expended on different services. New York could not estimate the amount of funds that counties or localities provided beyond the state matching requirements. New York was unable to estimate the amount of state funds used for administrative expenditures. Therefore, total and state child welfare spending levels are undercounted in New York.
  • New York was unable to estimate the amount of state spending on out-of-home placement.
  • New York provided data on total SSBG expenditures but could not estimate the amounts used specifically for out-of-home placement and "other" services. Therefore, out-of-home placement costs and "other" child welfare costs do not include SSBG dollars.

Additional Comments

  • New York provided data from SFY 1997 rather than 1996.

View the pie charts for New York.


North Carolina

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), North Carolina spent $162,154,210 on child welfare services, or about $93 per child under 18 in the state. Approximately half of the state's spending came from federal funds, a proportion slightly higher than the national average. Over one-quarter of the state's spending came from local funds, a larger proportion than found in most other states. North Carolina relied more heavily on Emergency Assistance funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a smaller proportion of federal and state funds on out-of-home placement.

Contextual Data

Of the 1,742,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 364,000 (21 percent) were living in poverty; 102,168 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 12,382 were in out-of-home care. North Carolina's child welfare system is county administered and state supervised.

Data Limitations

  • North Carolina provided data on total state spending on out-of-home placement but was unable to estimate the amount spent specifically on foster care or all other types of out-of-home placement. Therefore, state expenditures for the different types of out-of-home placement could not be analyzed.

Additional Comments

  • North Carolina did not use Medicaid funds to finance child welfare services.

View the pie charts for North Carolina.


North Dakota

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), North Dakota spent $27,846,371 on child welfare services, or about $150 per child under 18 in the state. North Dakota relied more heavily on Emergency Assistance funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a greater proportion of federal and state funds on out-of-home placement. The proportion of state out-of-home spending on residential care was far above the national average. Because of missing data, no other comparisons with national averages can be made.

Contextual Data

Of the 185,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 28,000 (15 percent) were living in poverty; 7,292 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 886 were in out-of-home care. North Dakota's child welfare system is county administered and state supervised.

Data Limitations

  • North Dakota's estimate of total local funds included only required matching funds. Counties provided funds beyond the state match requirement, but the state could not estimate the total amount of these funds. Therefore, total and local child welfare spending levels are undercounted in North Dakota.
  • North Dakota did not include out-of-state costs in its breakouts of spending on foster care and all other types of out-of-home placement. However, out-of-state placements are included in total out-of-home placement costs.

Additional Comments

  • None.

View the pie charts for North Dakota.


Ohio

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), Ohio spent $477,942,384 on child welfare services, or about $150 per child under 18 in the state. Half of the state's spending came from federal funds, a proportion slightly higher than the national average. Ohio relied more heavily on Title IV-E funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a greater proportion of state funds on administrative costs. The proportion of state out-of-home spending on residential care was far below the national average.

Contextual Data

Of the 3,196,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 645,000 (20 percent) were living in poverty; 154,202 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 18,697 were in out-of-home care. Ohio's child welfare system is county administered and state supervised.

Data Limitations

  • Ohio was unable to isolate the amount of state funds expended on child welfare services. Therefore, figures provided may not represent child welfare spending alone. In addition, Ohio's child welfare program was largely operated and financed by county government. Local funds were included in state figures.
  • The amount listed for residential care also included funds for shelter care. Ohio was unable to break out shelter care spending from residential care spending.

Additional Comments

  • No Medicaid or Emergency Assistance funds were used to finance child welfare services.

View the pie charts for Ohio.


Oklahoma

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), Oklahoma spent $106,904,948 on child welfare services, or about $115 per child under 18 in the state. Over half of the state's spending came from federal funds, a proportion slightly higher than the national average. Oklahoma relied far more heavily on SSBG and Title IV-B funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a significantly smaller proportion of federal and state funds on out-of-home placement. The proportion of state out-of-home spending on residential care was far below the national average. State out-of-home spending on foster family care was above the national average.

Contextual Data

Of the 931,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 228,000 (24 percent) were living in poverty; 40,916 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 5,962 were in out-of-home care. Oklahoma's child welfare system is state administered.

Data Limitations

  • Oklahoma was unable to estimate the amount of state spending on shelter care.
  • Oklahoma was unable to estimate federal Title IV-E adoption administration and placement expenditures, but these costs were included in foster care administrative costs.

Additional Comments

  • None.

View the pie charts for Oklahoma.


Oregon

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), Oregon spent $242,859,521 on child welfare services, or about $277 per child under 18 in the state. Forty percent of the state's spending came from federal funds, a proportion slightly lower than the national average. Oregon relied far more heavily on Medicaid, SSBG, and Emergency Assistance funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a smaller proportion of federal and state funds on out-of-home placement. The proportion of state out-of-home spending on residential care was far below the national average.

Contextual Data

Of the 876,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 163,000 (19 percent) were living in poverty; an estimated 39,486 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 5,210 were in out-of-home care. Oregon's child welfare system is state administered.

Data Limitations

  • Oregon was unable to estimate the amount of local funds expended on child welfare. Therefore, total and local child welfare spending levels are undercounted in Oregon.
  • Oregon noted that it spent additional funds on other types of out-of-home placement but could not categorize these placements or estimate the amount expended for these services.

Additional Comments

  • None.

View the pie charts for Oregon.


Pennsylvania

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), Pennsylvania spent $991,068,000 on child welfare services, or about $315 per child under 18 in the state. Less than half of the state's spending came from federal funds, the same proportion as the national average. Local funds, however, accounted for a greater percentage of child welfare spending than they did in most other states. Pennsylvania relied far more heavily on Emergency Assistance funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a greater proportion of federal and state funds on out-of-home placement. The proportion of state out-of-home spending on residential care was far below the national average, while the proportion spent on correctional care was above the national estimates.

Contextual Data

Of the 3,145,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 585,000 (19 percent) were living in poverty; 23,666 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 21,214 were in out-of-home care. Pennsylvania's child welfare system is county administered and state supervised.

Data Limitations

  • Pennsylvania provided data on total Emergency Assistance expenditures but could not estimate the amounts used for out-of-home placement and "other" services. Therefore, out-of-home placement costs and "other" child welfare costs do not include Emergency Assistance dollars.
  • Pennsylvania was unable to estimate the amount of state spending on shelter care but did include these funds in residential care costs.

Additional Comments

  • None.

View the pie charts for Pennsylvania.


Rhode Island

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), Rhode Island spent $92,414,790 on child welfare services, or about $389 per child under 18 in the state. Almost half of the state's spending came from federal funds, a proportion slightly higher than the national average. Rhode Island relied far more heavily on Medicaid funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a greater proportion of federal and state funds on out-of-home placement.

Contextual Data

Of the 237,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 37,000 (16 percent) were living in poverty; 14,160 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 2,460 were in out-of-home care. Rhode Island's child welfare system is state administered.

Data Limitations

  • Rhode Island's total state spending represents the sum of all state expenditure data provided by the state. Specifically, Rhode Island provided data on administrative, out-of-home placement, adoption, and "other" costs.
  • Rhode Island provided a total for expenditures on out-of-home placement other than foster care (e.g., residential care, shelter care, juvenile and correctional facilities, and "other") but was unable to estimate the amount spent specifically on each type of placement. Therefore, state expenditures for the different types of out-of-home placement could not be analyzed.
  • Rhode Island did not include out-of-state costs in its breakouts of spending on foster care and all other types of out-of-home placement. However, out-of-state placements are included in total out-of-home placement costs.
  • Rhode Island was unable to estimate Title IV-E independent living expenditures separately, but they were included in IV-E adoption training funds.

Additional Comments

  • No SSBG funds were used to finance child welfare services.

View the pie charts for Rhode Island.


South Carolina

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), South Carolina spent $156,822,913 on child welfare services, or about $150 per child under 18 in the state. Almost 60 percent of the state's spending came from federal funds, a proportion higher than the national average. South Carolina relied far more heavily on Medicaid funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a smaller proportion of federal and state funds on out-of-home placement. The proportion of state out-of-home spending on residential care was far below the national average, while the proportion spent on foster family care was above the national average.

Contextual Data

Of the 1,042,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 262,000 (25 percent) were living in poverty; 39,063 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 5,250 were in out-of-home care. South Carolina's child welfare system is state administered.

Data Limitations

  • No known data limitations.

Additional Comments

South Carolina received additional funds in the amount of $1,040,067 from private and nonprofit institutions. These funds were not included in any federal or state calculations.

View the pie charts for South Carolina.


South Dakota

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), South Dakota spent $24,794,510 on child welfare services, or about $112 per child under 18 in the state. Over half of the state's spending came from federal funds, a proportion higher than the national average. South Dakota relied more heavily on Medicaid, SSBG, and Emergency Assistance funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a smaller proportion of federal and state funds on out-of-home placement.

Contextual Data

Of the 222,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 45,000 (20 percent) were living in poverty; 9,051 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 630 were in out-of-home care. South Dakota's child welfare system is state administered.

Data Limitations

  • South Dakota provided data on total Emergency Assistance expenditures but was unable to estimate the amounts spent specifically on out-of-home placement and "other" services. Therefore, out-of-home placement costs and "other" child welfare costs do not include Emergency Assistance dollars.
  • South Dakota provided data on total expenditures on out-of-home placement other than foster care but could not estimate the amounts expended specifically on shelter care, residential care, and "other" placements. Therefore, state expenditures on the different types of out-of-home placement could not be analyzed.
  • South Dakota reported only minimum funding from "other" federal sources. Therefore, total federal expenditures are undercounted in South Dakota.

Additional Comments

  • None.

View the pie charts for South Dakota.


Tennessee

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), Tennessee spent $397,109,600 on child welfare services, or about $258 per child under 18 in the state. Almost half of the state's spending came from federal funds, a proportion slightly higher than the national average. Tennessee relied far more heavily on Medicaid funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a greater proportion of federal and state funds on out-of-home placement.

Contextual Data

Of the 1,539,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 349,000 (23 percent) were living in poverty; 34,293 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 11,291 were in out-of-home care. Tennessee's child welfare system is state administered.

Data Limitations

  • Tennessee provided data on total expenditures on out-of-home placement other than foster care but could not estimate the amounts expended specifically on shelter care, residential care, and other placements. Therefore, state expenditures for the different types of out-of-home placement could not be analyzed.

Additional Comments

  • None.

View the pie charts for Tennessee.


Texas

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (9/1/95–8/31/96), Texas spent $473,595,200 on child welfare services, or about $81 per child under 18 in the state. Over half of the state's spending came from federal funds, a proportion slightly higher than the national average. Texas relied more heavily on SSBG and Emergency Assistance funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a greater proportion of federal and state funds on out-of-home placement. The proportion of state out-of-home spending on residential care was also above the national average.

Contextual Data

Of the 5,857,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 1,531,000 (26 percent) were living in poverty; 151,261 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 11,808 were in out-of-home care. Texas' child welfare system is state administered.

Data Limitations

  • Texas' estimate of total local funds included only required matching funds. Counties provided funds beyond the state match requirement, but the state could not estimate the total amount of these funds, as localities are not required to report these amounts to the state. Therefore, total and local child welfare spending levels are undercounted in Texas.
  • Texas provided data on total Medicaid, SSBG, and Emergency Assistance expenditures but could not estimate the amount used specifically for out- of-home placement and other services within each funding source. Therefore, out-of-home placement costs and "other" child welfare costs do not include Medicaid, SSBG, or Emergency Assistance dollars.

Additional Comments

  • None.

View the pie charts for Texas.


Utah

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), Utah spent $89,935,200 on child welfare services, or about $127 per child under 18 in the state. Almost half of the state's spending came from federal funds, a proportion slightly higher than the national average. Utah relied far more heavily on SSBG funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a smaller proportion of federal and state funds on out-of-home placement. The proportion of state out-of-home spending on foster family care was below the national average.

Contextual Data

Of the 709,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 70,000 (10 percent) were living in poverty; 24,857 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 2,325 were in out-of-home care. Utah's child welfare system is state administered.

Data Limitations

  • All federal and state dollars included funds for domestic violence programs, as they were part of the child welfare agency's budget and could not be separated.
  • Utah was unable to provide data regarding federal Title IV-E nonrecurring adoption, adoption training, and independent living expenditures.

Additional Comments

  • None.

View the pie charts for Utah.


Vermont

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), Vermont spent $46,360,548 on child welfare services, or about $276 per child under 18 in the state. Almost 60 percent of the state's spending came from federal funds, a proportion higher than the national average. Vermont relied far more heavily on Medicaid funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a greater proportion of federal and state funds on out-of-home placement.

Contextual Data

Of the 168,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 26,000 (15 percent) were living in poverty; 2,561 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 1,368 were in out-of-home care. Vermont's child welfare system is state administered.

Data Limitations

  • None.

Additional Comments

  • Vermont's Title IV-E foster care maintenance costs included approximately $450,000 spent by the Division of Child Care and the Division of Licensing.

View the pie charts for Vermont.


Washington

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), Washington spent $209,541,738 on child welfare services, or about $139 per child under 18 in the state. The portion of the state's spending that came from federal funds was nearly equal to the national average. Washington relied far more heavily on Medicaid and SSBG funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a greater proportion of state funds on out-of-home placement. The proportion of state out-of-home spending on residential care was below the national average.

Contextual Data

Of the 1,502,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 271,000 (18 percent) were living in poverty; 47,631 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 10,188 were in out-of-home care. Washington's child welfare system is state administered.

Data Limitations

  • Washington was unable to estimate federal Title IV-E adoption assistance costs and Title IV-E adoption placement and administration expenditures. Therefore, federal spending by type of expenditure could not be estimated.
  • Washington included federal funds for the State Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) in their costs for Title IV-E foster care placement services and administrative costs. Therefore, SACWIS funds are included in Washington's out-of-home expenditures rather than its "other" child welfare expenditures, as they were in all the other states.

Additional Comments

  • None.

View the pie charts for Washington.


West Virginia

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), West Virginia spent $104,099,274 on child welfare services, or about $260 per child under 18 in the state. Almost 70 percent of the state's spending came from federal funds, a proportion significantly higher than the national average. West Virginia relied far more heavily on Medicaid funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Compared with the national average, the state spent a greater proportion of federal and state funds on out-of-home placement. The proportion of state out-of-home spending on foster family care was below the national average.

Contextual Data

Of the 400,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 106,000 (27 percent) were living in poverty; an estimated 26,478 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 3,093 were in out-of-home care. West Virginia's child welfare system is state administered.

Data Limitations

  • West Virginia was unable to provide data on total state expenditures for child welfare administration. Therefore, total state expenditures are undercounted in West Virginia.

Additional Comments

  • None.

View the pie charts for West Virginia.


Wisconsin

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), Wisconsin spent $159,392,083 on child welfare services, or about $106 per child under 18 in the state. Forty-eight percent of the state's spending came from federal funds, a proportion slightly higher than the national average. Wisconsin relied far more heavily on Title IV-E funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Because of missing data, no other comparisons with national averages can be made.

Contextual Data

Of the 1,503,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 203,000 (14 percent) were living in poverty; 45,479 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 9,530 were in out-of-home care. Wisconsin's child welfare system is county administered and state supervised.

Data Limitations

  • Wisconsin was unable to separate local dollars from state funds expended on child welfare services. Therefore, all state dollars reported also include local funds.
  • Wisconsin was unable to provide an estimate of SSBG funds. Federal SSBG dollars and state funds were provided to the counties in the form of Community Aid block grants. These grants were used for child welfare services, developmental disability services, substance abuse services, and elderly services. Counties had a 9.89 percent required matching rate for these grants. Wisconsin did not monitor how these funds were used.
  • Wisconsin provided data for total state spending but was unable to estimate state funds by type of expenditure.

Additional Comments

  • No Emergency Assistance or Medicaid funds were used to finance child welfare services.

View the pie charts for Wisconsin.


Wyoming

Child Welfare Financing

In SFY 1996 (7/1/95–6/30/96), Wyoming spent $23,595,275 on child welfare services, or about $162 per child under 18 in the state. Forty-three percent of the state's spending came from federal funds, a proportion slightly less than the national average. West Virginia relied far more heavily on SSBG funds for child welfare services than the nation as a whole did. Because of missing data, no other comparisons with national averages can be made.

Contextual Data

Of the 145,000 children under the age of 18 living in the state in 1996, 22,000 (15 percent) were living in poverty; an estimated 6,154 were subjects of an abuse and neglect investigation; and 1,117 were in out-of-home care. Wyoming's child welfare system is state administered.

Data Limitations

  • Wyoming was unable to estimate Title IV-E nonrecurring adoption expenditures.
  • Wyoming was unable to estimate the amount of state funds used for out-of-home placement. Therefore, state expenditures for the different types of out-of-home placement could not be analyzed.

Additional Comments

  • None.

View the pie charts for Wyoming.


Appendices

Appendix A: Defining Child Welfare Costs6

Figure I: Federal, State, and Local Child Welfare Spending by Source

Federal:

Federal funds include all reported dollars from Title IV-E, Title IV-B, Medicaid (Title XIX), Social Services Block Grant, Title IV-A Emergency Assistance, as well as other federal funding sources specified by individual states (e.g., Children's Justice Act and Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act [CAPTA] Grants).

State:

State funds include all reported state-only dollars used for child welfare administrative costs (further defined below), costs for out-of-home placement for children (including foster care and all other placements), adoption costs, and all other child welfare expenditures (including child protective services, prevention, and family preservation services).

Local:

Local funds include all reported funds that counties or localities provided as matching funds for federal or state funding for child welfare, as well as nonmatching dollars that local agencies provided for child welfare services.

Figure II: Federal and State Child Welfare Spending by Type of Service

Out-of-Home Placement:

Federal spending on out-of-home placement includes Title IV-E funding for maintenance payments, foster care administration and placement payments, and independent living payments. This figure also includes out-of-home placement funds from Medicaid, Social Services Block Grant, Emergency Assistance, and other sources (e.g., Children's Justice Act and CAPTA Grants).

State spending on out-of home placement includes all expenditures for children within the state and for children placed out of state in family foster care, shelter care, residential care, juvenile and correctional facilities, and all other placements. In some states, state spending on out-of-home placement may include state administrative costs.

Adoption:

Federal spending on adoption includes Title IV-E funding for adoption assistance payments, nonrecurring adoption costs, and adoption administration and placement costs.

State spending on adoption includes adoption assistance payments, administration and training costs, and nonrecurring adoption costs.

Other:

Other federal spending includes payments for Title IV-E foster care and adoption training, total Title IV-B funds, and State Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS). This figure also includes funds from Medicaid, Social Services Block Grant, Emergency Assistance, and other sources used for child welfare services other than out-of-home placement and adoption.

Other state spending includes all state expenditures on child welfare services other than out-of-home placement, administration, and adoption (e.g., child protective services, family support services, and child care).

Figure III: Federal Child Welfare Spending by Source

IV-E:

This figure consists of total Title IV-E federal funds, including maintenance payments for foster care and adoption, independent living costs, expenditures for administration and training, and SACWIS funds.

IV-B:

This figure consists of total Title IV-B funding expended, including expenditures for both Part 1 (child welfare services) and Part 2 (family preservation and family support services).

Medicaid:

This figure includes Title XIX Medicaid funds expended for child welfare services or for children for whom child welfare pays the Medicaid matching rate (e.g., under case management or rehabilitative options).

Social Services Block Grant (SSBG):

This figure includes all Social Services Block Grant (SSBG, also known as Title XX) expenditures.

Emergency Assistance:

This figure includes total funds received from Title IV-A Emergency Assistance.

Other:

This figure includes total funds for state fiscal year 1996 from sources other than those listed above (e.g., CAPTA or the Child Care and Development Block Grant [CCDBG]).

Figure IV: State Spending by Type of Child Welfare Expenditure

Administrative Costs:

This figure includes all state costs for services defined under the federal definition of Title IV-E administrative costs but does not include federal dollars. For example, states included state-only funds for such items as case reviews, case management and supervision, staff training costs, and referral to services.

Out-of-Home Placement:

This figure includes state expenditures on foster care placements, shelter care, residential care, juvenile and correctional facilities, and all other placements.

Adoption:

This figure includes all state adoption assistance payments, administration and training costs, and nonrecurring adoption costs.


Other:

This figure includes state expenditures on child welfare services other than those listed above (e.g., child protective services, family support services, and child care).

Figure V: State Out-of-Home Placement Spending by Type of Placement

Family Foster Care:

This figure includes expenditures on the board and care (and in most states, not administration) of children in family foster care for both Title IV-E–eligible and non-Title IV-E–eligible children.

Residential Care:

This figure includes total expenditures on residential care.

Shelter Care:

This figure includes total expenditures on shelter care.

Correctional Care:

This figure includes expenditures for all children in a juvenile facility, boot camp, or other correctional facility regardless of which agency placed the child, if the child welfare agency paid for the child's placement.

Other:

This figure includes expenditures for placements other than those listed above (e.g., placements for severely emotionally disturbed children, independent living, and contracted foster care). 


Appendix B: Summary of State Data


Data Item Number of States Providing Data Missing States
Total Spending Amounts
Some Data 49 Virginia (all) and Hawaii (all)
Majority of state Spending 47 Hawaii, Michigan, New Mexico, Virginia. (Note: Connecticut and New Hampshire could not estimate funds for administrative costs.)
Minimum spending from all federal sources (some states could not identify spending from one or more federal sources) 42 Alaska (XX, XIX), Arizona (IV-B), Connecticut (XX), Delaware (EA), Hawaii, Michigan, Nebraska (XX), Virginia, Wisconsin (XX)
All federal spending (some states provided only minimum estimates of some federal funds) 37 Alaska (XX, XIX), Arizona (IV-B), Colorado (XIX), Connecticut (XX), Delaware (EA), Hawaii, Michigan (XIX), XX), Missouri (XIX), Montana (EA), Nebraska (XX), New Hampshire (XIX), South Dakota (other), Virginia, Wisconsin (XX)
Some local spending 43 Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Oregon, Virginia, Wisconsin (Note: California, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, amd Texas reported only minimum local expenditures.)
All child welfare spending (some states could not provide all local funds.) 33 Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, Virginia, Wisconsin
All federal, state, and local funds. 31 All states that could provide total spending could identify spending by level of government.
All out-of-home placement, other, and adoption spending. 17 Most states could not categorize one or more funding sources by the type of child welfare service funded.
All state spending on out-of-home placement, other, administration, and adoption 39 Several states could not identify all spending on out-of-home placements. Seven of these states included local dollars in their state dollar amounts.
All state spending on different types of placement 31 Several states could not differentiate spending on different types of placement. Some states that could not identify spending on one type of placement setting are included in the 40 states analyzed.

Notes:

XX = Title XX (Social Services and Block Grant)
XIX = Title XIX (Medicaid)
EA= Title IV-A (Emergency Assistance)
Title IV-B = Title IV-B parts 1 and 2


Notes

1. For the purpose of this report the District of Columbia is considered a state.

2. A second round of data collection on child welfare expenditures is currently scheduled for spring of 1999. At this time, state child welfare for state fiscal year (SFY) 1998 will be collected. This data will enable us to examine child welfare funding changes from SFY 1996—prior to federal welfare reform—to SFY 1998.

3. For a description of these federal funding streams, including eligible populations and services, see table 1 in the main report.

4. Funds are undercounted because states could not identify all federal, state, and local funds expended.

5. See Appendix B for a detailed summary of available data.

6. In general, costs are defined as funds expended during SFY 1996, regardless of when the dollars were appropriated.


About the Authors

Shelley Waters Boots was a research associate in the Urban Institute's Population Studies Center. Her research focused on child welfare, child care, child support, and welfare reform issues. For the Assessing the New Federalism project, she led a team that collected and analyzed data on kinship care policies, and she coauthored several publications, including The Impact of Welfare Reform on Child Welfare Financing and Child Care Assistance under Welfare Reform: Early Responses by the States. Ms. Boots is currently the Director of Research for the California Child Care Resource and Referral Network.

Rob Geen is a research associate in the Urban Institute's Population Studies Center, specializing in child welfare and related child, youth, and family issues. He directed the Child Welfare Survey, which collected fiscal data from states and asked states to describe the extent to which they screen reports of abuse and neglect before investigation, and their policies, use, and financing of kinship care. Subsequent Urban Institute papers will summarize these data. Mr. Geen is also leading other child welfare–related research conducted as part of the Assessing the New Federalism project, such as evaluating the effects of welfare reform on vulnerable families in California.

Karen C. Tumlin is a research associate in the Urban Institute's Population Studies Center. Her career has concentrated on child welfare and immigrant policy issues. As a part of the Assessing the New Federalism project, she led an analysis on the extent to which state child welfare agencies screen out reports of child abuse or neglect prior to investigation and conducted a study of state policy choices related to the federal welfare reform law's restrictions on immigrants' eligibility.

Jacob Leos-Urbel is a research assistant in the Urban Institute's Population Studies Center, focusing on child welfare policy issues. As part of the Assessing the New Federalism project, he has worked extensively on the Child Welfare Survey, analyzed cross-state variation in child welfare practices, and maintained the child welfare, child care, juvenile justice, and education portions of the State Database. He has also assisted in writing a report to Congress regarding kinship care.



Topics/Tags: | Children and Youth | Poverty, Assets and Safety Net


Usage and reprints: Most publications may be downloaded free of charge from the web site and may be used and copies made for research, academic, policy or other non-commercial purposes. Proper attribution is required. Posting UI research papers on other websites is permitted subject to prior approval from the Urban Institute—contact publicaffairs@urban.org.

If you are unable to access or print the PDF document please contact us or call the Publications Office at (202) 261-5687.

Disclaimer: The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. Copyright of the written materials contained within the Urban Institute website is owned or controlled by the Urban Institute.

Email this Page