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:
- Total child welfare expenditures,
from federal, state, and local sources;
- Federal and state expenditures,
by the type of service funded—adoption, out-of-home placement, and other costs
(including administration and child protective services);
- 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
- Expenditures of state dollars,
by type of service funded—adoption, out-of-home placement, administration,
and other services; and
- 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Latest Research
PDF
Print this page