Foster care vs. families: the feds have a bias toward foster care, but states think they could protect kids better if they had more money for prevention and family support.

• Author: Christian, Steve

When it comes to caring for abused and neglected kids, money and the strings attached to it shape policy and practice. Even substantial increases in funding won't necessarily improve the lives of society's most vulnerable children if the money isn't being spent where it is likely to do the most good.

States and the federal government share the financial responsibility. In FY 2004, the $23 billion cost of child welfare nationally was split roughly 50/50 between the states and counties on the one hand and the federal government on the other.

The current system of federal financing favors the one approach to child safety that no one particularly likes: foster care. That is because federal funding for foster care is an open-ended entitlement while funding for prevention and family support is extremely limited.

"Children are usually better off with their own families than in foster care," says Tennessee Representative Doug Overbey. "So it doesn't seem right that most of the federal dollars can only be used for foster care. We passed legislation in 2005 that articulates the mission of our child welfare agency as protecting children by strengthening families. Having more flexibility in how we can spend federal dollars would help further that mission."

The bottom line is that there is not enough federal money for alternatives to foster care. Those alternatives include safely avoiding foster care in the first place or, when children have to be removed from home, reunifying them with families that are prepared to take care of them or placing them in adoptive homes or in permanent guardianships. These alternatives cost money, which could come from giving states more flexibility in how they can spend federal foster care funds, increasing funding for services to families or a combination of the two.

Given recent cuts to child welfare in the Deficit Reduction Act, significant increases in child welfare funding seem unlikely, so proposals for reform have focused primarily on flexible use of existing funds. But flexibility usually comes with a price, namely some kind of funding cap. The Bush administration would give states more flexibility in the form of a block grant of foster care funds. The Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care would combine funding increases with a partial cap of foster care funds.

WHAT'S WRONG

Although states can generally spend their own funds as they see fit, the largest single source of federal funding dedicated to child welfare is an open-ended entitlement that can only be used for costs relating to foster care. This source...