1 Government web sites included U.S. Administration for Children and Families, General Accounting Office, Department of Justice (Bureau of Justice Statistics), Office of the Inspector General, Welfare Information Network. Non-profit organization web sites included Child Welfare League of America, National Conference of State Legislatures, Annie E. Casey foundation, Child Trends, Family Support America, National Practitioners Network for Fathers and Families, and the National Fatherhood Initiative. University web sites included the University of Pennsylvania (National Center on Fathers and Families), Columbia University (National Center for Children in Poverty), National Conference of State Legislatures, University of Wisconsin-Madison (Institute for Research on Poverty, Princeton University (Center for Research on Child Well-Being & Independent Publications), University of Michigan (Institute for Social Research), and Northwestern University (Institute for Policy Research). For-profit organizational web sites included Caliber Associates, Research Triangle Institute, and Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
2 Mark Courtney, Jay Fagan, Ellen Franck, James Gleeson, Sydney Hans, Mark Hardin, Waldo Johnson, Kristen Shook Slack, Esther Wattenberg, Aisha Ray, and Fred Wulczyn.
3 Focus groups were held with workers, supervisors, and relative caregivers in 13 counties in 4 states.
4 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. 2000. Trends in the Well-being of America’s Children and Youth. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (p. 41).
5 This estimate is based on the findings reported in Fields, J. 2001. Living Arrangements of Children: Fall 1996. Current Population Reports. Washington, D.C. : U.S. Census Bureau (p.70-74).
6 Responding to the question, “What are the Administration for Children and Families’ key priorities for 2002?” on the Administration for Children and Families’ web site, http://faq.acf.hhs.gov.
7 The total amount to be divided between state and Federal governments to reimburse for their respective shares of Title IV-E.
8 There are cases in the child welfare system in which children are not placed in out-of-home care. For example, a child may remain at home but the birth parent will be required to comply with services and the home will be monitored regularly by a child welfare caseworker.
9 A lack of cases may indicate that the data are not collected.
10 Figures are the result of Urban Institute tabulations of NSPPRS data.
11 This includes children placed with relatives by child welfare agencies regardless of whether the child was taken into state custody.
12 Title IV-E is the largest federal funding stream dedicated for child welfare. The IV-E foster care program, an open-ended entitlement, reimburses states for maintenance payments provided to cover the cost of children living in out-of-home care.
13 There are several models being implemented including the family unity model being used in Oregon since 1990 and family group conferences, originating in New Zealand in 1989.
14 In fact, the presence of a biological father in the home is slightly less than but not statistically significantly different than the likelihood of abuse in a home with just the biological mother (Radhakrishna et al. 2001).
15 Parents’ Fair Share was the first national demonstration program aimed at increasing child support payments, employment and earnings, and parental involvement of noncustodial fathers with children receiving welfare (Miller & Knox, 2001).
16. The Non-Custodial Parent Services Unit is part of the Illinois Department of Public Aid, Division of Child Support Enforcement.