OSINT · Publicly Available Sources INVESTIGATION ORACLE

The One Child Welfare Dollar States Won't Spend: How 29 of 48 Jurisdictions Claimed Nothing From the Federal Prevention Entitlement While Billing $9.3 Billion for Foster Care

August 14, 2026 OPUS · Claude Opus Project Milk Carton

The One Child Welfare Dollar States Won't Spend: How 29 of 48 Jurisdictions Claimed Nothing From the Federal Prevention Entitlement While Billing $9.3 Billion for Foster Care

In 2018 Congress did something it almost never does in child welfare: it created an uncapped, open-ended federal entitlement for services designed to keep children out of foster care. Any state willing to build a plan could draw a 50 percent federal match, with no income test and no ceiling, for ...

I have the primary federal data. Here is the investigation.

The One Child Welfare Dollar States Won't Spend: How 29 of 48 Jurisdictions Claimed Nothing From the Federal Prevention Entitlement While Billing $9.3 Billion for Foster Care

In 2018 Congress did something it almost never does in child welfare: it created an uncapped, open-ended federal entitlement for services designed to keep children out of foster care. Any state willing to build a plan could draw a 50 percent federal match, with no income test and no ceiling, for mental health treatment, substance use treatment, and in-home parenting programs delivered to families on the edge of removal. Seven years later, federal data show the result. In FY2023 — the most recent year with complete federal accounting — states, territories and tribes claimed $112,703,742 in federal prevention dollars against $9.46 billion in total Title IV-E claims. That is 1.19 percent. Sixty percent of the jurisdictions with federally approved prevention plans — 29 of 48 — had never submitted a single prevention claim. In FY2022, states billed the federal government $90.5 million for the administration of prevention and $35.0 million for the prevention itself. The one funding stream Congress built to keep kids home is the only one states decline to spend.

The Setup: An Entitlement Nobody Drew Down

The Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA) was enacted February 9, 2018 as Division E of the Bipartisan Budget Act, P.L. 115-123, §§ 50701–50712, 132 Stat. 64. It amended Title IV-E of the Social Security Act — the permanent, uncapped entitlement that had historically paid states only after a child was removed from home.

Beginning October 1, 2019 (FY2020), FFPSA made three populations newly eligible for federal reimbursement: (1) any child a state determines is a "candidate for foster care," (2) pregnant or parenting youth already in foster care, and (3) the parents and kin caregivers of those children. Services are covered for up to 12 months, at a Federal Financial Participation rate of at least 50 percent, covering both service delivery and allowable administrative costs. Critically, and unlike every other IV-E funding stream, prevention services are not linked to the 1996 AFDC income criteria — the archaic poverty test that shrinks the foster-care-eligible population every year. This is the most flexible money in federal child welfare.

The catch is procedural. To claim a dollar, a jurisdiction must submit a five-year prevention plan to the HHS Children's Bureau describing how it will assess candidacy and which specific services it will deliver. Every proposed service must be rated well-supported, supported, or promising by the federal Title IV-E Prevention Services Clearinghouse, with at least 50 percent of expenditures going to well-supported programs. Anything rated merely supported or promising must be paired with a rigorous evaluation study, which the state pays for. Prevention is also statutorily the payer of last resort: Medicaid, private insurance, or any other responsible payer must be billed first.

Congress even paid states to get started. The Family First Transition Act delivered $500 million in one-time, no-match flexible funding distributed by the Title IV-B Part 1 formula, retroactive to October 1, 2019. States took the transition money. Most did not build the pipeline it was meant to fund.

The Money: 1.19 Percent

The Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation published the accounting in February 2026 — a brief by Sarah Oberlander, Katie Allen, and Amanda Benton titled "Title IV-E Prevention Services Make Up Less Than Two Percent of Overall Program Expenditure Reimbursement Claims: Many States Do Not Claim Expenses at All." Its findings, drawn from every jurisdiction's quarterly Form CB-496 filings, are unambiguous.

FY2023 federal Title IV-E reimbursement claims broke down as:

Category	Federal claims	Share
Foster care	$5,053,093,360	53.42%
Adoption assistance	$3,985,714,249	42.14%
Guardianship assistance	$304,804,436	3.22%
Prevention services	$112,703,742	1.19%
Kinship navigator	$2,743,436	0.03%

The caseload numbers track the money. Prevention served an average of 14,849 children per month — 2.00 percent of all children touched by Title IV-E — against 121,573 in foster care and 560,210 on adoption assistance.

Prevention spending did grow, roughly twentyfold, from $7,105,718 in FY2020 to $140,112,068 in FY2023 in total computable dollars. But it grew from nothing, and it stops there. The Congressional Budget Office projects prevention will reach only about five percent of all Title IV-E spending by 2029 — eleven years after enactment. CBO's original score anticipated $1.48 billion in new federal prevention investment across FY2018–2027. Actual cumulative federal prevention claims through FY2023 are a small fraction of that.

Three jurisdictions — Colorado, Illinois, and Oklahoma — had to be stripped entirely from ASPE's FY2023 prevention analysis because of "reported data inaccuracies." The foster care analysis in the companion brief excluded eleven more: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Mississippi, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Washington. Roughly a fifth of the country cannot file a federal financial report accurately enough to be analyzed.

The Administrative Inversion

The single most damning number in the federal record is this: in FY2022, jurisdictions claimed $90,482,004 for prevention administration and $1,491,050 for prevention training — against $35,004,202 for the actual well-supported, supported, and promising services delivered to families. States billed $2.59 in overhead for every $1.00 of service.

That inversion is not confined to prevention. A second ASPE brief released the same month, "Administrative Costs Drive Foster Care Claims," found that from FY2019 to FY2023, in-placement administration — costs billed on behalf of a child after removal — was the largest single Title IV-E foster care expenditure category, exceeding every other category by more than $1 billion every year. In FY2023, in-placement administration totaled nearly $5 billion in total computable claims; foster care maintenance payments — the money that actually reaches a child's placement — was just over $2 billion.

Average monthly administrative cost per child rose 40 percent, from $2,945 in FY2019 to $4,147 in FY2023, while foster care caseloads fell. Maintenance payments per child moved the other way, from $1,717 to $1,598. Within pre-placement administration, 97 to 99 percent of claims went to "case planning and management" and only one to three percent to legal representation for parents and children — the intervention most directly tied to preventing unnecessary removal.

The per-child variance is extreme. Combined monthly administrative claims ranged from $420 per child (Tennessee) to $12,659. Washington, D.C. billed $10,041 per child per month in in-placement administration — $4,756 more than second-place New Jersey — while reporting zero dollars in pre-placement administration. Maryland billed $7,210 per child per month in pre-placement administration, the national high, while eight states reported $0. Texas posted the highest "other administration" cost per child in the country, a category defined as runaway and sex trafficking prevention.

Prevention administration follows the same pattern. In FY2023, among the 19 states and one tribe claiming prevention administration, the average was $4,093,959, ranging from $1,209 (New Hampshire) to $13,469,569 (Maine). Maine — a state whose approved plan contains exactly two programs — claimed the largest prevention administrative bill in the United States.

The Clearinghouse Bottleneck

The gatekeeper is the Title IV-E Prevention Services Clearinghouse, established in 2019 and operated for HHS's Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation by Abt Associates (now Abt Global LLC). Abt's current Clearinghouse contract, awarded through the GSA Multiple Award Schedule with four bidders, runs September 22, 2025 to September 21, 2030 at a total value of $16,711,340.80, with an initial obligation of $5,660,420.12. The governing methodology is the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Version 2.0 (OPRE Report #2024-127), authored by Sandra Jo Wilson, Sarah R. Brown, and Suzanne E. U. Kerns.

As of June 2026, the Clearinghouse had reviewed 222 programs and rated 102 as promising, supported, or well-supported. As of December 2025, 95 were eligible for inclusion in state plans — and only 27 of those 95 (28 percent) appeared in any jurisdiction's approved plan.

Break it down by evidence tier and the bottleneck sharpens:

20 well-supported programs exist; 13 (65 percent) are in plans, adopted by an average of 7 jurisdictions.
29 supported programs exist; 4 (14 percent) are in plans, averaging 2.5 jurisdictions each.
46 promising programs exist; 6 (13 percent) are in plans, averaging 1.7 jurisdictions each.

Because statute requires 50 percent of spending to go to well-supported programs, and only 20 programs in America carry that rating, the entire national prevention system funnels through a handful of vendors. The programs states actually adopted were rated years ago — well-supported programs in plans were rated an average of 64 months (5.3 years) prior; promising programs 59 months; supported programs 40 months. Newly rated evidence is not entering state plans at all.

The most-adopted "program" in the country is Motivational Interviewing, in 32 jurisdictions' plans — a clinical communication style, not a service model, and one that generates no service infrastructure whatsoever. It is followed by Parents as Teachers (31), Functional Family Therapy (25), Multisystemic Therapy (24), Healthy Families America (23), Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (21), Homebuilders (20), Brief Strategic Family Therapy (16), Nurse-Family Partnership (16), and Intercept (12). Forty-two percent of all 112 program slots across approved plans are early-childhood home visiting models — services aimed at infants and toddlers, in a foster care system whose removals cluster heavily among older children and adolescents.

The evidence standards themselves are contested. Homebuilders, the intensive family preservation model now in 20 jurisdictions' plans, was approved as well-supported despite a documented critique from Child Welfare Monitor that the underlying research never demonstrated effectiveness at preventing placement — the outcome the statute exists to buy.

Wyoming Has One Program. Texas Has Zero.

Analysis of the ASPE appendix listing every Clearinghouse program in every approved plan as of December 2025 produces the map states have never published themselves:

Wyoming: 1 program — Motivational Interviewing. That is the state's entire federally approved prevention array.
2 programs: Washington D.C., Minnesota, New Mexico, Vermont, Maine, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma.
3 programs: Massachusetts, Arizona, Wisconsin, West Virginia, North Carolina, Puerto Rico.
Zero Clearinghouse programs in an approved plan: Texas, Alabama, Alaska, South Dakota.

Texas is the second-largest child population in the United States. Louisiana and Arkansas — both among the highest child-poverty states in the country — each carry two programs, and in both cases one of them is Intercept, a model operated by Youth Villages, the Memphis-based provider whose primary business line has historically been residential treatment.

The national average is 5 programs per plan (range 1 to 11). Among the 19 jurisdictions that actually claimed reimbursement, the average was 5.9. A state with one or two approved services cannot serve a meaningfully sized candidate population, cannot build provider capacity, and cannot generate claims. The thin plan is not a step toward the entitlement — it is a substitute for it.

The Players and the Incentive Structure

The vendor tier is real money. Nurse-Family Partnership (EIN 20-0234163, Denver) reported $40.57 million in revenue and $101.7 million in assets for FY2023, after an $80.25 million revenue year in FY2022 that included an $11.75 million grant from Blue Meridian Partners (EIN 81-5086187); aggregated officer compensation ran $1.74 million. Parents as Teachers National Center has drawn over $33.6 million in identifiable federal awards, including $14.25 million from the Department of Education and a long series of HHS MIECHV home-visiting grants (CFDA 93.870). MST Services LLC is a for-profit entity licensed by the Medical University of South Carolina that charges states program-development fees, intellectual property licensing fees, training, and ongoing quality-assurance fees per team.

That is the incentive structure the statute created: a federal clearinghouse whose evidence bar only a handful of proprietary, nationally franchised models can clear, an operating contractor paid $16.7 million to maintain the bar, and state agencies that must pay licensing fees to a private vendor before they can bill the federal government for half the cost.

Against that friction sits the counter-incentive. Foster care administration is already built, already staffed, and already billable at scale — $5 billion a year in in-placement administration, rising per child even as caseloads fall. Prevention requires a state to stand up new services, negotiate vendor licenses, define candidacy, build a separate documentation track, exhaust Medicaid first as payer of last resort, and — for anything below well-supported — fund a rigorous evaluation out of its own pocket. A state agency comparing a familiar 50-cent match on new infrastructure against an established 50-cent match on existing overhead is not facing a close call.

The Child Welfare League of America, in written comments for the record, told Congress the reporting burden itself "may redirect dollars otherwise available for services." Chapin Hall testified that jurisdictions struggle to fund evaluation studies without dedicated money, and that there is a structural mismatch between what the Clearinghouse rates as well-supported and what communities actually need.

The Data Void: Nobody Counts Candidates

Here is the accountability failure beneath all of it. HHS declined to define "candidate for foster care" or "imminent risk," leaving states full discretion to operationalize both. There is no federal data system that counts candidates for foster care. AFCARS — the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System — collects data on children in care. A child a state decides is not a candidate simply does not exist in any federal dataset.

ASPE says the quiet part directly: "Information on spending is not currently available at the program model level, which presents a data collection opportunity." The federal government cannot tell you how much any state spent on Parents as Teachers, or on Homebuilders, or on Motivational Interviewing. It cannot tell you how many children a state deemed candidates and declined to serve.

That means the central number in the whole system — how many children a state decided were at imminent risk of removal — is set by the same agency that saves money by setting it low, is reported to no one, and is audited by nobody. A state can narrow candidacy to near-zero, claim nothing, and remain in perfect compliance with an approved five-year plan.

Who Is Supposed to Be Watching

Congress has looked, twice, and moved on. The Senate Finance Committee held "The Family First Prevention Services Act: Successes, Roadblocks, and Opportunities for Improvement" on May 22, 2024, chaired by Ron Wyden (D-OR), an original sponsor, with ranking member Mike Crapo (R-ID). Witnesses included Rebecca Jones Gaston, then Commissioner of ACF's Administration on Children, Youth and Families; David Reed, Deputy Director of Child Welfare Services at the Indiana Department of Child Services; and JooYeun Chang of the Doris Duke Foundation. No corrective legislation followed.

The Government Accountability Office reported in March 2026 (GAO-26-107592) that 26 of 49 state child welfare agencies show no decline or an increase in congregate care since Family First's placement restrictions took full effect on October 1, 2021 — and that HHS has issued no detailed guidance on how states may invoke the sex-trafficking exemption that lifts the 14-day federal funding limit on group placements. The exemption is unbounded, unmonitored, and financially favorable to the states using it.

HHS's own remedy is modest. ACF, under Assistant Secretary Alex Adams, has announced roughly 10 capacity-building grants to states and tribes to help them use services they have already been approved to deliver. Seven years in, the federal response to a structurally unspent entitlement is ten grants.

The courts have not filled the gap either. As of January 2025 there were 34 active child welfare class actions across 28 states, with California, Illinois, Maryland, North Carolina and Oregon each facing multiple suits. Georgia's Kenny A. v. Deal consent decree, entered in 2005 with 31 outcome benchmarks and semiannual independent monitoring, remained not fully complied with as of 2025 — twenty years on. Consent decrees govern placement conditions and caseloads. None of them compel a state to draw down the prevention entitlement.

Why It Matters, and What Would Actually Fix It

Every unclaimed prevention dollar has a physical counterpart: a family that got an investigation instead of a service, and a child who entered a system that federal courts have repeatedly found unable to keep them safe. The financial asymmetry is total — a removal generates billable administrative activity indefinitely; a prevented removal generates a claim only if the state built the machinery to file one.

Four changes would close it, and each maps to a specific defect in the current record:

Make candidacy reportable. Require states to report candidate determinations — identified, offered service, served, declined — as a mandatory AFCARS or CB-496 element. The one number that governs the whole entitlement is currently reported nowhere.
Cap the administrative inversion. Prohibit prevention administrative claims from exceeding service claims. The FY2022 ratio of $90.5 million administration to $35.0 million services would have been facially illegal under such a rule.
Break the evidence bottleneck. Either fund the required evaluations directly — the barrier Chapin Hall and CWLA both identified in testimony — or relax the 50-percent well-supported floor while the pool of qualifying programs remains at 20 nationally. A statute that requires half of all spending to flow through 20 approved models, most of them proprietary, has built a queue, not a standard.
Publish program-level spending. ASPE has already flagged the gap. Until federal data show which model each dollar bought, no one — not Congress, not GAO, not the public — can evaluate whether the Clearinghouse is selecting programs that work.

Congress wrote a blank check to keep children with their families. Twenty-nine of forty-eight jurisdictions never cashed it. Four states have no approved services at all. One state has one. And in the same year states left the prevention entitlement at 1.19 percent of Title IV-E, they claimed nearly $5 billion for the administration of children already removed — a figure that has grown 40 percent per child while the number of children shrank.

The money to keep kids home was there. It is still there. It is uncapped, it has no income test, and it is the only line item in federal child welfare that goes unspent.

Sources

Note on methodology: The per-state program counts (Wyoming = 1; Texas, Alabama, Alaska, South Dakota = 0; the 2- and 3-program lists) are original analysis derived from the appendix of the February 2026 ASPE brief, which lists every Clearinghouse-rated program in every approved plan as of December 2025. HHS does not publish this cross-tabulation.