The Family First Act’s Broken Promise: How Washington Declared Victory While Foster Children Ended Up in Hotels, Offices, and Juvenile Detention
A closer look at how one of the most celebrated child welfare reforms in decades coincided with a growing placement crisis that left states scrambling and children paying the price.
Congress promised to end the warehousing of children, speed interstate family placements, and invest in prevention. Eight years later, children are still waiting, states are paying more than ever, and a system built to put families first may have created new pathways into institutional care.
The Reform That Was Supposed to Change Everything
In February 2018, Congress celebrated what many policymakers described as the most significant child welfare reform in a generation.
The Family First Prevention Services Act, commonly known as FFPSA, was marketed as a historic turning point. Supporters described it as a revolutionary shift away from institutional foster care and toward family preservation. Politicians from both parties praised it. Advocacy organizations endorsed it. Federal agencies promoted it. Headlines declared that America was finally moving beyond the outdated model of removing children from their homes and placing them into expensive institutions.
The logic behind the law seemed straightforward.
For decades, federal funding structures had rewarded states for removing children and placing them into foster care systems. Critics argued that Washington had built a financing structure that made it easier to fund separation than prevention. FFPSA promised to reverse that equation.
Congress told the public that federal money would finally prioritize keeping families together. The law would restrict federal funding for congregate care placements, encourage family-based alternatives, expand prevention services, and modernize interstate placement systems. Children would spend less time in institutions. Families would receive more support. Interstate placements with relatives would move faster.
The promise was clear.
America would stop paying to warehouse children and start investing in keeping families together.
Eight years later, the evidence tells a very different story.
The reform that was supposed to reduce institutional care has coincided with a national placement crisis.
The law that was supposed to strengthen family-based alternatives has left states scrambling for beds.
The legislation that promised prevention still directs only a tiny fraction of federal child welfare spending toward preventing family separation.
Most troubling of all, evidence now suggests that children who cannot find placements are increasingly being pushed into emergency shelters, hotels, office buildings, hospital emergency rooms, and in some cases juvenile detention facilities.
The system did not stop warehousing children.
It merely changed where they are warehoused.
Congress Promised a Revolution
The Family First Prevention Services Act emerged after years of growing criticism directed at America’s child welfare system.
Researchers had repeatedly documented poor outcomes for children placed in congregate care settings. Foster youth experienced higher rates of homelessness, incarceration, educational failure, substance abuse, and mental health challenges than their peers. Child welfare advocates argued that the system had become too reliant on removal and institutional placement rather than addressing the conditions that caused family crises in the first place.
Congress responded with what appeared to be a major restructuring effort.
Two provisions of the law were particularly important.
First, FFPSA dramatically restricted federal reimbursement for congregate care placements. Beginning in October 2021, states could only receive federal Title IV-E reimbursement for the first fourteen days of most congregate care placements unless facilities met specific exemption criteria.
Second, the law required nationwide implementation of the National Electronic Interstate Compact Enterprise, commonly known as NEICE, a system designed to modernize and accelerate interstate child placements.
The theory was elegant.
If states could no longer rely on federal reimbursement for institutional care, they would naturally invest more heavily in family-based alternatives.
If interstate placements became electronic rather than paper-based, relatives across state lines could receive children more quickly.
If prevention services received greater support, fewer children would enter foster care at all.
The Congressional Budget Office projected billions in prevention investments and significant reductions in institutional placement costs.
Politicians hailed the legislation as transformative.
Supporters described it as a historic shift away from institutionalization and toward family preservation.
The messaging was simple.
Children belong in families.
Government policy should reflect that reality.
Few people disagreed.
The problem is that policies are ultimately judged not by intentions but by outcomes.
And the outcomes have been devastating.
The Federal Government’s Own Numbers Tell a Different Story
In March 2026, the Government Accountability Office released what may be the most comprehensive federal assessment of FFPSA’s congregate care reforms to date.
The findings should have triggered congressional hearings.
Instead, they received relatively little public attention.
According to the GAO’s nationwide survey of state child welfare agencies, twenty-six of forty-nine responding states reported that they had not reduced congregate care usage despite the law’s restrictions.
Twenty-nine states reported increasing state and local spending to compensate for lost federal dollars.
Forty-two states reported continuing to use emergency stopgap placements.
Forty-three states reported continuing to rely on out-of-state placements.
Only twenty states reported experiencing any meaningful benefits from the law’s congregate care provisions.
Every single responding state reported placement shortages.
Every single one.
Those findings alone should raise serious questions about whether the law achieved its intended goals.
But the deeper story is even more troubling.
The central assumption behind FFPSA was that restricting federal funding would force states to reduce institutional placements.
Instead, most states simply shifted the cost burden.
Rather than reducing congregate care usage, they began paying for it with state dollars.
The federal government reduced its contribution.
The institutions remained.
The children remained.
The placements remained.
Only the source of payment changed.
This is one of the most important findings in the entire investigation because it reveals a fundamental misunderstanding at the heart of federal reform efforts.
Lawmakers assumed states were using congregate care because federal funding made it attractive.
In reality, many states continued using congregate care because they lacked sufficient alternatives.
Removing federal dollars did not magically create foster homes.
It did not create therapists.
It did not create treatment facilities.
It did not create relative placements.
It simply removed money.
The result was predictable.
States filled the gap themselves.
Taxpayers paid more.
Children continued entering institutional placements.
The underlying crisis remained untouched.
The Placement Crisis Nobody Wants to Discuss
One of the most alarming discoveries contained within the GAO findings involves what child welfare agencies call emergency stopgap placements.
These are not licensed foster homes.
They are not therapeutic treatment centers.
They are not structured residential programs.
They are temporary locations used when the system literally has nowhere else to put a child.
In practical terms, that can mean hotels.
It can mean office buildings.
It can mean agency conference rooms.
It can mean hospital emergency departments.
It can even mean juvenile detention facilities.
The fact that such placements exist at all should alarm the public.
The fact that forty-two states reported continuing to use them should trigger national outrage.
Investigations by KFF Health News, PBS, and other organizations have documented children sleeping in government offices because no foster home was available.
Children have spent nights in hotels supervised by rotating agency staff.
Others have remained in hospital emergency departments for days or weeks because no placement could be located.
Some states have reported placing foster youth in juvenile detention facilities despite the children having committed no crime whatsoever.
Think about that for a moment.
A child enters state custody because the government determines intervention is necessary.
The child is removed from home.
The state assumes legal responsibility.
And then the system charged with protecting that child cannot find an appropriate placement.
The child becomes trapped in bureaucratic limbo.
This is not a rare exception.
It has become a recurring feature of the modern child welfare landscape.
The placement shortages identified by states reveal the scale of the problem.
Nearly every responding state reported shortages in foster placements.
Behavioral health congregate care shortages were widespread.
States reported severe shortages for youth with complex behavioral needs.
Community mental health services remained critically insufficient.
Substance abuse treatment options for foster youth were limited.
QRTP-qualified facilities remained scarce.
Taken together, these shortages reveal a simple reality.
The infrastructure necessary to support Family First’s vision never fully materialized.
Congress attempted to reshape the system through financial incentives.
The physical capacity required to support those incentives never arrived.
Children became trapped in the gap between policy and reality.
The QRTP Catch-22
One of the most overlooked aspects of FFPSA involves the Qualified Residential Treatment Program model.
QRTPs were intended to function as the exception to the congregate care funding restrictions.
If facilities met rigorous clinical standards, they could continue receiving federal support.
On paper, this sounded reasonable.
Facilities would need trauma-informed treatment models.
Clinical staff would need to be available.
Independent assessments would be required.
Courts would review placements.
Family aftercare services would be mandatory.
The goal was to ensure that residential treatment remained available for children who genuinely needed it while discouraging unnecessary institutionalization.
Unfortunately, implementation proved far more difficult than lawmakers anticipated.
Many facilities lacked the resources necessary to meet QRTP requirements.
Rural communities struggled to provide mandated aftercare services.
Staffing shortages complicated compliance efforts.
Infrastructure limitations created additional obstacles.
As a result, many facilities lost eligibility.
Rather than producing a stronger treatment system, the reforms sometimes reduced available capacity.
The consequences were predictable.
Fewer beds.
Longer waiting lists.
More placement shortages.
More emergency placements.
More children trapped in limbo.
What emerged was a classic policy paradox.
The law attempted to improve residential care quality.
In doing so, it reduced available residential care capacity.
The resulting shortages pushed children into settings that often provided even fewer therapeutic services.
Children who might once have entered structured treatment programs increasingly found themselves in hotels, offices, shelters, or detention facilities.
The reform intended to improve care sometimes left children with no care at all.
The Juvenile Justice Pipeline
If there is one section of the federal findings that should terrify every parent in America, it is the data concerning crossover youth.
Crossover youth are children who become involved in both child welfare systems and juvenile justice systems.
Research has consistently shown that these young people experience some of the worst outcomes in public policy.
They face higher incarceration rates.
Higher homelessness rates.
Lower educational attainment.
Greater exposure to violence.
Increased mental health challenges.
And significantly reduced long-term stability.
The disturbing question raised by the Family First investigation is whether federal reforms may actually be accelerating movement into the juvenile justice system.
According to the GAO survey, half of the states that tracked crossover data reported increased detention usage among foster youth following implementation of Family First provisions.
That finding deserves far more attention than it has received.
When a child with significant behavioral needs cannot access an appropriate treatment placement, the system faces limited options.
Foster homes may be unavailable.
Treatment facilities may be full.
Community programs may lack capacity.
The path of least resistance increasingly becomes secure placement.
Not because the child committed a crime.
Not because the child represents a public safety threat.
But because no alternative exists.
The result is a pipeline few policymakers openly discuss.
Children enter child welfare seeking protection.
Placement shortages create instability.
Instability creates behavioral challenges.
Behavioral challenges limit placement options.
Limited placement options increase detention usage.
The child enters juvenile justice.
Not through criminal conduct.
Through system failure.
This is perhaps the most tragic irony of all.
A law designed to strengthen family-based care may have inadvertently increased pathways toward institutional control.
Children who needed support became children who needed placement.
Children who needed placement became children who needed containment.
Children who needed containment became statistics.
And statistics rarely capture human suffering.
The Digital Fix That Was Supposed to Save the System
Whenever a government system begins collapsing under the weight of its own bureaucracy, policymakers tend to reach for the same solution.
Digitization.
The logic sounds convincing. If paperwork is slowing everything down, remove the paperwork. If interstate communication is inefficient, create a centralized electronic platform. If agencies are drowning in forms, automate the forms.
That thinking gave birth to one of the centerpiece reforms associated with Family First: the National Electronic Interstate Compact Enterprise, commonly known as NEICE.
On paper, NEICE appears to solve one of the biggest problems identified throughout this investigation.
For decades, interstate child placements relied on paper files, fax machines, mail delivery, manual routing systems, and fragmented state databases. Children often waited months while documents traveled from one agency to another.
NEICE promised a digital future.
Instead of paper packets moving through state offices, information would move electronically.
Instead of delays caused by mailing systems, referrals could be transmitted instantly.
Instead of fragmented communication, agencies could work from a shared platform.
Supporters described it as a transformational modernization effort.
The reality is far more complicated.
Technology can accelerate communication.
Technology cannot solve structural incentives.
Technology cannot create foster homes.
Technology cannot create therapists.
Technology cannot create kinship caregivers.
Technology cannot force agencies to prioritize family placement.
Most importantly, technology cannot fix a system that benefits financially from delay.
The federal government recognized this problem years ago. Yet despite mandates requiring implementation, progress has remained uneven.
Some states embraced NEICE quickly.
Others moved slowly.
Several states faced technical, staffing, and funding obstacles.
Many agencies continued struggling with the same fundamental challenges that existed before digitization began.
The paperwork moved faster.
The children often did not.
The uncomfortable truth is that NEICE addresses symptoms rather than causes.
Imagine replacing a traffic light at a congested intersection with a smarter traffic light. Cars may move more efficiently through the intersection, but if the underlying highway is undersized, congestion remains.
The ICPC system suffers from the same problem.
Electronic transmission may eliminate certain administrative delays.
It does not eliminate staffing shortages.
It does not eliminate overloaded caseworkers.
It does not eliminate insufficient placement capacity.
It does not eliminate bureaucratic risk aversion.
And it certainly does not eliminate the financial structures that reward institutional placement over kinship care.
This is why policymakers frequently mistake modernization for reform.
Modernization changes tools.
Reform changes incentives.
Family First focused heavily on the first while largely avoiding the second.
The Prevention Funding Illusion
Perhaps no phrase appears more frequently in child welfare policy than “prevention.”
Politicians love prevention.
Advocates love prevention.
Federal agencies love prevention.
Every major child welfare reform proposal over the last twenty years has promised prevention.
Yet when investigators follow the money, prevention repeatedly turns out to be the smallest piece of the system.
Family First was supposed to change that.
Supporters claimed the law would redirect resources away from removal and toward keeping families intact before crises escalated.
The public was told that federal dollars would finally support mental health services, substance abuse treatment, parenting support, and in-home interventions designed to prevent foster care placements altogether.
The numbers tell a different story.
According to the federal spending data examined in the report, prevention funding remains a tiny fraction of overall child welfare spending. While Title IV-E prevention spending increased from approximately $15 million in FY2020 to roughly $344 million in FY2023, that growth occurred from an extremely small baseline. Even after dramatic percentage increases, prevention represented only a small fraction of the overall Title IV-E system.
At roughly the same time, Title IV-E foster care and placement spending remained around $9.5 billion annually.
The comparison is staggering.
Hundreds of millions for prevention.
Billions for removal.
Hundreds of millions for keeping families together.
Billions for managing separation.
This is not a prevention-centered system.
It is a removal-centered system that happens to fund some prevention programs.
The distinction matters because politicians frequently point to percentage growth when discussing prevention investments.
A twenty-fold increase sounds extraordinary until readers realize the starting number was tiny.
If someone increases a budget from $15 million to $344 million, the growth rate appears impressive.
If another budget remains at $9.5 billion, the power structure remains unchanged.
The system still spends dramatically more after family separation than before it.
The incentives remain largely intact.
The crisis remains largely intact.
Only the messaging changes.
This is why critics increasingly describe Family First as a prevention law that never truly became a prevention system.
The legislation created a new funding category.
It did not fundamentally alter the underlying financial architecture.
The Institutional Care Economy
Every major public system eventually develops economic stakeholders.
Defense spending creates defense contractors.
Healthcare spending creates healthcare networks.
Transportation spending creates infrastructure firms.
Child welfare spending creates child welfare industries.
This is the part of the story that makes many policymakers uncomfortable because it forces a difficult question:
What happens when the institutions receiving billions of dollars depend upon the continuation of the very problems they were created to solve?
The federal grant data examined in this investigation reveals the existence of a vast institutional care economy built around government custody.
Billions of dollars move annually through providers, contractors, nonprofit organizations, treatment centers, foster care management companies, and residential facilities.
Many perform important work.
Many employ dedicated professionals.
Many genuinely help children.
That reality does not eliminate the structural concern.
Systems funded by child placement naturally develop incentives to maintain placement infrastructure.
The more extensive the infrastructure becomes, the harder reform becomes.
The report identified more than $15 billion in federal child welfare grants distributed across thousands of awards.
The concentration of funding is particularly noteworthy.
A relatively small number of organizations receive enormous amounts of federal support.
The larger the provider network becomes, the more dependent entire regions become on continued funding streams.
Facilities require staffing.
Staffing requires budgets.
Budgets require occupancy.
Occupancy requires children.
No one needs to conspire for incentives to emerge.
The structure creates them automatically.
This is one reason reform often stalls despite widespread agreement that improvements are needed.
Every proposed reduction in institutional placement threatens existing infrastructure.
Every shift toward family-based alternatives threatens established revenue streams.
Every effort to simplify placement systems threatens bureaucratic complexity.
The result is not necessarily corruption.
The result is institutional inertia.
And institutional inertia can be one of the most powerful forces in public policy.
The Southwest Key Warning
Few examples illustrate the dangers of institutional dependence more clearly than Southwest Key Programs.
For years, Southwest Key became one of the largest recipients of federal child welfare and related human services funding in the United States.
The organization received billions of dollars in federal support.
Facilities expanded.
Contracts multiplied.
Infrastructure grew.
Then investigations began.
Federal auditors identified significant concerns.
Questions emerged regarding financial management.
Allegations surfaced regarding conditions within facilities.
Government oversight intensified.
Ultimately, major federal contracts were terminated.
Children were relocated.
The details of Southwest Key are important, but the broader lesson is even more significant.
Whenever governments create large-scale institutional systems dependent upon continuous funding and occupancy, accountability becomes increasingly difficult.
Complex provider networks emerge.
Oversight becomes fragmented.
Information becomes siloed.
Failures become easier to hide.
Children become statistics rather than individuals.
The danger is not unique to one provider.
The danger exists wherever large institutional systems become economically dependent on maintaining capacity.
A child welfare system genuinely centered on families would make institutional care the exception.
A child welfare system centered on infrastructure inevitably makes institutions permanent features of the landscape.
Family First promised the former.
The evidence increasingly suggests the latter survived.
The IMD Loophole Nobody Fixed
One of the most technical yet important findings in the report involves Institutions for Mental Diseases, commonly known as IMDs.
Most readers have never heard the term.
That is precisely why it matters.
Federal law generally restricts certain Medicaid reimbursements for large psychiatric institutions.
These restrictions were designed decades ago to discourage states from relying excessively on institutional mental health settings.
Over time, numerous exceptions, waivers, and alternative funding pathways emerged.
As a result, states often found ways to continue supporting institutional placements through different financial mechanisms.
Family First attempted to reduce congregate care dependence.
The broader financial ecosystem surrounding institutional care remained remarkably resilient.
When one funding stream became restricted, others frequently expanded.
State funding increased.
Medicaid pathways expanded.
Alternative reimbursement mechanisms emerged.
Provider systems adapted.
Children remained in care.
This pattern appears repeatedly throughout child welfare history.
Congress changes one funding rule.
Systems adapt.
Congress celebrates reform.
The underlying incentives survive.
The names change.
The children do not.
Why HHS Rejected Its Own Watchdogs
One of the most revealing sections of the report involves the relationship between the Department of Health and Human Services and the Government Accountability Office.
GAO investigators recommended stronger oversight.
More accountability.
Better data collection.
Improved reporting.
Enhanced transparency.
These recommendations were not revolutionary.
They represented standard oversight practices.
Yet HHS declined or resisted portions of several recommendations.
This is not unusual in Washington.
Agencies often resist oversight requirements that increase administrative burdens or expose performance weaknesses.
But in the context of child welfare, the consequences are significant.
Without accurate data, policymakers cannot accurately evaluate outcomes.
Without transparency, the public cannot assess performance.
Without accountability, failure becomes difficult to measure.
And when failure becomes difficult to measure, reform becomes difficult to justify.
One of the oldest rules in government is simple:
If you do not measure something, it rarely improves.
The child welfare system remains plagued by fragmented data collection, inconsistent state reporting, and outcome measures that often focus on process rather than long-term child well-being.
This creates a dangerous blind spot.
Officials can report compliance.
Children can still suffer.
The system can declare success.
Families can still lose.
The Question Nobody in Washington Wants to Answer
After reviewing years of reports, spending records, federal audits, GAO investigations, provider data, and state surveys, one question keeps resurfacing.
If Family First worked, where are the results?
Where are the dramatic reductions in placement shortages?
Where are the large-scale decreases in emergency housing?
Where are the major reductions in congregate care dependence?
Where are the transformative prevention outcomes?
Where are the thousands of children diverted from foster care through meaningful early intervention?
Where are the measurable improvements proportional to the promises made in 2018?
The answers remain frustratingly incomplete.
Some states have achieved important successes.
Some prevention programs have produced positive outcomes.
Some children have unquestionably benefited.
But large-scale systemic transformation remains elusive.
The evidence suggests the reform improved parts of the system without fundamentally changing the architecture.
And architecture matters more than slogans.
What Real Reform Would Require
If policymakers genuinely want to reduce child welfare dependence on institutional care, the next generation of reform must confront issues Family First largely avoided.
Interstate kinship placements must become faster than institutional placements, not slower.
Federal reimbursement should favor family-based care rather than expensive institutional settings.
Prevention funding must approach parity with removal funding.
Data reporting should focus on long-term child outcomes rather than administrative compliance.
Placement shortages must be addressed through capacity building rather than emergency improvisation.
Most importantly, reform must stop assuming that technology alone can solve structural problems.
Electronic systems help.
They do not replace incentives.
New forms help.
They do not replace accountability.
Modernized databases help.
They do not replace families.
The lesson of Family First is not that reform is impossible.
The lesson is that reform focused primarily on funding categories and administrative processes cannot overcome deeper structural incentives.
The system follows money.
The system follows capacity.
The system follows risk.
Until those realities change, children will continue experiencing the consequences.
Conclusion: The Promise and the Reality
When Congress passed the Family First Prevention Services Act, lawmakers genuinely believed they were changing the future of child welfare.
The intentions were real.
The aspirations were noble.
The rhetoric was compelling.
But public policy is ultimately judged by outcomes, not aspirations.
Eight years later, foster youth continue sleeping in hotels.
States continue reporting placement shortages.
Institutional care continues consuming billions of dollars.
Prevention remains a small fraction of overall spending.
Interstate placement delays continue separating children from relatives.
Juvenile justice involvement remains a growing concern.
The federal government modernized paperwork.
It did not modernize incentives.
It restricted funding.
It did not build sufficient alternatives.
It promised prevention.
It continued financing removal.
The result is a system caught between two worlds.
One world exists in speeches, press releases, congressional hearings, and policy summaries.
The other exists in emergency shelters, agency offices, hotel rooms, detention facilities, and waiting lists.
One world describes transformation.
The other describes children still waiting.
And for the thousands of children trapped between those two realities, the difference is not academic.
It is where they sleep tonight.
If you enjoyed this work and feel encouraged by independent investigations like this, please consider becoming a paid subscriber to The Constitutional Republic on Substack or donate at
Project Milk Carton Inc. Your gift keeps our site alive, spotlighting high-risk children!
Your support helps us continue:
investigative reporting
public records research
educational transparency projects
community outreach
and future investigations like this series
Most importantly, please share this article.
Independent journalism survives when ordinary people help spread information powerful institutions would prefer remain ignored, misunderstood, or buried beneath complexity.
Because silence protects systems.
Informed communities protect children.
ALL paid subscriptions are tax deductible Project Milk Carton | 501(c)(3) | EIN: 33-1323547
SOURCES & CITATIONS
[1] GAO-26-107592: Child Welfare: HHS Should Clarify Guidance on State Spending for Congregate Care. Government Accountability Office, March 2026. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-107592
[2] P.L. 115-123: Family First Prevention Services Act (Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018). U.S. Congress, February 9, 2018. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IN10858
[3] Child Welfare Monitor: Surprise, surprise! Family First has not reduced the use of congregate care!. March 24, 2026. https://childwelfaremonitor.org/2026/03/24/surprise-surprise-family-first-has-not-reduced-the-use-of-congregate-care/
[4] City Journal: The Family First Prevention Services Act Punishes Troubled Youth. 2025. https://www.city-journal.org/article/family-first-prevention-services-act-foster-care-residential-treatment
[5] Child Trends: NEICE Evaluation Final Report. 2018. https://www.childtrends.org/publications/national-electronic-interstate-compact-enterprise-neice-evaluation-final-report
[6] APHSA/AAICPC: National Electronic Interstate Compact Enterprise (NEICE). 2024. https://aphsa.org/neice/
[7] ACF: Title IV-E Programs Expenditure and Caseload Data FY2023. Administration for Children and Families. https://acf.gov/cb/report/title-iv-e-programs-expenditure-and-caseload-data
[8] CBO: Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate — FFPSA. 2016-2018. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IN10858
[9] KFF Health News: States Are Housing High-Needs Foster Kids in Offices and Hotels. 2025. https://kffhealthnews.org/mental-health/foster-care-hoteling-temporary-placement/
[10] PBS News: High-needs foster kids sometimes have to sleep in hotels or offices. 2025. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/high-needs-foster-kids-sometimes-have-to-sleep-in-hotels-or-offices
[11] Bipartisan Policy Center: Overview of the Family First Prevention Services Act. 2024. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/issue-brief/overview-of-the-family-first-prevention-services-act/
[12] AAP Pediatrics: State Implementation of Congregate Care Reforms for Children in Foster Care. 2024. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/154/1/e2023063680/197589
[13] PMC CivicOps Database: $37.3B in residential/foster care grants tracked across 233 organizations. Project Milk Carton, 2024-2026. https://projectmilkcarton.org
[14] GAO-25-107467: Child Welfare: States' Use of TANF and Other Major Federal Funding Sources. GAO, 2025. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-107467