The Watchdog That Watched Nothing

How America’s Child Welfare Oversight System Documented Failure for 25 Years While Children Vanished and No One Paid the Price

Federal Oversight Failures, Missing Children, Improper Payments, and the 25-Year Child Welfare Accountability Collapse

For more than twenty-five years, the federal government has claimed to operate an accountability system for America’s child welfare agencies. It has built review frameworks, published technical guidance, commissioned audits, held congressional hearings, issued corrective action plans, and generated a paper trail thick enough to bury the very children the system was supposed to protect. The official architecture looks serious from a distance. There are Child and Family Services Reviews, Program Improvement Plans, federal regional offices, Title IV-E eligibility rules, AFCARS reporting requirements, GAO audits, HHS Office of Inspector General investigations, and congressional oversight hearings with solemn statements about safety, permanency, trafficking, improper payments, and vulnerable youth. The vocabulary suggests a functioning watchdog state. The record suggests something else entirely.

After a quarter-century of federal child welfare reviews, no state has ever achieved full substantial conformity with all Child and Family Services Review requirements across the board. Not once. Not in the first round, not in the second, not in the third, and not as the current round continues. The federal government created a system to measure whether states were protecting children, preserving families when safe, moving children toward permanency, preventing maltreatment in foster care, maintaining family connections, and operating the basic institutional machinery required to manage child welfare responsibly. Then, year after year and review round after review round, the results came back showing that the states were failing. The shocking part is not merely that states failed. The shocking part is that the failures became routine, the routine became normalized, and normalization became policy.

The federal government did not respond to this historic pattern of failure by cutting off funding, imposing meaningful financial consequences, or restructuring oversight. Instead, it built an escape hatch so large that every failing state could walk through it. That escape hatch is called the Program Improvement Plan, or PIP, and it is the bureaucratic device that turned federal child welfare accountability into a performance ritual. Under the regulatory structure, when a state fails its Child and Family Services Review, it must submit a corrective plan with goals, benchmarks, and timelines. On paper, that sounds reasonable. In practice, as long as the state is operating under an approved PIP, the threat of funding reduction is deferred. The penalty is not eliminated in theory, but it is functionally neutralized in practice. Every state that fails promises to improve. The federal government accepts the promise. The money keeps flowing.

This is how a watchdog becomes decorative. It barks in reports, growls in hearings, bares its teeth in audit language, and then sits quietly while the same funding streams continue uninterrupted. The research record compiled in the Article 6 brief is blunt: every state that has ever failed a CFSR has submitted a PIP, PIPs are approved by the same regional offices involved in the review process, timelines can be extended, some states remain under corrective structures for years, and the penalty mechanism has never produced the kind of funding loss that would force a state to confront failure as an institutional emergency. The result is a federal oversight model that documents noncompliance without making noncompliance materially dangerous to the agencies responsible.

This is not accountability. It is a federally managed cycle of failure recognition, reform language, technical assistance, and continued reimbursement.

The CFSR system was created after Congress amended federal law in 1994 and was implemented beginning in 2000. Its purpose was to ensure that states receiving federal child welfare dollars were actually meeting federal standards in safety, permanency, and child well-being. The reviews evaluate seven outcome areas and seven systemic factors, examining whether children are protected from abuse and neglect, whether foster children are safe in placement, whether reunification and adoption happen in a timely way, whether children experience placement stability, whether family relationships are preserved, and whether state systems have the administrative capacity to do the work they are paid to do. To achieve substantial conformity, states must meet high performance thresholds. The stated premise is simple: if federal dollars flow into state child welfare systems, the federal government should verify that those systems are producing legally required outcomes.

The problem is that the review system immediately revealed a national disaster and then failed to become a consequence system. In Round 1, conducted from 2001 to 2004, zero states achieved substantial conformity on all seven outcome areas. In Round 2, from 2007 to 2010, zero states achieved substantial conformity. In Round 3, from 2015 to 2018, zero states achieved substantial conformity. Round 4 began in 2022 and, based on the research brief’s compilation, the pattern of no state achieving full conformity remains unbroken so far. If this were an aviation safety system, the public would be in revolt. If every airline failed the federal safety review for twenty-five years and not one carrier lost operating authority, no one would call that oversight. But in child welfare, the failure has been absorbed into administrative routine.

The outcome patterns are not minor paperwork defects. The research brief identifies broad nonconformity in Round 3 across fundamental child safety and permanency measures. Safety Outcome 1, focused on preventing recurrence of abuse and neglect, showed widespread nonconformity. Safety Outcome 2, focused on preventing abuse in foster care, also showed major failure. Permanency measures were similarly alarming, with states struggling on timely reunification, re-entry into foster care, timely adoption, and placement stability. Well-being outcomes related to preserving family relationships also failed across many states. These are not obscure compliance boxes. They are the core promises of the child welfare system: keep children safe, avoid unnecessary repeat removals, prevent maltreatment in care, move children toward stable families, and maintain meaningful family connections whenever possible.

A normal accountability system would treat repeated nationwide failure on core outcomes as proof that the oversight model itself was broken. Federal officials would ask whether the standards were unenforceable, whether state-reported data was unreliable, whether penalties were too weak, whether regional offices were captured, whether Congress had created incompatible funding incentives, and whether children were being harmed by a system that could fail indefinitely without losing access to federal money. Instead, the federal response became a loop: review, failure finding, improvement plan, extension, technical assistance, repeat. This loop creates the appearance of motion while insulating the system from rupture.

The Program Improvement Plan is the key to understanding how the system survives its own failure record. A PIP looks like accountability because it requires the state to name problems, propose corrective actions, set goals, and submit itself to follow-up monitoring. But because an approved PIP delays penalties, it also functions as a shield. The worse a state performs, the more paperwork it generates, and the more technical assistance it may receive, but the funding pipeline continues. The federal government can tell Congress it is monitoring the problem. The state can tell the public it is implementing reforms. Consultants can be hired, meetings can be held, dashboards can be built, and corrective language can be inserted into reports. Meanwhile, the children remain inside the same institutional structure.

This is the essence of the accountability collapse: failure does not trigger consequence; failure triggers process. The process becomes the substitute for consequence.

The financial oversight record is equally disturbing, but it must be handled carefully because accuracy matters. The corrected Article 6 research brief explicitly warns against an earlier inaccurate framing of GAO-06-649. The correct finding is not that GAO reviewed all fifty states and found fifty failures. GAO-06-649 examined only eleven states. But the corrected version is arguably more damning, not less. Of six federal regional offices reviewed, three reported zero disallowances, meaning those regional offices had not identified a single improper federal payment across all states in their jurisdiction. That does not prove that every state was compliant. It suggests that meaningful financial oversight was absent across major regions of the country. In the states where improper payments were identified, the numbers were not trivial. Delaware had roughly six million dollars in improper federal payments, and Virginia had more than twenty-eight million dollars in improper federal payments.

That corrected framing matters because the scandal is not simply that states misspent money. The deeper scandal is that the federal oversight structure was so weak that large regions apparently produced no disallowances at all. In a massive federal-state funding system as complex as Title IV-E foster care reimbursement, zero improper payments across entire regions should not automatically reassure anyone. It should raise questions. Were claims being audited aggressively? Were regional offices adequately staffed? Were states self-reporting accurately? Were federal reviewers relying too heavily on state-provided documentation? Did regional offices have institutional reasons to avoid clawbacks? A zero-disallowance record in this context may be less a certificate of compliance than a sign that no one was looking hard enough.

The GAO and OIG findings cited in the research brief describe a recurring pattern of federal reimbursement problems. States have claimed foster care costs for children in unlicensed homes, billed for ineligible placements, failed to meet safety or caseworker visit requirements, maintained data gaps that prevented national assessment of child outcomes, and struggled with monitoring prevention funding. HHS OIG investigations over multiple decades have identified improper payments, administrative cost overclaims, billing for uncertified relative placements, unverifiable contractor hours, and children billed as being in qualifying placements when they were allegedly not in such placements. These findings are not just about dollars. They are about a system where federal money can be attached to children whose circumstances are misclassified, poorly verified, or inadequately monitored.

The moral problem with improper child welfare payments is different from ordinary waste. When a state improperly claims federal reimbursement for a child, a placement, or an administrative activity, the fraud or error does not exist in a spreadsheet vacuum. Behind each claim is supposed to be a real child, a real placement, a real safety determination, and a real service. If the placement is unlicensed, the safety risk is not theoretical. If the child is missing, homeless, or in an ineligible setting while the state bills as though the child is properly placed, the payment record becomes a false map of protection. Money moves because the paperwork says the child is somewhere safe. The child may not be.

That is why the missing-children data in the research brief hits with such force. Between fiscal years 2012 and 2022, AFCARS data showed 51,115 foster care exits classified as “runaway.” In plain language, these were children the system officially acknowledged had left care and whose whereabouts were not accounted for under that exit classification. The figure does not include children who went missing but were never properly reported as missing by the placing agency. It does not include every unauthorized absence. It does not capture every child who disappeared briefly, repeatedly, or invisibly. It is the official floor, not the ceiling.

A system that loses more than fifty-one thousand children over an eleven-year period should not be described as merely underperforming. It should be treated as a national emergency. These are not misplaced files. They are children. They are children who may be fleeing abusive placements, unstable group homes, trafficking recruitment, untreated trauma, separation from siblings, or the simple despair of being moved from home to home under the control of adults they do not trust. Some may return quickly. Some may be found. Some may vanish into exploitation. The exit category “runaway” shifts the emotional weight onto the child, as if the defining fact is that the child ran. But the more important institutional fact is that the state lost custody control of a child it had taken responsibility to protect.

The trafficking data makes the danger unmistakable. The research brief cites National Center for Missing and Exploited Children reporting that in 2022, one in six endangered runaways reported to NCMEC were likely child sex trafficking victims, and of those likely child sex trafficking victims, a massive share had been in the care of child welfare when they went missing. The brief gives the figure as 86 percent. If that figure is even close to the operational truth, it creates a devastating line of accountability. Children leave foster care as runaways, enter the missing-child and trafficking ecosystem, and later appear in exploitation data, while the original placing agency may face little or no direct consequence for losing them.

This is the part of the story that should keep readers up at night. Child welfare agencies remove children from homes under the theory that the state can provide greater safety than the family of origin. That is the moral claim that justifies state intervention. The state says, in effect, that it must take custody because the child’s current environment is unsafe. But when children disappear from foster care, especially into trafficking vulnerability, the state’s claim to superior protection collapses. If the government removes a child in the name of safety and then loses that child, the failure is not administrative. It is existential.

Yet the oversight system does not appear to treat runaway exits as a funding-threatening category of failure. According to the research brief, no state has faced a CFSR penalty specifically for high runaway exit rates. States are not uniformly required to report all unauthorized absences to law enforcement within a specific timeframe, and federal oversight does not systematically track the overlap between foster care runaway classifications and later trafficking reports. This is exactly the kind of gap that allows institutional failure to hide in plain sight. One database records a runaway exit. Another organization receives missing child or trafficking information. A state agency may document the child as absent from care. A federal review may examine general safety outcomes. But unless the systems are aggressively cross-matched and consequences attach to the results, no single official has to own the full story.

In 2016, there was a moment when real accountability appeared to be approaching. The Obama administration’s Administration for Children and Families proposed a rule that would have expanded the consequences for CFSR failure. The proposed rule, published in the Federal Register as 81 FR 35972, would have created a more automatic, formula-based funding reduction for states that failed to meet certain safety and permanency requirements, rather than allowing the Program Improvement Plan structure to indefinitely defer consequences. The proposal reportedly would have affected twenty-three states in its first implementation year. For the first time, the system faced the possibility that failure would cost money without being fully neutralized by the familiar PIP escape hatch.

Then the rule disappeared. In February 2018, under the Trump administration, ACF withdrew the proposed penalty rule. The stated rationale was that a formula-based penalty approach would be too inflexible and that states needed individualized technical assistance rather than financial punishment. No replacement mechanism with comparable force was implemented. The old structure survived. The PIP remained the primary consequence pathway. The watchdog had approached the edge of enforcement and then stepped back.

The policy reversal is crucial because it shows that the lack of accountability is not inevitable. Federal officials understood that the existing penalty structure was too weak. They proposed a stronger one. The proposal entered the regulatory pipeline. Then a new administration withdrew it and replaced the threat of financial consequence with the familiar language of flexibility, assistance, and state-specific support. Those words sound cooperative, but in a system with twenty-five years of repeated nonconformity, flexibility without consequence becomes permission.

This is not a partisan story in the simplistic sense. The failure spans administrations from both parties. Congress has held hearings for years. HHS officials have promised improvements for years. GAO and OIG have issued reports for years. The Obama administration proposed a stronger penalty rule but did not finalize it before leaving office. The Trump administration withdrew it. The Biden administration began Round 4 CFSRs without, according to the brief, announcing a new penalty mechanism capable of fundamentally changing the accountability equation. The bipartisan through-line is not ideological disagreement. It is institutional inertia.

Congressional oversight has followed a similar pattern. The brief lists hearings from 2006 through 2023 on foster care oversight, CFSR nonconformance, missing foster youth, improper IV-E payments, prevention funding, trafficking from foster care, and preparation for CFSR Round 4. The rhythm is painfully familiar: a committee convenes, experts testify, legislators express concern, agency officials acknowledge challenges, technical improvements are promised, and the core funding architecture remains intact. The public record accumulates outrage without producing rupture.

This repetition matters because repeated hearings can create the illusion of accountability. A televised hearing looks like action. A senator demanding answers looks like consequence. A federal official promising better monitoring looks like reform. But unless the hearing changes incentives, budgets, enforcement authority, reporting requirements, or liability, it may simply become another entry in the archive of acknowledged failure. Child welfare oversight has produced a long record of government awareness. Awareness is not the same thing as accountability.

The structural reason the watchdog watched nothing is not difficult to identify. ACF regional offices occupy a conflicted role. They are responsible for administering federal child welfare funds to states and also for overseeing whether those states comply with federal requirements. That creates an institutional tension. If a regional office aggressively identifies improper payments, it triggers disallowances, disputes, political pressure, and potential reductions in funds flowing through programs the office is also tasked with supporting. The same office culture that builds cooperative relationships with state agencies is expected to become a hard-nosed auditor when those agencies fail. That is not impossible, but it is structurally weak.

Federal-state politics intensify the weakness. Cutting or clawing back child welfare funds from a state is not merely an administrative act. It can trigger political backlash from governors, state agencies, congressional delegations, service providers, unions, contractors, and advocacy organizations that fear funding cuts will harm vulnerable children. This creates a perverse shield. The worse a state system performs, the more politically dangerous it becomes to cut funding because children depend on the system. The federal government is then trapped: it wants to punish failure, but the punishment may reduce resources for children already inside failing systems. States understand this. The result is a hostage dynamic in which children become the argument against imposing consequences on the agencies responsible for failing them.

The contractor and consultant ecosystem also benefits from perpetual failure. When states fail CFSRs, they need technical assistance, data improvement plans, training systems, case review tools, performance dashboards, and PIP consultants. Former state child welfare officials may move into federal roles, former federal officials may move into consulting firms, and contractors may help states write the very improvement plans that allow funding to continue. This revolving professional community is not necessarily corrupt in the cartoonish sense. It does not require envelopes of cash or secret conspiracies. It requires only shared incentives, shared assumptions, and shared dependence on a system that never fully succeeds and therefore always needs another round of funded improvement.

Metric gaming is another predictable consequence. When states know which outcomes are measured, they can allocate resources toward improving reported metrics without necessarily transforming the underlying reality. A state can improve documentation faster than it improves child safety. It can refine case-plan language faster than it improves family services. It can reclassify, delay, or manage data entry in ways that make performance look better. It can focus on the sampled cases most likely to appear in review cycles. Any accountability system based heavily on state-reported information is vulnerable to this problem, especially when independent data verification is limited.

Information asymmetry sits underneath the entire oversight failure. Federal reviewers depend heavily on data and records generated by the states being reviewed. If state data systems are weak, incomplete, outdated, or selectively maintained, federal oversight inherits those weaknesses. If missing children are misclassified, if placement safety incidents are underreported, if maltreatment in foster care is minimized, if caseworker visits are entered late or inaccurately, if children in unlicensed settings are coded in ways that obscure risk, the federal review may never fully see the child’s reality. The state controls much of the raw material from which its own performance is judged.

The solution cannot be another layer of polite technical assistance. After twenty-five years of nonconformity, more process is not enough. Real accountability would require structural separation between funding administration and oversight. Reviews should be conducted or supervised by an independent body that does not have the same cooperative funding relationship with state agencies. GAO-led rotating audits, independent child-level data validation, and third-party financial claim reviews would not solve every problem, but they would begin to break the self-review dynamic.

The PIP escape hatch also needs to be narrowed. Corrective plans should not eliminate or indefinitely defer financial consequences. A state that fails core safety and permanency measures should face automatic consequences calibrated to severity, duration, and risk, while still receiving targeted support to improve. The current structure treats a promise to improve as a substitute for improvement. That must end. A PIP should be a mitigation tool, not an immunity agreement.

AFCARS reporting should move toward more real-time child-level accountability. Annual lagged reporting is not sufficient for a system responsible for living children who can go missing, be trafficked, be moved into unlicensed settings, or experience placement breakdown in real time. States should be required to submit quarterly child-level data with persistent identifiers that allow federal reviewers to track children across placements, exits, re-entries, adoption disruptions, dissolution events, and runaway episodes. Data should be cross-matched against NCMEC missing-child information within strict timeframes when children are absent from care.

Runaway exits should trigger automatic federal scrutiny. If a child exits care as a runaway, that classification should not function as an administrative endpoint. It should trigger a mandatory review of placement history, prior reports of abuse or neglect in care, trafficking risk factors, law enforcement notification timing, NCMEC reporting, caseworker contact history, and whether the child had previously gone missing. Repeated missing episodes should be treated as evidence of placement failure, not child misconduct. States with high runaway rates should face targeted audits and public reporting requirements.

Financial claims should be independently audited annually. Title IV-E reimbursement is complex, but complexity cannot be an excuse for weak verification. Independent CPA audits, child-level eligibility sampling, placement licensing verification, and public disclosure of disallowance findings should become standard. If a state bills for a child in a qualifying placement, federal auditors should be able to verify the child was actually in that placement, that the placement was licensed or otherwise eligible, that caseworker visits occurred, and that administrative costs were properly attributed. When improper claims are found, disallowances should be public and timely.

Congress should also require a national accounting of the CFSR system itself. After twenty-five years of zero full-state conformity, lawmakers should not simply ask how states are performing. They should ask whether the review system has failed as an enforcement mechanism. A review process that can produce universal failure without meaningful consequence is not a functioning accountability system. It is a diagnostic tool disconnected from treatment.

The deeper issue is that America’s child welfare oversight system has been built around the assumption that documenting failure is itself a form of governance. It is not. A report does not protect a child. A hearing does not find a missing teenager. A PIP does not prevent maltreatment in a foster home. A technical assistance memo does not claw back improper payments. A dashboard does not hold a state agency accountable when a child disappears. Documentation is necessary, but without consequence it becomes ritual.

The children inside this system do not experience oversight as paperwork. They experience it as whether someone visits them, whether the placement is safe, whether their sibling relationship is preserved, whether their caseworker knows where they are, whether the state notices when they disappear, whether anyone searches fast enough, whether the adults responsible for them are punished when they fail, and whether the government that took custody can actually keep them safe. When oversight fails, children do not suffer in the abstract. They suffer in bedrooms, group homes, hotels, shelters, streets, trafficking networks, detention centers, and courtrooms.

The title of this article is not rhetorical flourish. The watchdog really did watch nothing or don't change the image but fix the words that overlap each other at least watched far too little with far too few consequences. For twenty-five years, the federal government has reviewed state child welfare systems and found universal failure to achieve full conformity. It has received GAO warnings and OIG findings about improper payments and weak monitoring. It has seen evidence of children missing from care by the tens of thousands. It has heard trafficking warnings. It has considered stronger penalties and then withdrawn them. It has allowed the Program Improvement Plan structure to absorb failure after failure. It has preserved funding flows while accountability remained mostly theoretical.

That does not mean every person inside the system is indifferent. Many are not. Caseworkers are overwhelmed. Foster parents are under-supported. Judges face impossible dockets. Some federal officials have tried to strengthen oversight. Some state officials have made real improvements in specific areas. But a system must be judged by its design and outcomes, not by the good intentions of individuals trapped inside it. The design has allowed failure to persist. The outcomes show children harmed, lost, and miscounted. The funding has continued.

The public needs to understand the scale of the contradiction. The federal government can tell a parent that the parent is unfit, remove the child, place the child under state supervision, reimburse the state for that placement, review the state’s performance, find the state nonconforming, require an improvement plan, continue funding the state, identify improper claims years later, issue guidance instead of meaningful penalties, and then repeat the process while children continue to disappear from care. That is not a safety net. That is an accountability theater built over a funding pipeline.

Real reform begins by refusing to confuse oversight language with oversight power. The country does not need another report explaining that states are struggling with safety, permanency, missing youth, and data quality. The country has reports. It has had reports for decades. What it lacks is an enforcement structure that makes failure materially dangerous for the institutions responsible. Until federal oversight can impose real consequences, independently verify child-level reality, claw back improper payments, track missing children aggressively, and separate auditing from funding administration, the watchdog will remain what it has been for a generation: present in name, absent in effect.

For the children who vanished from care, for the families harmed by broken systems, for the taxpayers funding improper claims, and for every young person who was promised protection by a government that could not even keep track of them, the question is no longer whether America knows its child welfare oversight system is failing. The record proves it knows. The question is why knowing has not been enough to make it stop.

---

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.

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

PRIMARY GOVERNMENT SOURCES

• HHS/ACF CFSR Round 1 Reports (2001–2004) — All 50 states + DC. acf.hhs.gov/cb/research/cfsr

• HHS/ACF CFSR Round 2 Reports (2007–2010) — All 50 states + DC. acf.hhs.gov/cb/research/cfsr

• HHS/ACF CFSR Round 3 Reports (2015–2018) — All 50 states + DC. acf.hhs.gov/cb/research/cfsr

• 45 CFR §1355.35 — CFSR substantial conformity and PIP requirements

• GAO-06-649 (2006) — Child Welfare: Better Data and Evaluations Could Improve Programs [CORRECTED: 11 states reviewed; 3 of 6 regional offices: zero disallowances; DE $6M, VA $28M+]

• GAO-08-515 (2008) — Foster Care: States Use of Unlicensed Homes

• GAO-11-599 (2011) — Child Welfare: Additional Federal Action Could Help States Address Challenges

• GAO-15-161 (2015) — Child Welfare: HHS Should Improve Monitoring and Information Sharing

• GAO-17-325 (2017) — Foster Care: HHS Could Do More to Support States in Reducing Improper Payments

• GAO-20-458 (2020) — Child Welfare: HHS Should Improve Monitoring of Prevention Funding

• GAO-23-105650 (2023) — Child Sex Trafficking: Improved Monitoring Needed

• OEI-04-00-00180 (2002) — Adoption Assistance Payments for Ineligible Children

• OEI-07-03-00680 (2004) — Caseworker Visit Standards Compliance

• OEI-02-11-00670 (2013) — Administrative Cost Claiming in Child Welfare

• OEI-09-14-00430 (2016) — California Foster Care Billing for Uncertified Relatives

• OEI-04-16-00330 (2018) — Adoption Incentive Eligibility Verification

• AFCARS Reports FY2012–FY2022 — Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System

• 81 FR 35972 (June 6, 2016) — Proposed CFSR Penalty Rule (Obama ACF)

• ACF Regulatory Withdrawal Notice (February 2018) — 81 FR 35972 formally withdrawn

NCMEC / TRAFFICKING DATA

• NCMEC 2022 Missing Children Statistics — ncmec.org/research

• NCMEC 2022 Child Sex Trafficking Report — 86% CW involvement figure

• FBI NIBRS 2022 — Missing Persons/Child Exploitation data

CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS

• Senate Finance Committee (Mar 2006) — Foster Care Oversight Hearing

• House Ways & Means (Sep 2008) — CFSR Non-Conformance Hearing

• Senate Judiciary (Apr 2011) — Missing Foster Youth Hearing

• Senate Finance (Jul 2014) — IV-E Improper Payments Hearing

• House Education & Workforce (Oct 2017) — FFPSA Preview Hearings

• Senate Finance (Jun 2019) — Child Trafficking from Foster Care Hearing

• House Ways & Means (Mar 2022) — CFSR Round 4 Preparation Hearing

• Senate Judiciary (Nov 2023) — Missing Children from Care Hearing

RESEARCH & ACADEMIC

• Child Welfare Information Gateway — CFSR Outcomes and Accountability Review

• Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) Technical Documentation

• National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) State Performance Data

• Annie E. Casey Foundation — KIDS COUNT Data Center, Child Welfare Indicators

Project Milk Carton | 501(c)(3) | EIN 33-1323547 | projectmilkcarton.org