S-162-119
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Sponsored by Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
What it does
This bill would amend the Social Security Act to require states, as a condition of receiving federal child welfare funding, to develop and implement a "Family Partnership Plan" — a data-driven strategy for recruiting, licensing, supporting, and retaining foster and adoptive families. States would be required to collect and report annually on foster family capacity, congregate care usage, and barriers to recruiting families that reflect the racial and ethnic backgrounds of children in foster care. Starting with fiscal year 2028, the federal government's annual child welfare outcomes report to Congress would also include state-by-state data on foster and adoptive family demographics, utilization rates, and recruitment challenges.
Who benefits
Children in foster care — particularly teens, sibling groups, and children with special needs — who may be more likely to be placed with families rather than in congregate (group) care settings. Kinship caregivers (relatives and family friends) who would receive more structured outreach and support. Foster and adoptive families who would gain formal advisory boards and feedback mechanisms. Children of color, who are disproportionately represented in foster care and who may benefit from targeted recruitment of families that reflect their racial and ethnic backgrounds. Child welfare researchers and policymakers who would gain access to more comprehensive, standardized national data.
Who is hurt
Congregate care facilities (group homes, residential treatment centers) that may see reduced placements and revenue as states work to shift children into family settings. State child welfare agencies that would face new administrative and reporting burdens, potentially straining already limited staff and budgets. States that require new legislation to comply may face a compressed implementation timeline. Smaller or under-resourced states may struggle to build the data infrastructure required to meet the plan's reporting requirements.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the U.S. foster care system chronically lacks sufficient family placements, leaving tens of thousands of children — especially teens and sibling groups — in congregate care settings that research consistently links to worse outcomes. They contend that requiring states to use data to identify gaps, track utilization, and measure progress is a low-cost, evidence-based approach that mirrors best practices already adopted voluntarily by high-performing states. The bill's requirement to address racial and ethnic matching barriers directly responds to documented disparities in foster care placement outcomes for children of color.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that adding new federal planning and reporting mandates places real administrative costs on state child welfare agencies that are already understaffed and underfunded, potentially diverting resources away from direct services to children. They contend that the bill's requirement to recruit families that "reflect the racial and ethnic background" of children in foster care could conflict with the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994, which prohibits using race as a factor in foster care placement decisions, and may invite legal challenges under the Equal Protection Clause's strict scrutiny standard for race-based classifications.
Constitutional context
The bill's requirement that states analyze barriers to recruiting families by racial and ethnic background touches the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which subjects race-based government classifications to strict scrutiny. While the bill frames this as a recruitment planning requirement rather than a placement decision, the line between race-conscious recruitment and race-based placement — already regulated by the Multiethnic Placement Act — may be contested. Congress's authority to attach these conditions to federal funding rests on its Spending Clause power, which courts have generally upheld when conditions are clearly stated and related to the federal interest in the program.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (HHS Secretary) gains authority to define additional plan requirements and assess state compliance; Congress checks this through the annual reporting requirement and its oversight of HHS, while states retain discretion in how they design and implement their individual plans.
Historical precedent
The Family First Prevention Services Act of 2018 similarly amended Title IV-E of the Social Security Act to shift federal child welfare funding away from congregate care and toward family-based placements, establishing a comparable federal-state framework for foster care system restructuring.