Washington Insider: 2011
Under the recently enacted Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act, ten states per year for the next three years will be granted waivers to use Title IV-E funds flexibly for demonstration projects. We have been told there is no hard and fast deadline for applications; however, many states have begun the process, which is expected to proceed quickly.
We are encouraging Alliance for Children and Families members to reach out to their state officials to be at the table during waiver planning and implementation.
According to the 2011 Children’s Bureau report about waivers, private providers are not always given adequate opportunity to participate in the process: … more
As the new year approaches, many members of Congress are headed home, but not without the pressure of an unsettled controversy back in Washington. In addition to the widely reported impact on payroll tax cut extensions, the current stalemate impacts other major programs, such as Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which many states use to fund child welfare services. … more
The following opportunity is being offered by the American Association of Children's Residential Centers (AACRC), which is managed under a partnership agreement with the Alliance for Children and Families:
The recent economic downturn has reversed the trend of Americans living independently and shifted the norm toward multigenerational families. Generations United unveiled a report describing the continuing trend, along with some of the challenges and opportunities that will face service providers and policymakers.
Who is Living in Multigenerational Families
According to the report, more than 51.4 million Americans—about 1 in 6—live in multigenerational families, a more than 10 percent increase since 2007. … more
After years of contract disputes between seven residential providers and the New Hampshire Division for Children Youth and Families, the New Hampshire Supreme Court has finally settled the matter by siding with the providers. The state must pay $355 million that should have been paid under its own payment methodology.
The disputes started in 2004, when the state claimed it could not follow its own rules in paying for services because of financial constraints. The state also argued that the contracts were subject to the legislative appropriations process. The providers won administrative appeals as well as a lower court appeal. … more