DCF details Title IV‑E rules, limits and how federal match shapes Kansas child‑welfare spending

The Department for Children and Families told the Joint Committee that Title IV‑E — the federal funding stream that reimburses state child‑welfare costs — is a major source of support for foster care, adoption assistance and qualifying prevention services, but federal rules and legacy income standards limit how much Kansas can recover.

Deputy Secretary Tanya Keyes described how Title IV‑E operates in three parts: child eligibility, eligible services and eligible providers. If all three conditions are met — an “eligible child, eligible service and eligible provider” — Kansas can seek federal reimbursement. Keyes called this the program’s practical “trifecta.”

How the match works

Key points DCF provided to lawmakers:

- Administrative and certain prevention expenditures (and information technology) are matched at 50% (state: federal split). Training is reimbursed at 75% and some Chafee funds are reimbursed at 80%. - Foster‑care maintenance payments use the federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP); in Kansas that figure is roughly 61.87% in the most recent calculations. - Title IV‑E is generally a reimbursement program: Kansas incurs costs and then seeks federal reimbursement under the state plan.

Why the federal rules matter

Keyes walked the committee through practical limits. One large constraint is the legacy AFDC income standard still embedded in federal guidance. That standard, fixed in federal law and reflected in the state plan, uses a narrow income threshold that many families today exceed; Keyes gave the example that the income test for a family of three sits at about $403 per month under the AFDC basis used to determine basic IV‑E eligibility.

Because of that limit, Keyes said, Kansas’s “rate of penetration” — the share of children in foster care who meet all IV‑E eligibility rules and therefore generate the higher maintenance match — is about 22% statewide. That penetration rate matters because it multiplies against the match rates: a child who is IV‑E eligible for foster‑care maintenance can bring the roughly 62% FMAP, while children who do not meet the AFDC income test do not generate that same maintenance reimbursement.

Legal assistance and county claiming

The department also described the technical and modest financial impact of drawing IV‑E funds for legal services: if a qualifying legal service costs $1,000, the combined penetration and match mechanics mean Kansas recovers only a small portion (Keyes illustrated that the net federal recovery on such legal costs will frequently be around 10% of the total legal bill under current rules and Kansas penetration rates). DCF said it has completed a cost‑allocation plan to permit counties to claim their share of IV‑E legal‑representation funding when counties choose to do so; Douglas and Johnson counties were cited as preparing interagency agreements to pursue that option.

The committee’s response

Committee members pressed for specifics about how federal rules and Kansas’s state plan translate to real dollars for counties and providers, and some lawmakers urged exploring policy options that might change the state plan or request federal waivers. DCF emphasized that some rules (notably the AFDC income standard) are federal and would require federal action to change. The agency offered to provide more tailored budgetary scenarios if the committee requests them.

Ending

The committee received Title IV‑E details and asked DCF to supply follow‑up budget scenarios showing how changes in penetration, service mix or county claiming would affect state and local budgets. Lawmakers signaled they will weigh whether legislative or administrative changes are needed to expand federal recovery or to reconfigure state spending priorities.