Childrens Budget 2013

CHILDRENS BUDGET 2013
ABOUT FIRST FOCUS

First Focus is a bipartisan advocacy organization dedicated to making children and families a priority in federal policy and budget decisions. First Focus takes a unique approach to advocacy, engaging both traditional and non-traditional partners in a broad range of efforts to increase investments in programs that address the needs of our nations children. In all our work, we interact directly with policymakers and seek to raise awareness regarding public policies that affect children and families. Our goal is to ensure that these programs have the resources necessary to help our children develop in a healthy and nurturing environment.
For more information about First Focus, or to make a donation, please visit www.firstfocus.net or call 202.657.0670. Questions, comments, or suggestions can be emailed to Jared Solomon, Vice President of Budget Policy, at jareds@firstfocus.net.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Childrens Budget 2013 was made possible with the generous support and encouragement of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and the Annie E. Casey Foundation. First Focus would like to thank Atlantic Philanthropies and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the original founders of First Focus, for their continued critical support of our efforts on behalf of children. We also want to acknowledge the support of the Foundation for Child Development and a supporter who wishes to remain anonymous. Many contributors assisted in writing sections of the book. Thank you to Shadi Houshyar for contributions to Child Welfare, Kevin Lindsey for contributions to Early Childhood, Lisa Shapiro for contributions to Health, Megan McHugh for contributions to Housing and Nutrition, Megan Curran for contributions to Income Support, and Cara Baldari for contributions to Health and Housing. Thank you to Kevin Curran, Madeline Daniels, Brianna Gross, and Ed Walz for copyediting and editorial guidance. Finally, we wish to thank John Gomperts, President and CEO of the Americas Promise Alliance, for his guidance and support.
PUBLISHING NOTES
Authored by Jared Solomon, Vice President of Budget Policy Published in 2013 by First Focus First Focus 1110 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 Printed in the United States of America by First Focus Designed by Meredith Cardani (www.cardanidesign.com)

1 10 17 Message from the President of First Focus Overall Spending Program Details 17 33 43 91 95 Child Welfare Programs Early Childhood Programs Education Programs Education Programs: Military Health Programs
119 Housing Programs 129 Income Support Programs 139 Nutrition Programs 153 Safety Programs 163 Training Programs
169 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Programs 172 Alphabetical Index of Programs 174 Index of Programs by Department and Bureau
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF FIRST FOCUS

Our Children Cannot Wait Any Longer
Chilean educator, poet, and Nobel Prize winner Gabriela Mistral wrote: We are guilty of many errors and many faults, but our worst crime is abandoning the children, neglecting the fountain of life. Many of the things we need can wait. The child cannot. Right now is the time his bones are being formed, his blood is being made, and his senses are being developed. To him we cannot answer Tomorrow, his name is today. Certainly, there is a clear and personal aspect to her sense of urgency. Parents and families are primary in the lives of children. And yet, there is also an imperative for a strong public interest in ensuring children have the opportunity to achieve their full potential and a prosperous future or we will pay for our negligence. Jane Waldfogel of Columbia University says: The care that children receive matters for their development and for the kind of adults they will turn out to be. To grow and thrive, children need not just food and material goods but also care and affection that promote their health, cognitive development, and social and emotional well-being. When childrens needs in these areas are well met, all of us benefit. But when they are not, society suffers. So all of us have an interest in what happens to childrenand in how well their needs are met.
First Focus: Childrens Budget 2013
Americas Report Card on Children

So, how are we doing? Last fall, First Focus and Save the Children, at the behest of Senator Christopher Dodd, published a comprehensive analysis looking at a number of indicators of child well-being to assess how our nation is faring. In our report, Americas Report Card 2012: Children in the U.S., we found some points of success, including the fact that passage of the bipartisan Childrens Health Insurance Program in 1997 has helped spur a dramatic drop in the number of uninsured children in this nation. Today, 91 percent of our nations children have health coverage. But the news for children is not all good. More than 8.5 million children lived in households where one or more children were food insecure, 1,560 children died due to abuse and neglect, and 1.1 million children were identified as homeless. Our nation has the second worst infant mortality rate among industrialized nations, and a shocking 22 percent of our nations children live in poverty. In fact, child poverty now stands at its highest level in 20 years and the effects of child poverty are lasting and deeply damaging, particularly to childrens health, nutrition, education, housing, safety, and future earnings. Parental stress over finances during a childs early years can also result in what is known as toxic stress, which can further threaten a childs future cognitive, social, emotional, and health outcomes in ways difficult to alter. According to a 2012 report by UNICEF: ...failure to protect children from poverty is one of the most costly mistakes a society can make. The heaviest cost of all is borne by the children themselves. But their nations must also pay a very significant pricein reduced skills and productivity, in lower levels of health and educational achievement, in increased likelihood of unemployment and welfare dependence, in the higher costs of judicial and social protection systems, and in the loss of social cohesion. After reviewing all the domestic and international indicators, it was the conclusion of a distinguished group of experts advising First Focus and Save the Children last fall that, if our nation were graded for how well we are doing in support of our children, the United States would receive a grade of C- overalland failing grades in a number of specific areas. Although a C- is not a failing grade, it is far from excelling, and we simply must do better. Unfortunately, at all levels of government, our nation is currently cutting investments and support for children.
Federal Budget Cuts to Children

At the federal level, it is often said that our nations budget is a reflection of our national values and priorities. If so, children are faring quite poorly. According to our analysis in this publication: Children now receive less than 8 percent of the federal budget (7.8 percent). Since a peak in 2010, total spending on children has fallen by $35 billion after adjusting for inflation, a 16 percent drop. Total spending on children has now declined for three years in a row. Discretionary spending, where Congress makes decisions each year, has been cut by more than $11 billion, a drop of almost 13 percent. The share of the federal budget invested in children is also down 8 percent from 2010. Some might think this is due to all federal spending being reduced to combat the federal deficit, but the fact that the share of spending has declined shows that children have borne a disproportionate share of the cuts. It is estimated that this year alone, sequestration will cut a total of $4.2 billion out of funding for children, particularly in the areas of education, early childhood, and childrens housing. Though sequestration is a major reason for the drop in discretionary investments, its making an alarming trend that began several years earlier even worse. Head Start programs have had to close weeks early or kick children out. One program in Columbus, Indiana, held a lottery drawing to decide which families would lose their seats. Thats a contest no parent or family wants to win. Making matters worse, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a 302(b) allocation for their discretionary spending priorities that makes sequestration even worse. Compared to pre-sequester levels, the House allocations cut an additional 22 percent in the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill, where most discretionary investments are made for kids. Over the long term, because of sequestration and other poor policy choices, additional budget analysis by the Urban Institute in their report titled Kids Share 2012 finds that: Interest on the national debt will eclipse our investments in children by 2017 and exceed investments in children by 50 percent by 2020. Defense spending is now triple the federal investment in our nations children. Federal spending on the elderly exceeds that for children by a seven-to-one ratio. When including state and local funding, seniors still receive twice as many public dollars as do children. The projected level of federal spending on children as a share of GDP will drop by 24 percent in the next decade if federal budget policy does not change.
State Budget Cuts to Children

In addition to the recent federal budget cuts and future threats to childrens programs, there are dramatic cuts at the state level compounding the problem that will undoubtedly harm the next generation. For example: The National Institute for Early Education Research recently released its annual yearbook and found that state funding for pre-K decreased by over $500 million in 2011-2012 when adjusted for inflation, the largest one-year drop ever. As a result, funding per child dropped by more than $400, and state spending per child has decreased by more than $1,100 since 2001-2002. The U.S. Census Bureau reported that per-student public education spending decreased in 2011 for the first time in four decades with accompanying stories of how school districts have been closing schools, cutting teachers, increasing class size, and cutting extracurricular activities across the country.
The Public Values Investing in ChildrenOur Future

How does the public feel about these trends? According to recent polling, Americans are dismayed by our failure to address the needs of children. In fact, by a nearly three-to-one margin (56-20 percent), Americans believe the lives of children have become worse over the last ten years and are deeply pessimistic about their future. The group most concerned was Republican women, who believe that things have become worse for children over the last ten years by a 74-10 percent margin. And while voters recognize the need to make budget cuts to reduce the federal deficit, they overwhelmingly want policymakers to make choices that reflect the importance of children and families. Thus, in two separate polls conducted by Public Opinion Research and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (one Republican and one Democratic firm), voters strongly opposed making major cuts to K-12 education, child nutrition, the Childrens Health Insurance Program (which outpolled Medicare), Medicaid, early childhood education, funding to combat child abuse and neglect, and student loans. Tea Party supporters expressed opposition to cutting critical programs for children, such as funding to prevent child abuse and neglect (35-64 percent), Medicaid (37-62 percent), education (42-58 percent), and tax credits for working families with children (40-56 percent), in order to reduce the federal deficit. Again, they chose a number of non-childrens programs to cut instead.
Money Matters: Cost Effectiveness and Adequacy

As we look to address the myriad of challenges facing children, it is always important to examine whether funds are spent in the most efficient way possible. For example, in education policy, finance experts Michael Rebell and Joseph Wardenski have concluded that money spent on qualified teachers, smaller class sizes, preschool initiatives, and academic intervention programs does make a substantial difference in student achievement Bruce Baker at the Rutgers Graduate School of Education concurs: To be blunt, money does matter. Schools and districts with more money clearly have greater ability to provide higher-quality, broader, and deeper educational opportunities to the children they serve. Furthermore, in the absence of money, or in the aftermath of deep cuts to existing funding, schools are unable to do many of the things they need to do in order to maintain quality educational opportunities.
It is certainly reasonable to acknowledge that money, by itself, is not a comprehensive solution for improving school quality. Clearly, money can be spent poorly and have limited influence on school quality. Or, money can be spent well and have substantive positive influence. But money thats not there cant do either. The available evidence leaves little doubt. Sufficient financial resources are a necessary underlying condition for providing quality education. In contrast, it is far less clear that all the dollars spent on more and more student testing has had a positive impact on educational achievement. Meanwhile, funding for high-quality early childhood programs has been proven to have enormous positive outcomes for children. According to the Texas Equity Center in its report Money Still Matters!, these include: Improvements in school readiness Narrowing of the achievement gap Improvements in academic performance Reductions in retention-in-grade rates Reductions in dropout rates Reductions in incarceration rates Reductions in referrals to special education Prevention of academic failure Remediation of the negative effect of poverty Increased employment and earnings when adult Increased IQ Increased college attendance Improved vocabulary acquisition Improved self-esteem Stimulated intellectual curiosity Improved social skills The promise of these significant changes in the life-trajectory of children from high-quality and effective early childhood programs has been proven to yield a substantial return on investment to national, state, and local economies. In his book titled Investing In Kids: Early Childhood Programs and Local Economic Development, economist Timothy Bartik concludes that high-quality universal pre-K education, high-quality child care, and the Nurse Family Partnership program all yield significant returns on investment and increased state earnings per capita, particularly in the long-term. Arthur Rolnick and Rob Grunewald from the Federal Reserve Back of Minneapolis have concluded: Compared with the billions of dollars spent each year on questionable economic development schemes, we think investment in early childhood is a far better and more promising economic development tool. We are confident that ECE investments, driven by a scalable market-based approach that focuses on at-risk children, encourage parental involvement, produce measurable outcomes, and secure a long-term commitment, will lower crime, create a stronger workforce, and yield a high public returnNot only will these efforts benefit children and families, they will benefit the taxpaying public and the national economy.
And, in research for the Foundation for Child Development by William OHare at the Annie E. Casey Foundation and Mark Mather and Genevieve Dupuis at the Population Research Center, a strong correlation clearly exists between the well-being of children and state decisions to make investments in children. As their study, titled Investing in Public Programs Matters: How State Policies Impact Childrens Lives concludes: Public investments from federal, state, and local governments matterWhen states invest in programs that benefit children and families and contribute to their well-being, children and families are better off. When states cut or neglect investing in these programs, the nation is worse off. The evidence and just simple common sense makes it clear: the choices we make with respect to children and their future matters to both them and the nation.
Action and Change

We can make the right investments now to take advantage of our nations greatest resource, its children, or we can fail them and our future. It is our choice to make, and now is the time. Just as President Barack Obama said at the prayer vigil in Newtown, Connecticut, in December, This is our first task, caring for our children. Its our first job. If we dont get that right, we dont get anything right. Thats how, as a society, we will be judged. And, as House Speaker John Boehner said on CBSs 60 Minutes in December 2010, I have been chasing the American Dream my whole career. There are some things that I have a difficult time talking aboutfamily, kidsMaking sure that these kids have a shot at the American Dream like I did is important. To do so, it takes a partnership of families, schools, communities, and yes, government to help children grow strong bodies and minds. And, Americans very much want to restore American leadership in the world and ensure that the next generation is better off than we have been. But, the simple fact is that you cannot expect returns on investments you do not make. And children have just one childhood, so they cannot wait any longer for action. Now is the time for us to start making cost-effective and targeted investments in our children or we will bear the consequences of our inaction for decades and generations to come. Our children cannot wait any longer. Bruce Lesley President, First Focus
A NOTE ON...
Sources
Normally the majority of the budget numbers in this book can be found in the yearly appropriation bills considered by Congress. However, because many of this years allocations were affected by sequestration, final data is found in each agency's fiscal year (FY) 2013 operating table. The FY 2014 data is found in the appendices to the Presidents budget request and Congressional budget justifications. Many of the 2012 and 2013 mandatory spending levels are estimates and were verified through information in the appendices. For discretionary initiatives, or areas that receive yearly funding through Congressional appropriations such as Race to the Top and Head Start, spending levels correspond to the budget authority granted by Congress. For mandatory initiatives, or areas that have their funding levels set through authorizing legislation such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), spending levels correspond to yearly outlays as shown in the appendices of the Presidents budget request and Congressional budget justifications. This method ensures that the figures in this book most accurately reflect the true amount of money spent on children each year. Calculations on the total share of spending also reflect this method.
Methodology
For the purposes of this book, children are defined as persons age 18 and under. While there are many federally supported programs entirely dedicated to children and families with children, there are also several in which children constitute only a portion of the beneficiaries. There are other programs still that may impact children much more incidentally. To determine the amount of money spent on children, this book draws on the work of the Urban Institute in their First Focus-commissioned and soon to be released report, Kids Share 2013: Report on Federal Expenditures on Children Through 2012. The Kids Share methodology is straightforward: 1. For programs that directly benefit only children and families with children, the full funding level is considered childrens spending. 2. For programs that do not limit their benefits to children, the share of program funding that is considered childrens spending mirrors the estimated percentage of program benefits that go to children. For example, annual reports indicate that nearly half of all food stamp benefits go to children. Therefore, this book considers 47 percent of food stamp spending, childrens spending. There are certain exceptions. For example, some of the large entitlement programs, such as Supplemental Security Income and the Disability Trust Fund, report how much of their program outlays go to children. In these cases, this book simply reports this amount. Finally, some programs included in this book are not included in Kids Share. These programs include the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Poison Control, and the Corporation for National and Community Service, among others. For more specific and detailed methodology on how the share of funding from most programs was determined, consult the Data Appendix in the Kids Share 2013 report. For each program individually listed in the book, the amount indicated is the total allocation from the federal budget. The share of funding allocated to children indicates the percent of funding that we include in our total calculations. For example, SNAP is funded in total at $82.6 billion for 2013, the amount listed in the Nutrition Section. However, only 47 percent of SNAP is allocated to children, so in our total funding comparison, only $38.8 billion is added. This same process is used for the funding comparisons with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Comparing Budget Levels

It is widely understood that the value of one dollar in 1913 is not the same as the value of one dollar in 2013. This is because prices for goods and services tend to increase over time. This inflation phenomenon has important consequences for long-term economic comparisons. For example, in 2000, the federal governments total budget was $1.8 trillion; this is more than 800 percent greater than the $195.6 billion spent thirty years earlier. It is important to recognize, however, that due to inflation, every dollar spent in 1970 purchased far more than that same dollar thirty years later. In this case, $195.6 billion in 1970 translates into about $828 billion in 2000. The resulting overall increase in federal spending is nearer to 100 percent, as opposed to the 800 percent previously noted. Inflation has a very real and observable impact when discussing the spending changes over time. If a program spends $100 million one year, that same $100 million will not be worth as much the next year. This discrepancy is why economists distinguish between real value and nominal value. The real value accounts for the impact of inflation from year to year, while the nominal value reports the level as it existed or exists at any given time. The nominal value of federal spending in 1970 was $195.6 billion. The real value, in year 2000 dollars, was $828 billion. Adjusting for inflation is an important step in any fiscal analysis, even a relatively short-term one. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the inflation rate was a cumulative 9.1 percent from 2009 to 2013. Therefore, any program that did not experience a nominal funding increase of at least that amount during that time is spending at a lower real level, which leads to negative real growth in spending. Analysts refer to this type of funding trend as that which fails to keeps pace with inflation. For each program listed, Childrens Budget 2013 reports the nominal funding level and the nominal percent change from the previous year, as well as the real percent change. Inflation rates have yet to be determined for 2013 and 2014, so this book assumes a 2.1 percent inflation rate for 2013, and a 2.2 percent inflation rate for 2014. These rates are based on economic assumptions in the Presidents budget tables.
100%
2009-2013
-100%
2009-2013
For each program, these arrows indicate the real percent change in funding from 2009 to 2013.
Taxes
In addition to programmatic funding, the federal government spends a significant amount of money on children through the tax system. In particular, the Child Tax Credit, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the Dependent Exemption all provide resources to families with children that families without children cannot claim. These tax policies, while integral to overall spending on children, are not included in Childrens Budget 2013 beyond this note. Though tax policies have an enormous impact on the well-being of children in the United States, tax spending is of another nature and separate from programmatic spending. For more information on the impact of tax policies on childrens spending, and how such policies have changed over time, consult Kids Share 2013: Report on Federal Expenditures on Children Through 2012.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

Childrens Budget 2013 primarily focuses on the budget authority and outlays of each program contained herein through the yearly budget process. However, starting in FY 2009, some of these programs received additional resources to spend through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), a package of tax cuts and investments intended to help stimulate economic growth and stem losses from a deepening recession. The more than two dozen federal initiatives benefitting children that received ARRA money have been spending the additional resources, and many are close to having used it all. Mindful of the enormous impact that ARRA has had, and in some cases continues to have, on the overall Individual programs that received funding from federal investment in children and individual programs, ARRA are marked with this book incorporates the effects of ARRA in several the Recovery.gov logo. ways. First, a brief separate analysis of resources from ARRA is included within the basic overview of spending that precedes each policy area. Second, individual programs that received investments from ARRA are marked with the Recovery.gov logo, as well as a colored bar containing the total amount that ARRA designated for that program. Lastly, there is a separate analysis of the overall budgetary impact of ARRA spending on childrens initiatives, found on page 169. In addition, this book relies on the Congressional Budget Offices Budget and Economic Outlook Fiscal Years 2013-2023 and the work of Julia Isaacs, et. al in the soon to be released Kids Share 2013: Report on Federal Expenditures on Children Through 2012 for projections as to the timing of the flow of ARRA money. Though these estimates are likely to be revised as circumstances change, their use allows for a greater understanding of how ARRA investments match up with existing resources. Unfortunately, these projections do not break out every line item in ARRA. For those childrens programs that are not broken out separately, analyses in this book assume that money in those programs will be spent along the same time frame as the larger categories into which they fall. It is important to reiterate that the levels contained in the program tables do not include ARRA funding, and therefore neither do the resulting percentage change values. It is still unclear at what pace the ARRA funds for some individual programs will be distributed, and it is difficult to make projections regarding overall spending levels in a given year (though the analysis on page 169 does make tentative projections on the overall pace of ARRA childrens spending, based on current estimates). This limitation should be considered when interpreting the program tables.
OVERALL SPENDING
TOTAL FEDERAL SPENDING ON CHILDREN
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 19.7% 19.7% 2010 17.2% 15.3% 2011 -0.3% -3.4% 2012 -8.7% -10.7% 2013 -0.2% -2.2%
-2.7%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 6.6% 4.7%
$ 263.3 Billion $ 308.4 Billion $ 307.5 Billion $ 280.6 Billion $ 280.1 Billion $ 298.4 Billion
Looking at the full picture of federal investments means analyzing mandatory and discretionary investments as well as investments from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). From 2009 to 2013, the total federal investment in children decreased by 2.7 percent, in real terms. In raw dollars, approximately $16.8 billion more will be spent on children out of the federal coffers this year than five years ago. However, when adjusting for inflation, investments have actually been cut by more than $8 billion. More importantly, this is the first time since First Focus began tracking the federal budget that overall spending on children has declined three years in a row. Since the peak in 2010, overall funding levels have dropped by nearly $30 billion. The decrease in spending can be attributed to the end of ARRA as well as a substantial cut in discretionary investments since 2010 (for more information on ARRA, please see page 169). In one year alone, ARRA invested nearly $50 billion for kids. Unfortunately, that investment is just about gone. Discretionary investments have been cut by more than $5 billion in the last three years as a result of sequestration, continuing resolutions, and overall budget cuts. When taking into account inflation, discretionary investments have declined by more than 12 percent since 2009. Fewer discretionary funds means fewer investments in new initiatives, and stagnant growth in those already established programs.
10
MANDATORY FEDERAL SPENDING ON CHILDREN

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 12.8% 12.8% 2010 10.2% 8.5% 2011 9.3% 5.9% 2012 -2.5% -4.6%
10.7%
2009-2013
2013 3.2% 1.0%
Obama 2014 6.7% 4.4%
DISCRETIONARY FEDERAL SPENDING ON CHILDREN

-12.3%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 12.9% 10.5%
ARRA FEDERAL SPENDING ON CHILDREN

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) N/A N/A 2010 125% 122% 2011 -34% -36% 2012 9.1 Billion $ -70.5% -71.2% 2013 $ 20.9 Billion $ 47.1 Billion $ 30.9 Billion $
-93.9%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 1.4 Billion -76.2% -76.7%
6.0 Billion $ -34.1% -35.4%
Over the last five years, the one area where there has been consistent growth is in mandatory spending, or spending that is set by legislation as opposed to annual appropriations. Overall, mandatory spending has increased in real terms 10.5 percent. While a substantial increase is positive, and some of the new mandatory investments came out of deliberate legislative choices (such as reauthorizing the Childrens Health Insurance Program), most of the increases came from automatic growth in programs that are not exclusive to children such as Medicaid, Social Security, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Much of the mandatory growth can be attributed to the economic downturn in 2008. With near record numbers of children living in poverty, more families have had to rely on the safety net to get by. Though an increase in SNAP means more kids are getting better food, it also means that fewer families are able to provide adequate nutritional resources on their own. Examples like this led to increased mandatory outlays.
11
TOTAL CHILDRENS SPENDING AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Non-ARRA Spending ARRA Spending
14% 12% 10%

8.47% 8.39% 7.69%
8% 6% 4% 2% 0%
7.19%
7.82%
8.05%
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
(Proposed)
2014
Another important indicator for national priorities is the overall share of federal spending that goes to kids. In some years, despite increases, spending on children has not kept pace with overall increases in federal spending. This means that the share of federal spending on kids has declined. In 2009, this trend is most evident. While funding for children increased by over $43 billion, total government spending increased by almost $700 billion. As the increase for children was not comparable to increases in other policy areas, funding for children as a percent of all spending dropped to 7.2 percent, down 2.5 percent from 2008. Since 2009, investments in kids have received an extra boost through spending from ARRA. However, that funding has spiked and is now running out. In 2010, spending on children peaked from ARRA, at 8.5 percent of total government spending.1 Childrens spending is still higher than pre-ARRA levels, but it has already dropped significantly. This year, investments in children will make up approximately 7.8 percent of the federal budget, falling nearly 10 percent since 2010. It is important to remember that this figure is significantly affected by the amount of total government spending. The share of funding to kids can actually increase, even if total real dollars decline, as long as the total amount of government spending decreases more. The share for the current year is an examplewhile kids funding fell nearly $4 billion, it fell less as a percent than the rest of the federal budget. Even with these statistical idiosyncrasies, federal investments in children are still less than 10 percent of the total federal budget.
Calculations and analysis of outlays on childrens 12 First Focus: Childrens Budget 2013 spending under ARRA in this publication are based on the work of Julia Isaacs, et. al in the
1
forthcoming Kids Share 2013: Report on Federal Expenditures on Children Through 2012.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

No analysis of the overall level of spending on children would be complete without discussing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (for more on the overall impact of ARRA see page 169). More than two dozen childrens programs received investments through ARRA, with the bulk of the money allocated in fiscal years (FY) 2009, 2010, and 2011. In 2013 and 2014, little of the original allocation is left, leaving many areas with an ARRA Cliff, causing a steep drop in funding. In FY 2012, $9.1 billion in ARRA funds were spent on kids, down from $30.9 billion in 2011. In 2013 that number is expected to drop to $6 billion, and only $1.4 billion in 2014. Even with the drop, the 2012 allocation still represents a 3.4 percent increase over FY 2012 non-ARRA federal spending on children. In 2013, ARRA amounts to an increase of about 2.2 percent over non-ARRA funding levels. In 2014, ARRA funding would be a 0.5 percent increase over the Presidents budget request. As mentioned earlier, the spend-down in ARRA investments is a primary reason for the overall decline in federal investments in children over the past three years. However, the impact that ARRA made on children is undeniable. From saving the jobs of thousands of teachers and school personnel, to providing hundreds of thousands of children access to early childhood education, to providing nutritious food for hungry families, in one year alone ARRA investments increased the share of funding that goes to kids by nearly 1.5 percent. It is clear with ARRA that significant new investments in children are possible and they can have an incredibly positive effect.
The Presidents 2014 Budget

After adjusting for inflation, President Obamas FY 2014 budget would increase federal spending on children by a modest 3.8 percent from current levels. Mandatory spending would increase by 4.1 percent in real terms, while discretionary spending would increase significantlyby 10.5 percent in real terms. This increase comes primarily through the restoration of sequestration cuts, which totaled nearly $4 billion for 2013, as well as significant new investments in early childhood education, childrens housing, and K-12 education. The Presidents request only increases total government spending by about 1 percent after adjusting for inflation. Even when increasing levels of spending just slightly, the President has chosen to increase investments in kids. The 2014 budget request is consistent with the Presidents previous four budgets, which all called for increased investments to kids.
TOTAL FEDERAL CHILDRENS SPENDING

500
Nominal Value Inflation Adjusted
400
BILLIONS $
300
200
100
0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

(Proposed)
CHILDREN IN THE FEDERAL BUDGET, 2013

2014
Children
All Else
13
BREAKDOWN OF FEDERAL CHILDRENS SPENDING, 2013

Health Nutrition Income Support Education Early Childhood Housing Child Welfare Military Education Training Safety
FEDERAL SPENDING ON CHILDREN, 2013

Mandatory Discretionary ARRA
Sequesters Continued and Future Impact on Kids

As a result of Congress inability to come to a long-term budget agreement, sequestration, part of the 2011 Budget Control Act, went into effect on March 1, 2013. Its across-the-board cuts have a devastating impact on kids across the nation. While many mandatory initiatives for children are exempted, like Medicaid, the Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), many other areas vital to children bear the brunt of the cuts. Education, early childhood, and childrens housing are particularly hard hit.
EDUCATION EARLY CHILDHOOD HOUSING NUTRITION HEALTH MILITARY EDUCATION CHILD WELFARE SAFETY TOTAL
$2.1 BILLION $596 MILLION $588 MILLION $354 MILLION $243 MILLION $159 MILLION $124 MILLION $37 MILLION $4.2 BILLION
14
Because of sequestration, school districts have been forced to lay off teachers and drastically reduce support services to needy students and students with disabilities. Some schools have eliminated athletics and all extracurricular activities, as well as some bus routes, making it difficult for kids to get to school. Head Start programs have had to close weeks early or cut children from enrollment. One program in Columbus, Indiana, held a lottery drawing to decide which families would lose their seats. According to the Annie E. Casey Foundations 2013 Kids Count, nearly one out of three children (32 percent) have parents who lack secure employment. First Focus data shows that 2.8 million of those children have parents who have been unemployed for six months or longer. Yet, because of sequestration, states are cutting emergency unemployment compensation by at least 10 percent, with many cutting it substantially more. And some states like North Carolina are eliminating it entirely. Due to cuts to housing, families have lost housing supports and more children will face homelessness in the coming years. As if the initial across-the-board cuts were not bad enough, the sequester remains in place through 2021, further lowering the already constrained discretionary spending caps by an average of $55 billion over the next eight years. While its not clear exactly where the cuts will fall, the overall pie available for kids discretionary initiatives will shrink dramatically. If sequestration remains in place, the pain is only going to get worse. In anticipation of further cuts, schools in Idaho have made plans to cut the school week from five days a week to four. The National Association of Federally Impacted Schools believes that some schools, particularly in rural areas, are likely to be forced to close entirely if cuts continue. The U.S. House of Representatives 2014 budget passed this spring undoes sequestration, but instead of restoring the harmful cuts for non-defense discretionary investments, it makes them far worse. Overall, the House budget substantially increases defense spending while deepening cuts to investments that matter to kids by more than $100 billion over ten years. As a result, the 2014 U.S. House of Representatives 302(b) allocation for discretionary investments cut an additional 22 percent from the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill, where most discretionary investments are made for kids. If applied proportionally, the allocation levels could mean a $15 billion cut to kids.
100
90
CHILDREN'S DISCRETIONARY SPENDING, 2009-2013

BILLIONS $
80
70
60
50
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
(Proposed)
2014
15
CHILDRENS SPENDING AS A PERCENT OF GDP
3.0%
2.5% 2.0%
1.5% 1.0%
0.5% 0% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

(Proposed)
2014
What does a 22 percent cut mean in real dollars? It means $3.2 billion in Title I cuts that help support schools in low-income areas. It means $2.5 billion less for students with disabilities. It means nearly $300 million less for schools that serve military families and Native American reservations. It means $140 million less for maternal and child health services. And it means $62 million less to protect children from child abuse and neglect. This is on top of a budget plan that turns SNAP and Medicaid into block grants, which would cut nearly $300 billion dollars over ten years, and makes harmful cuts to CHIP. The 2014 U.S. Senate budget not only protects vital investments to kids, but it also rolls back the draconian sequester cuts with a balanced plan of targeted cuts, increased revenue, and changes to mandatory programs. President Obamas budget proposes similar ideas. While both the Senate and the President offer additional cuts to discretionary spending, it is unlikely that either would place that burden on kids, since each proposal calls for significant new investments. On the appropriations front, as the House proceeds with the drastically lower levels mentioned above, the Senate is choosing to write bills at the pre-sequester level passed in the Senate budget. This higher allocation will most certainly mean an increase for kids discretionary initiatives. While these budgets have little chance of becoming law in their entirety, they do reflect a stark difference in priorities. At a time of near-record child poverty, the House proposal moves the federal government closer to a balanced budget by pushing more children into poverty. Though sequestration is undesirable, the House solution is far worse. Unfortunately, the vast difference between the House and the Senate and Presidents budgets means a final resolution for kids is unclear. This year, a continuing resolution would be particularly bad for kids, not only because it locks in lower funding levels and gives no consideration for inflation, but in FY 2014 it would also be paired with another across-the-board sequester to adhere to lower funding caps. These events could create a perfect storm for even more cuts to investments that kids depend on. With significant budget decisions left to be made, its imperative that Congress take action to ensure the best outcome possible for our nations children.
16
-11.6%
CHILD WELFARE
TOTAL SPENDING ON CHILD WELFARE
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) $ 9.2 Billion $ 4.8% 4.8% 2010 9.4 Billion $ 1.9% 0.3% 2011 9.0 Billion $ -4.6% -7.6% 2012 8.6 Billion $ -3.7% -5.8%
2009-2013
2013 8.9 Billion $ 3.3% 1.2%
Obama 2014 9.1 Billion 1.4% -0.8%
Federal spending on child welfare covers a myriad of programs, though about half of the money comes in the form of mandatory foster care payments to states. Other than foster care payments, child welfare spending also goes to aid parents who are hoping to adopt, prevent and address child abuse, provide needed services to homeless youth, and train child welfare professionals. Investments in these areas improve the well-being of the most vulnerable children in our society. The beneficiaries of child welfare investments are the children with the greatest challenges and the least family support. Over the last five years, federal spending on child welfare has not kept pace with inflation. In fact, the funding for child welfare programs in 2013 is nearly 12 percent less than the amount spent in 2009. From fiscal year (FY) 2010 to 2012, the change was due primarily to a downward trend in mandatory outlays, while discretionary investments stayed mostly flat. The increase this year was due to more investments in mandatory areas like kinship care, adoption assistance, and foster care. These made up for the drop in discretionary funding caused by sequestration.
17
CHILD WELFARE SPENDING AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING
0.40% 0.35% 0.30% 0.25% 0.20% 0.15% 0.10% 0.05% 0% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
(Proposed)
2014
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)

Two child welfare programs were recipients of ARRA funding: Payments to States for Foster Care and the Community Services Block Grant. Together, ARRA will provide nearly $1.9 billion in additional funding. In FY 2012, $32 million of ARRA funding was spent on child welfare, which is a 0.4 percent increase over 2012 non-ARRA levels. If the remaining ARRA money is spent during the timeframe projected by the Congressional Budget Office, it would result in a 0.1 percent increase for child welfare programs in FY 2013 over non-ARRA levels, exhausting all remaining ARRA investments.

In the Presidents FY 2014 budget request, child welfare spending is up by $130 million, which is a 1.4 percent increase over funding in FY 2013. While this increase would outpace the current rate of inflation, because of the cuts from 2010 to 2012, real spending in 2013 would still be substantially lower than it was in 2010. Most programs are flat funded, though the President proposes a significant investment of $67 million to adoption assistance and a $45 million investment in social services research. At the same time, the Community Services Block Grant will take a significant cut. If the Presidents budget is passed as requested, child welfare funding will be 12.2 percent lower, in real terms, than it was in 2009.
18
PROGRAMS OF SPECIAL NOTE

Payments to States for Foster Care
TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
CHILD WELFARE
-17.2%
2009-2013
$887.0 MILLION
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON ARRA FUNDING, SEE PAGE 169
Department: Health and Human Services Bureau: Administration for Children and Families Type: Mandatory | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) $ 4.7 Billion $ 3.3% 3.3% 2010 4.7 Billion $ -1.1% -2.7% 2011 4.5 Billion $ -4.8% -7.8% 2012 4.2 Billion $ -6.2% -8.2% 2013 4.3 Billion $ 2.5% 0.4% Obama 2014 4.3 Billion -0.2% -2.3%
Of the total budget for child welfare in FY 2014, the expected outlay of $4.3 billion will support the foster care program, including maintenance payments on behalf of children in care. This reflects a $2 million increase from the FY 2013 current law estimate. The Presidents budget includes a proposal seen in previous years, which provides that funds recovered by states for child support to offset the cost of Title IV-E foster care can be used instead to promote the best interest of the child, rather than as general revenue for the state. This foster care reform proposal will cost $2 million in the first year, with costs projected at $254 million over 10 years. In FY 2014, on average, an estimated 147,300 children will have payments made monthly on their behalf in the foster care program. As it stands, eligibility for federal foster care assistance remains tied to the defunct Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. As a result, the federal commitment to foster care has followed a steady downward trend, each year shifting a greater share of the burden to states to provide for children in care. As such, states are forced to compensate by drawing funds from other programs, such as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and the Social Security Block Grant, to provide for children in care. Additionally, at present there is little flexibility in the current use of the primary source of federal dollars dedicated to child welfare services, Social Security Act (SSA) Title IV-E. Restrictions on this money mean that a larger portion of federal funding is dedicated to foster care. As a result, the use of Title IV-E funds is limited to support for foster care, subsidized guardianship, and adoption services, as well as administrative costs and caseworker training. In comparison, funding for prevention and reunification services is limited primarily to the Child Welfare Services Program and the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program funds under SSA Title IV-B, a rather small pot in comparison to resources dedicated to foster care. As a result, states are limited in their capacity to implement innovative policies and practices that support and strengthen families. Restricting the use of funds to foster care hinders the ability of states to develop innovative and effective alternative service delivery models and discourages investment in prevention, intervention, and treatment services.
19
CHILD WELFARE
FEDERAL FUNDING FOR PAYMENTS TO STATES FOR FOSTER CARE

BILLIONS $
6 5 4 3 2 1 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

(Proposed)
2014
While historically child welfare systems have been responsible for ensuring the safety, permanence, and well-being of children in care, child well-being is a relatively new concept in child welfare policy and practice. Our child welfare system should begin to focus on addressing the trauma issues and unmet needs of the children in care, and in doing so, foster resiliency and promote child well-being. There are several efforts currently underway within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that support efforts in states to address trauma and promote child well-being. As an example, HHS is prioritizing Title IV-E waiver proposals that test or implement approaches that will produce positive well-being outcomes for children, youth, and their families, with particular attention to addressing the trauma experienced by children who have been abused and/or neglected. In FY 2012, HHS approved new demonstration projects in nine states. The FY 2014 budget includes a proposal targeting support for adolescents as they transition to adulthood and independence. The first is a $5 million initiative included in Social Services Research and Demonstration as part of a cross-agency effort in cooperation with the U.S. Departments of Education (ED) and Labor to identify and test new ways to strengthen services for disconnected youth ages 14 to 24 who are neither working nor in school. As part of this effort, an additional $5 million is requested by ED and $10 million by Labor. The budget provides $355 million in additional funding to the Office of Refugee Resettlement to help cover the continued sharp increase in needed services due to the increase in unaccompanied alien children being apprehended at our borders and placed in the Administration for Children and Families custody for care. The budget request also includes a new $5 million competitive child welfare services grant program to combat youth domestic sex trafficking. Funds are intended to improve coordination among the various systems, including child welfare, that come into contact with these youth and to train staff in these systems to appropriately identify and serve this vulnerable population. The Presidents budget also creates a new program to provide help to victims of human trafficking who are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. The budget provides $10 million for this domestic trafficking program. Previous funding provided through the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 authorized assistance to many trafficking victims, but only to foreign nationals.
20
Promoting Safe and Stable Families

Department: Health and Human Services Bureau: Administration for Children and Families Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
CHILD WELFARE
-13.3%
2009-2013
Mandatory
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 0.0% 0.0% 2010 0.0% -1.6% 2011 0.0% -3.1% 2012 0.0% -2.2% 2013 -5.1% -7.1%
Obama 2014 5.4% 3.1%
$ 345.0 Million $ 345.0 Million $ 345.0 Million $ 345.0 Million $ 327.4 Million $ 345.0 Million
-13.9% Discretionary
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 0.0% 0.0% 2010 0.0% -1.6% 2011 -0.2% -3.3% 2012 -0.2% -2.3% 2013 -5.4% -7.3%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 5.7% 3.4%
Initially created in 1993, Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) was reauthorized in 1997 under the Adoption and Safe Families Act. PSSF aims to prevent the unnecessary separation of children and families, improve the quality of care and services provided to children and families, and ensure permanency for children by reuniting them with birth parents when possible by adoption or an alternative permanent living arrangement. The program was amended in 2001 and again in 2005 as part of the Deficit Reduction Act. The 2006 Child and Family Services Improvement Act extended funding for the program until 2011. In September 2011, Congress reauthorized Title IV-B: The Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services Program and PSSF with the passage of the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act, which was signed into law by President Obama. PSSF supports a number of critical state (and eligible tribal) child welfare activities, including family preservation services, family support services, time-limited family reunification services, and adoption promotion and support services. PSSF, along with child welfare demonstration waivers, is one of the only sources of federal funding available to states to support a continuum of services aimed at preventing families from entering the system, safely diverting families from entry into foster care, and supporting families working toward reunification.
21
CHILD WELFARE
HHS guidelines require a 25 percent state match, and states are instructed to spend at least 20 percent of their subpart 2 funds on each of these four service categories, unless a state has a strong argument for allocating less than the required amount to any of the defined service areas. By statute, states can spend no more than 10 percent of subpart 2 funds on administrative costs. From mandatory funds, $40 million is provided for targeted grants (both formula grants and competitive grants) and of the remaining funds, 3 percent is set aside for American Indian tribes or tribal consortia. Child welfare agencies and eligible tribes are required to spend funds in accordance with their five-year plans, and additional funding is set aside ($6 million in mandatory funds and 3.3 percent of discretionary funds) for nationally funded evaluation, research, and training and technical assistance efforts. In addition, $10 million in mandatory funds and 3.3 percent of any discretionary funds are set aside for Court Improvement Program (CIP) grants. In FY 2011, an additional $20 million was added to the mandatory set-aside to continue funding for data collection and training grants under the CIP program that expired a year earlier. PSSF is a relatively small funding stream compared to the open-ended entitlement for foster care under SSA Title IV-E, but critical for the work of state social service agencies given that it may be used to provide services to children and families in need and to help keep families together. In contrast to the bulk of federal child welfare funding, which is targeted at foster care, PSSF seeks to prevent child abuse and neglect, avoid the removal of children in the first place, and support timely reunification. These funds are often combined with other state and local resources and private funds supporting a range of services including parenting classes that promote competencies and positive relationship skills, home-visiting services for at-risk parents as well as other family-based services, respite care for caregivers of children with special needs, and a range of other innovative programs and services for at-risk families. According to the FY 2009 National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, states reported that they provided prevention services to more than three million children. PSSF allowed states to pay for services to 30 percent of those children. These are critical services and we hope that the reauthorization of PSSF will only serve to strengthen the program and its core goals, and ensure its success for years to come.
22
In addition to reauthorizing Title IV-B, the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act also allows more states to apply for Title IV-E waivers, extends the Court Improvement Program that provides grants to state court systems to assess foster care and adoption laws and reduce the time it takes for children to be placed in permanent homes, and improves the effectiveness of federal child welfare data by requiring the HHS to better standardize the type of data collected from states. In addition, the new law will help improve how child deaths are reported by states, allowing better assessment of trends in this area. The budget maintains funding for PSSF at pre-sequestration levels. The budget proposes to reauthorize the Family Connection Grant program through FY 2016, and modifies it to integrate the use of trauma-informed, trauma-focused approach and services for children, youth, and families experiencing the corollary effects of child maltreatment into current areas of focus. The budget also includes funding for the Personal Responsibility Education Program at the pre-appropriated amount of $75 million. This program supports evidence-based programs that educate youth about abstinence and contraception use, targeting youth between ages 10 to 19, including those living in foster care. The budget also includes funding for abstinence education at the pre-appropriated amount of $50 million. The budget proposes to cancel unobligated balances in abstinence education and repurpose them for comprehensive approaches to prevent pregnancy among foster care youth. The new initiative re-designates approximately $12 million in abstinence education funds that are not currently drawn down by states for teen pregnancy prevention. The program would provide competitive funds to local or state child welfare agencies. Grantees would be expected to fund effective pregnancy prevention efforts for foster youth, and would not be limited to abstinence education initiatives.
CHILD WELFARE
700 600 500

MILLIONS $
FEDERAL FUNDING FOR PROMOTING SAFE AND STABLE FAMILIES

N ominal Value: Discretionary Nominal Value: Mandatory Inflation Adjusted: Discretionary
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
(Proposed)
400 300 200 100 0 2014
I nflation Adjusted: Mandatory
23
CHILD WELFARE
Abandoned Infants Assistance

Department: Health and Human Services Bureau: Administration for Children and Families Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 0.0% 0.0% 2010 -0.5% -2.0% 2011 0.3% -2.8% 2012 -0.4% -2.6% 2013 -6.4% -8.3%
-15.0%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 6.9% 4.6%
The Abandoned Infants Assistance Program awards grants to public, nonprofit, and private organizations to provide services for infants and young children, particularly those with AIDS, who remain hospitalized due to a lack of appropriate out-of-home placement alternatives. Projects include abandonment prevention and residential care programs.
Adoption Awareness
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 4.0% 4.0% 2010 0.0% -1.6% 2011 -100.0% -100.0% 2012 N/A N/A 2013 N/A N/A
-100%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 N/A N/A
$ 13.0 Million $ 13.0 Million $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
The Infant Adoption Awareness Training Program supports the development and implementation of programs to train designated staff of eligible health centers to provide adoption information, referrals, and counseling to pregnant women.
24
CHILD WELFARE
Adoption Incentives
-6.8%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 5.7% 3.4%
The Adoption Incentives Program provides incentive payments to states that increase the number of adoptions of children in the public foster care system.
Adoption Opportunities
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 0.0% 0.0% 2010 0.0% -1.6% 2011 48.8% 44.2% 2012 -0.2% -2.3% 2013 -6.4% -8.3%
27.0%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 6.9% 4.6%
Adoption Opportunities grants provide funds for projects designed to eliminate barriers to adoption and help find permanent families for children who would benefit from adoption, particularly children with special needs.
25
CHILD WELFARE
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Programs

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 15.3% 15.3% 2010 -11.6% -13.0% 2011 -3.5% -6.5% 2012 -0.2% -2.3% 2013 -6.4% -8.3%
-27.1%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 6.9% 4.6%
The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act is a critical part of federal efforts to assist states and communities in addressing the need for innovative and effective child abuse prevention and treatment services.
Child Welfare Services

-14.8%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 6.9% 4.6%
The Child Welfare Services State Grants Program is designed to establish, extend, and strengthen child welfare services. Funds may be used for services such as investigation of child abuse and neglect reports, removal of children from a home for their safety, and financial support for children in foster care.
26
Child Welfare Training

213.6%
2009-2013
CHILD WELFARE
Obama 2014 5.5% 3.2%
Child Welfare Services Training Grants provide funds to accredited public or other nonprofit institutions of higher learning for specific projects to train prospective and current personnel for work in the field of child welfare.
Children, Youth, and Families at Risk

Department: Agriculture Bureau: Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
-21.6%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 13.9% 11.5%
The Children, Youth, and Families at Risk Program supports the development of community-based educational programs that equip limited resource families and youth who are at risk for not meeting basic human needs with the skills they need to lead positive and productive lives.
16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

(Proposed)
TOTAL FEDERAL SPENDING ON CHILD WELFARE PROGRAMS

BILLIONS $
2014
27
CHILD WELFARE
Community Services Block Grant

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 14.1% 14.1% 2010 0.0% -1.6% 2011 -6.0% -8.9% 2012 1.5% -0.7% 2013 -6.2% -8.1%
-18.1%
2009-2013
TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
$1.0 BILLION Obama 2014 -47.6% -48.8%

The Community Services Block Grant Program offers funds to states to address the causes of poverty by providing effective services in communities. Activities may include coordination and referral to other programs, as well as direct services such as child care, transportation, employment, education, and self-help projects.
Kinship Guardianship
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) N/A N/A 2010 250.0% 244.5% 2011 -40.8% -42.7% 2012 155.2% 149.7% 2013 66.2% 62.8%
703.0%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 0.8% -1.4%
Kinship Guardianship assistance payments are made on behalf of children to grandparents and other relatives who have assumed legal guardianship of those children. States are able to use federal Title IV-E funds for this purpose. In order to receive payments, a state must negotiate and enter into a written binding kinship guardianship assistance agreement with the prospective relative guardian.
REAL PERCENT CHANGE IN SPENDING, 2009-2013
0%
-2% -4% -6% -8% -10% -12% Child Welfare Spending (Mandatory) Total Mandatory Spending Total Federal Budget
28
CHILD WELFARE
Mentoring Children of Prisoners

-100%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 N/A N/A
$ 49.3 Million $ 49.3 Million $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
The Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program funded projects linking children of incarcerated parents with mentors, and supported the establishment and operation of mentoring programs.
Payments to States for Adoption Assistance

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) $ 2.3 Billion $ 8.0% 8.0% 2010 2.5 Billion $ 5.8% 4.1% 2011 2.4 Billion $ -4.1% -7.0% 2012 2.3 Billion $ -2.8% -4.9% 2013 2.4 Billion $ 4.4% 2.2%
-5.9%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 2.5 Billion 2.8% 0.6%
The Adoption Assistance Program provides funds to states to develop adoption assistance agreements with parents who adopt children with a specific condition or situation that prevents placements without further assistance from the state. States may also make payments to those parents on behalf of the children.
29
CHILD WELFARE
Payments to States for Foster Care

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) $ 4.7 Billion $ 3.3% 3.3% 2010 4.7 Billion $ -1.1% -2.7% 2011 4.5 Billion $ -4.8% -7.8% 2012 4.2 Billion $ -6.2% -8.2% 2013 4.3 Billion $ 2.5% 0.4%
-17.2%
2009-2013
TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
$887.0 MILLION Obama 2014 4.3 Billion -0.2% -2.3%

Title IV-E of the Social Security Act is the main source of dedicated federal child welfare funding provided to states. Title IV-E allows states to apply for and receive federal matching funds for child welfare activities. For more information, see Programs of Special Note, page 19.
Promoting Safe and Stable Families

-13.3%
2009-2013
Mandatory
Obama 2014 5.4% 3.1%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 5.7% 3.4%
The Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program offers grants to states to help prevent the unnecessary separation of children from their families, to improve the quality of care and services to children and their families, and to promote family reunification. For more information, see Programs of Special Note, page 21.
30
CHILD WELFARE
Social Services Block Grant

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) $ 1.7 Billion $ 0.0% 0.0% 2010 1.8 Billion $ 5.0% 3.3% 2011 1.8 Billion $ 0.1% -3.0% 2012 1.7 Billion $ -4.0% -6.1% 2013 1.9 Billion $ 11.3% 9.0%
2.6%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 2.1 Billion 8.1% 5.7%
The Social Services Block Grant offers funds to states to provide social services that best suit the needs of individuals in that state. Services typically include child day care, protective services for children and adults, and home care services for the elderly and handicapped.
Social Services Research

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) -4.4% -4.4% 2010 25.2% 23.3% 2011 -77.3% -78.0% 2012 0.0% -2.2% 2013 0.0% -2.1%
-74.0%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 763.6% 745.0%
The Social Services Research and Demonstration Program promotes the ability of families to be financially self-sufficient and supports the healthy development and greater social well-being of children and families.
31
CHILD WELFARE
Victims of Domestic Trafficking

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) N/A N/A N/A 2010 N/A N/A N/A 2011 N/A N/A N/A 2012 N/A N/A N/A 2013 N/A N/A
NEW PROGRAM SINCE 09
Obama 2014 N/A N/A
N/A $ 10.0 Million
This new proposal will focus on providing competitive grants and demonstration projects to state, local, and tribal governments and nonprofit organizations that already have experience working with trafficking victims, or that work with populations most likely to become victims such as runaway or homeless youth and domestic violence victims.
32
-3.1%
EARLY CHILDHOOD
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 2.5% 2.5% 2010 -0.8% -2.4% 2011 5.9% 2.6% 2012 2.1% -0.1%
2009-2013
TOTAL SPENDING ON EARLY CHILDHOOD

2013 -1.1% -3.1% Obama 2014 34.3% 31.4% $ 13.1 Billion $ 13.0 Billion $ 13.8 Billion $ 14.0 Billion $ 13.9 Billion $ 18.6 Billion
Most of the federal programs that affect early childhood are managed by the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Education (ED). The two largest programs, Head Start and the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) fall under HHS. For the purposes of this book, early childhood programs primarily affect children from birth to age five, though programs that affect children up through age eight can also have an impact. Federal early childhood initiatives affect children from all states and territories, and are mostly across all income groups. It can be argued that federal spending on early childhood is one of the best investments that can be made. According to Nobel laureate economist James Heckman, high-quality early learning opportunities are one of the most cost-effective ways to improve childrens education, health, and economic outcomes, providing a near $7 return for every $1 spent. The importance of early childhood is indisputable and as such, these programs are separated into their own section. Total federal investments for early childhood education have generally seen an increase over the past four years, until 2013, when funding was significantly impacted by sequestration. Much of the long-term increase can be attributed to the more than $850 million increase in Head Start funding from 2009 to 2012. There has also
33
EARLY CHILDHOOD SPENDING AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING
0.8% 0.7% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
(Proposed)
2014
been a significant increase in funding for the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Visiting Program that is part of the Affordable Care Act. As many other programs were cut, or at best level funded, early childhood funding increased in real terms by 2.4 percent from 2010 to 2012. Funding is even higher when you add in the $500 million Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge approved in fiscal year (FY) 2011. This program will solely benefit states to design, improve, and implement cross-sector integrated systems of early learning and development. Officially counted under the Race to the Top account, this program is included in the Education section of this book. In FY 2012 and FY 2013, Race to the Top received funding and ED has pledged that some of that will also again go to early learning. Unfortunately, this year marks an end to the upward trend. Due to the sequester, discretionary early childhood investments were cut by nearly $500 million. Those cuts could have been even deeper if not for some last minute increases included in the Continuing Resolution for FY 2013. As a result of the sequester, thousands of children will lose access to Head Start and thousands more will lose child care supports. One Head Start center in Indiana held a lottery to choose the kids that would be kicked out of their program. Because of unwise fiscal policy, investments in early childhood took a step back.

ARRA included about $4.6 billion in funding for early childhood programs, through increases to the Head Start, CCDBG, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2009 Grants for Infants and Families. In FY 2012, $278 million of ARRA early childhood funds were spent. This equals a 2 percent increase over non-ARRA 2012 levels. If projections by the Congressional Budget Office are correct, the remaining $65 million of ARRA money will be spent in 2013. This would represent a small 0.5 percent increase over nonARRA 2013 levels, exhausting all remaining ARRA funds for early childhood education. Though ARRA was intended to act as economic stimulus, the early childhood funding helped to bring these programs in line with inflation and make up for flat appropriations prior to 2009. Excluding gains in 2011, when adjusted for inflation, funding from 2006 to 2010 for Head Start fell 1.6 percent while CCDBG fell by 4.8 percent. The ARRA funding helped 13,000 more three- and four-year-old students enroll in Head Start
34
0%
-5%
-10%
-15%
-20% Early Childhood Spending (Discretionary) Total Discretionary Spending Total Federal Budget
and 48,000 more infants and toddlers benefit from Early Head Start, increasing the size of the program by nearly 75 percent. Not wanting to reduce the number of available slots, the ARRA investment has helped spur Congress to increase its long-term commitment to Head Start. The CCDBG funding helped states decrease waiting lists for child care, increase reimbursement rates for child care providers, and invest in high-quality data systems and professional development.

The Presidents commitment to the importance of early learning and development is reflected in his 2014 request. His budget proposes a landmark Preschool for All initiative to make sure that all children have access to high-quality early childhood education (for more information on Preschool for All, see page 42). In addition to the significant investment in Preschool for All, nearly every program would receive an increased investment. Over $2 billion will go towards Head Start and an expansion of the Early Head Start component. This increase will not only help serve an extra 110,000 children from birth to age three, but will also help increase the quality of existing programs. The budget request also expands the focus on early learning and development from birth through third grade, supporting the crucial connection between high-quality early development and later academic and social success. This connection is made with programs like Promise Neighborhoods, Race to the Top, and Investing in Education; though technically included in Education, they each contain a component that will positively impact early childhood funding. President Obamas FY 2014 budget request includes a substantial increase to early childhood resources from 2013 levels. In real terms, the 2014 request is a 27.4 percent increase over funding in 2009 and 34.3 percent over 2013. Unfortunately, federal early childhood programs still reach just a fraction of the children and families who are eligible. In 2011, only one in six eligible children received child care assistance. Only 4 percent of eligible infants and toddlers participated in Early Head Start, and less than half of eligible preschool-age children participated in Head Start. Whether it is the Presidents plan or another plan for expansion, continued investments are needed to improve those numbers.
35

Head Start
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year $ 7.1 Billion $ 3.1% 3.1% 2010 7.2 Billion $ 1.7% 0.1% 2011 7.6 Billion $ 4.5% 1.3% 2012 8.0 Billion $ 5.4% 3.1% 2013 7.6 Billion $ -5.0% -6.9% Obama 2014 9.6 Billion 27.0% 24.3%
-2.7%
2009-2013
TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
$2.1 BILLION
EARLY CHILDHOOD
Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted)
Head Start provides comprehensive child development services for economically disadvantaged children and their families. Based on established evidence that the earliest years are critical to childrens growth and development, Congress established Early Head Start in FY 1995, to serve children from birth to three years of age. Public and private nonprofit and for-profit agencies are eligible for funding. Local Head Start programs promote the social, emotional, and cognitive development of children through comprehensive education, health, nutrition, social, and other services. A primary goal is also to engage parents in their childrens learning. The Presidents budget request includes a significant increase to fund new Early Head Start-Child Care partnerships. This investment would create competitive grants for new and existing Early Head Start sites that partner with child care providers, meet Early Head Start quality requirements, and serve a high number of children from birth to age three with child care subsidies. This investment would help enroll 110,000 new children, nearly doubling current Early Head Start enrollment, and greatly increasing the availability of high-quality infant and toddler care.
FEDERAL FUNDING FOR HEAD START

BILLIONS $
16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

(Proposed)
2014
36
10 9 8 7
BILLIONS $
FEDERAL FUNDING FOR CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS

Nominal Value: Discretionary Nominal Value: Mandatory I nflation Adjusted: Discretionary
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
(Proposed)
6 5 4 3 2 1 0 2014
Inflation Adjusted: Mandatory
EARLY CHILDHOOD
Child Care and Development Block Grant

TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
$2.0 BILLION
-10.0%
2009-2013
Mandatory
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) $ 3.0 Billion $ 1.4% 1.4% 2010 2.7 Billion $ -7.8% -9.2% 2011 3.1 Billion $ 13.8% 10.3% 2012 2.8 Billion $ -8.8% -10.7% 2013 2.9 Billion $ 2.8% 0.7%
Obama 2014 3.3 Billion 14.2% 11.8%
-5.2% Discretionary
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) $ 2.1 Billion $ 3.2% 3.2% 2010 2.1 Billion $ 0.0% -1.6% 2011 2.2 Billion $ 4.5% 1.3% 2012 2.3 Billion $ 2.5% 0.3% 2013 2.2 Billion $ -3.2% -5.2%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 2.5 Billion 12.4% 9.9%
The Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) is the primary federal investment specifically devoted to child care services and quality. It provides funding to states, tribes, and territories to make child care more affordable for low-income families. This funding makes it possible for low-income parents and parents receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) to work or to participate in educational or training programs they need in order to work. Funds provide child care vouchers to families; states may also provide access through contracts with child care centers. States may also use CCDBG grants to serve children in protective services. Additionally, a portion of CCDBG funds must be used to enhance the quality of child care services.
37
Preschool for All*

Department: Education Bureau: Innovation and Instructional Teams Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) N/A N/A N/A 2010 N/A N/A N/A 2011 N/A N/A N/A 2012 N/A N/A N/A 2013
Obama 2014 1.3 Billion N/A N/A
N/A $ N/A N/A
EARLY CHILDHOOD
Preschool Development Grants*

Obama 2014 N/A N/A
N/A $ 750.0 Million
* Though these programs are technically separate items in the budget, together they make up the Presidents proposal for universal early learning.
Preschool for All is a new investment that will create state-federal partnerships to ensure that high-quality pre-Kindergarten (pre-K) is available to all four-year-olds living in homes with incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty guidelines. Funding would go to states with public pre-K systems meeting certain quality requirementssuch as class size and student to teacher ratios, curriculum requirements, and on-site comprehensive services. Funding would be allocated to states based on the number of four-year-olds in the state who live in homes with incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty guidelines. Over 10 years the federal share of spending would decrease incrementally while the state portion increases. Funding could also be used to expand full-day Kindergarten and access to pre-K for three-year-olds, if the state already has high-quality universal pre-K for four-year-olds. Preschool Development Grants are competitive grants for states to expand or create high-quality pre-K initiatives for four-year-olds from low- and moderate-income families. These grants would be used to improve the quality of existing pre-K systems, build infrastructure for high-quality pre-K, or take local high-quality pre-K initiatives to statewide scale.
38
Child Care and Development Block Grant

TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
$2.1 BILLION
-10.0%
2009-2013
Mandatory
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) $ 3.0 Billion $ 1.4% 1.4% 2010 2.7 Billion $ -7.8% -9.2% 2011 3.1 Billion $ 13.8% 10.3% 2012 2.8 Billion $ -8.8% -10.7% 2013 2.9 Billion $ 2.8% 0.7%
Obama 2014 3.3 Billion 14.2% 11.8%
EARLY CHILDHOOD
-5.2% Discretionary
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) $ 2.1 Billion $ 3.2% 3.2% 2010 2.1 Billion $ 0.0% -1.6% 2011 2.2 Billion $ 4.5% 1.3% 2012 2.3 Billion $ 2.5% 0.3% 2013 2.2 Billion $ -3.2% -5.2%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 2.5 Billion 12.4% 9.9%
The Child Care and Development Block Grant makes funding available to states, tribes, and territories to assist qualifying low-income families in obtaining child care so that parents can work or attend classes or training. For more information, see Programs of Special Note, page 37.
39
Child Care Access Means Parents in School

Department: Education Bureau: Higher Education Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
-13.7%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 5.5% 3.3%
EARLY CHILDHOOD
The Child Care Access Means Parents in School program supports the participation of low-income parents in postsecondary education through the provision of campus-based child care services.
Even Start Family Literacy Program

Department: Education Bureau: Education for the Disadvantaged Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
-100%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 N/A N/A
$ 66.5 Million $ 66.5 Million $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
The Even Start Family Literacy Program integrates early childhood education, adult literacy, and adult basic education with parenting education into a unified family literacy program that serves low-income families with young children.
TOTAL FEDERAL SPENDING ON EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS

BILLIONS $
25
20
15
10
0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

(Proposed)
2014
40
Head Start
TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
-2.7%
2009-2013
$2.1 BILLION
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) $ 7.1 Billion $ 3.1% 3.1% 2010 7.2 Billion $ 1.7% 0.1% 2011 7.6 Billion $ 4.5% 1.3% 2012 8.0 Billion $ 5.4% 3.1% 2013 7.6 Billion $ -5.0% -6.9% Obama 2014 9.6 Billion 27.0% 24.3%
Head Starts goal is to bridge the gap that exists between economically disadvantaged children and their more advantaged peers by providing education, social, health, and nutrition services to low-income children before they enter school. For more information, see Programs of Special Note, page 36.
EARLY CHILDHOOD
IDEA BPreschool Grants

Department: Education Bureau: Special Education Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
-13.7%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 5.5% 3.2%
Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities are awarded to states to assist them in providing free appropriate public education to children with disabilities ages three through five years, and at a states discretion, to two-year-old children with disabilities who will reach age three during the school year.
IDEA CGrants for Infants and Families

TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
-12.7%
2009-2013
$500.0 MILLION
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 0.9% 0.9% 2010 0.0% -1.6% 2011 -0.2% -3.3% 2012 0.9% -1.2% 2013 -5.2% -7.2% Obama 2014 10.3% 7.9%
Grants for Infants and Families with Disabilities provide funding to states to assist them in implementing and maintaining a comprehensive, multidisciplinary, and interagency system that provides early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families.
41
Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program

Department: Health and Human Services Bureau: Health Resources and Services Administration Type: Mandatory | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) N/A N/A 2010 N/A N/A 2011 3,500.0% 3,388.4% 2012 238.9% 231.6% 2013 228.7% 221.9%
Obama 2014 -0.2% -2.4%
N/A $ 1.0 Million $ 36.0 Million $ 122.0 Million $ 401.0 Million $ 400.0 Million
EARLY CHILDHOOD
The Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program provides funding for nurses, social workers, or other professionals to meet with at-risk families in their homes, evaluate the families circumstances, and connect them to the kinds of help that can make a difference in a childs health, development, and ability to learn. Services includes health care, developmental services for children, early education, parenting skills, child abuse prevention, and nutrition education or assistance.
Preschool Development Grants

Department: Education Bureau: School Readiness Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
Obama 2014 N/A N/A
N/A $ 750.0 Million
These competitive grants would allow for states to expand or create high-quality pre-K initiatives for four-year-olds from low- and moderate-income families. For more information, see Programs of Special Note, page 38.
Preschool for All

Department: Education Bureau: School Readiness Type: Mandatory | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
N/A $ N/A N/A
Preschool for All is a new investment that will create state-federal partnerships to ensure that high-quality pre-Kindergarten (pre-K) is available to all four-year-olds living in homes with incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty guidelines. For more information, see Programs of Special Note, page 38.
42
EDUCATION
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 2.6% 2.6% 2010 4.0% 2.4% 2011 7.3% 3.9% 2012 -3.4% -5.5%
14.7%
2009-2013
TOTAL SPENDING ON CHILDRENS EDUCATION

Though most education spending in the United States comes from state and local sources, there are, nevertheless, over 80 different federally-funded education programs that benefit young people.1 These programs affect children of all ages, ranging from infants to high school students preparing for college. These programs affect children from all states and territories, and across all income groups. Early childhood programs like Head Start are not included in the Education section of this book, but can be found in the Early Childhood section. In 2013, the federal government will invest $37 billion a year on education programs directed at children, amounting to nearly a half of all federal discretionary spending on children. Education took the biggest cut of any childrens investments from sequestration. Total federal spending for childrens education declined by more than 15 percent, after inflation, from 2012 to 2013. Overall, real spending on education was cut by nearly $7 billion, on top of a more than $2 billion real cut the year before. This means hundreds of millions of dollars cut from Title I funding for Disadvantaged Students, funding for disabled students, and Impact Aid funding for school districts with military bases and large pieces of
Childrens education spending includes all programs, regardless of their Department, that pertain to the category. This includes programs like the National Science Foundation that are not housed in the Department of Education. Additionally, childrens education spending includes First Focus: Childrens Budget 2013 43 only dollars spent on children under the age of 18. As a result, higher education programs and adult education programs are not included.
CHILDRENS EDUCATION SPENDING AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING
1.8% 1.5% 1.2% 0.9% 0.6% 0.3% 0% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
(Proposed)
2014
federal land. Districts have been forced to lay off teachers and support staffincreasing class sizes and cutting services that families count on like tutoring, athletics, and before and after care. Some school districts are even contemplating limiting their school bus routes. Prior to 2012, overall spending had been on the rise, particularly in response to state level cuts because of the recession. Most of this increase came as a result of mandatory spending on one program, the Education Jobs Fund. First included in the budget in 2010, the Education Jobs Fund provided additional stimulus funding of nearly $10 billion, paid out over several years, to help states avoid laying-off large numbers of teachers. This funding has helped save over 300,000 teacher jobs nationwide, but has now been exhausted. The decline is even larger when considering the impact on just K-12 education. In 2011, Race to The Top received $700 million, the largest increase for any education investment. Of that money, $500 million will be used for a separate Early Learning Challenge dedicated solely to early childhood education, and not K-12. Since Race to The Top is considered a K-12 program, it is included in our education section. In 2012 and 2013, Race to the Top was funded at $550 million and $520 million respectively, again with a significant though yet undetermined amount going to early childhood. Overall, because of sequestration and flat funding through the 2013 continuing resolution, every single education initiative was cut from 2012 to 2013.

Nearly two thirds of all the childrens programmatic and direct spending contained in AARA went or will go towards education. $38.6 billion will flow through a State Fiscal Stabilization Fund to shore up the finances of local educational agencies. Another $24.7 billion will go toward grants for Title I and Special Education. All together, ARRA included more than $67.6 billion in additional funding for childrens education. In fiscal year 2012, $6.3 billion dollars of ARRA funds will be spent on childrens education, a 14.6 percent increase over non-ARRA 2012 levels. If projections by the Congressional Budget Office are correct, $2.1 billion of ARRA money will be spent in 2013. This would represent a 5.6 percent increase over the non-ARRA 2013 levels. Funding is all but exhausted for 2014.
44

The proposed 2014 budget for childrens education is a substantial increase from 2013 as the President restores all sequestration cuts. In real terms the discretionary levels are not quite as generous. Discretionary funding would increase only 0.36 percent over pre-sequestration levels in 2012. Mandatory funding would increase by $5 billion, with the creation of a new initiative, Recognizing Education Success, Professional Excellence, & Collaborative Teaching, which would help reshape and support teacher training, teacher leadership, and professional development. Looking at long term funding levels, in real dollars, the 2014 budget request is still nearly an 11 percent drop from 2009. The Presidents 2014 commitment to K-12 education is reflected in selective increases with key competitive initiatives, such as Race to the Top, Investing in Innovation, and Promise Neighborhoods. However, the budget request also freezes funding for a number of programs that benefit specific student subgroups such as homeless students, English Language Learners and youth transitioning out of the justice system. Furthermore, Title I and IDEA grants, aimed at supporting the most disadvantaged students, receive stagnant funding. The Presidents budget request again calls for the consolidation of numerous initiatives into 10 streamlined programs. This is the fourth year that the Obama administration has pushed for a consolidation plan, folding key programs for family literacy and parent engagement into larger pots of money. Not included in the totals is the proposed American Jobs Act legislation, while unlikely to pass, would provide a substantial funding increase.
45

Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 4.3% 4.3% 2010 0.0% -1.6% 2011 -0.2% -3.3% 2012 0.4% -1.8% 2013 -5.2% -7.2% Obama 2014 5.5% 3.2%
-13.2%
2009-2013
TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
$10.0 BILLION
One of the largest discretionary programs for children and youth, Title I is the carrot and the stick of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. The purpose of Title I is to provide financial assistance to school districts and schools serving low-income students to help them meet challenging academic standards. Title I funds are distributed to school districts based on a four-part formula that targets resources to low-income students. Funds are used to implement targeted assistance, which helps poor students who are at risk of failing, or are failing, to meet state academic standards. Additionally, schools that enroll at least 40 percent of students from families in poverty may operate a school-wide Title I model to serve all children in the school. Title I funds impact students in almost every community in the country. Of all school districts, 93 percent participate in Title I and over half of the nations public schools receive Title I funding. Of the schools that receive Title I funds, about three-quarters are elementary schools. Altogether, Title I grants reach about 20 million American children each year.
EDUCATION
46
20
15
BILLIONS $
FEDERAL FUNDING FOR TITLE I GRANTS TO LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCIES

Nominal Value
10
Inflation Adjusted
0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

(Proposed)
2014
Title I outlines the accountability and sanction system by which all public schools that accept Title I funding must abide. Under NCLB, states must set performance targets that lead to all students attaining proficiency in math and reading by the 2013-2014 school year. Students in grades three through eight are required to take annual state exams in math and reading every year, and once in grades 10 through 12. Title I schools and school districts that do not make adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward the achievement of state standards are subject to sanctions and eventually complete restructuring. While funding for Title I Grants had been stagnant in the years leading up to 2007, they experienced a boost in FY 2008 of about $1 billion, and then another small increase of about $600 million in FY 2009. Funding for Title I was greatly affected by the sequester, with schools across the nation set to lose nearly $700 million. President Obama has called for maintaining the pre-sequestration of funding in FY 2014. However, the need in our K-12 school continues to rise. Nearly one in four children live in poverty in the United States and the U.S. Department of Education (ED) estimates that 270,000 more students will be attending public schools during the 2013-2014 school year. Thus, a return to pre-sequester levels for Title I will actually result in a reduction in services to students when the impact of inflation, enrollment increases, and an increase in students in poverty are factored in. Level funding alone represents a real decrease of 2.2 percent, or nearly $350 million. ESEA, including Title I, expired in 2007 and still awaits reauthorization in the 113th Congress. Several changes are anticipated, including modifications to the accountability system that include differentiated sanctions for schools that do not make AYP, stronger accountability for graduation rates, and stronger alignment between state standards and the skills and knowledge necessary for college and work. Though many states have been granted waivers by ED to design their own plans, a national reauthorization seems unlikely. A greater investment in Title I is needed to protect and expand opportunities that address the learning needs of low-income students.
EDUCATION
47
Education for Homeless Children and Youth

Department: Education Bureau: School Improvement Programs Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
-13.7%
2009-2013
TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
$70.0 MILLION Obama 2014 5.5% 3.2%

Education for Homeless Children and Youth is the education subtitle of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. Under this initiative, local school districts permit students who become homeless to stay at their school of origin, even if they move away because of their housing situation, by providing transportation to and from school each day. Additionally, because many homeless students have difficulty keeping track of their records, McKinney-Vento allows homeless students to immediately enroll in school with or without the records that may normally be required for enrollment. Finally, funding from McKinney-Vento supports state coordinators and homeless assistance liaisons in school districts to help identify homeless students, assist them in school enrollment, and coordinate services to maximize academic success. Education for Homeless Children and Youth helps mitigate some of the negative consequences of homelessness for children. Excessive mobility, for example, has a detrimental impact on student success. According to ED, a child who changes schools takes four to six months to recover academically. Compared to other children, homeless children are twice as likely to repeat a grade, four times as likely to have developmental delays, and twice as likely to have learning disabilities, according to the National Center on Family Homelessness.
EDUCATION
48
100 90 80 70
MILLIONS $
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

(Proposed)
FEDERAL FUNDING FOR EDUCATION FOR HOMELESS CHILDREN AND YOUTH

2014
The stability provided through McKinney-Vento helps to prevent homeless students from falling behind in their schoolwork despite any instability they might experience outside of school. Students can receive, but are not limited to, some of the following services: tutoring or other instructional support; referrals for medical, dental, or other health services; transportation; clothing; and school supplies. During the 2010-2011 school year (the most recent year data is available), over one million students were identified as homeless by ED, an 11 percent increase since the 2008-2009 school year. Nationally, 44 states (83 percent) reported increases in the total number of homeless children and youth enrolled in school districts. Of homeless school children in America, 72 percent are temporarily sharing housing with others because they have no place else to go, while another 18 percent are living in shelters, 5 percent are living in motels, and another 5 percent have no shelter at all. Only 22 percent of school districts receive subgrants from Education for Homeless Children and Youth to provide services to homeless students. Additional funds are significantly needed to reach a larger share of this vulnerable population so that they can enroll, attend, and succeed in school. Despite the increasing need, funding for Education for Homeless Children and Youth has been relatively flat up to 2013, when sequestration cut more than $3 million. This is a real drop of more than 7 percent. President Obamas budget request restores funding at pre-sequester levels and again does little to reflect the increase need for homeless services. The Education for Homeless Children and Youth initiative is up for reauthorization concurrent with the reauthorization of ESEA. To protect and strengthen this successful program, policy makers are considering improving the capacity of local liaisons, and authorizing a separate transportation fund to help school districts defray the cost of transportation.
EDUCATION
49
English Language Acquisition State Grants

Department: Education Bureau: English Language Acquisition Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
-13.1%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 5.5% 3.2%
English Language Acquisition State Grants ensure that English language learner (ELL) children learn academic English, develop high levels of academic achievement, and meet the same challenging state academic standards as all children. These grants assists states, school districts, and higher education institutions in building capacity by upgrading curricula and providing teacher training opportunities to more effectively teach ELL students. In 2009, over 5.3 million ELL students attended U.S. public schools, making up almost 11 percent of total student enrollment. Furthermore, nearly half of all Hispanic students, the second largest and fastest-growing demographic group in Americas schools, are ELL students. From 2000 to 2010, the Hispanic population in the United States increased by 43 percent and the number of Hispanic children grew 39 percent. Unfortunately, wide gaps still exist between ELL students and their English-fluent peers. In 2011, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, only 29 percent of eighth-grade ELL students scored at or above the basic
EDUCATION
50
1,000
800
MILLIONS $
600
FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION STATE GRANTS

400
200
0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

(Proposed)
2014
achievement level in reading, compared to 78 percent of non-ELL students. Only 31 percent of fourth grade ELL students scored at or above the basic achievement level in reading, compared to 72 percent of non-ELL students. These academic outcomes call for a wider and deeper effort to bridge this achievement gap. President Obamas FY 2014 budget request restores funding at pre-sequestration levels. However, the federal investment in ELL will be cut by nearly $40 million in 2013. Given that achievement gaps still persist between ELL and non-ELL students, leveling the funding fails to adequately meet the need of the rapidly growing ELL population. These burgeoning numbers of ELL students pose unique challenges for educators striving to ensure that such students get access to the core curriculum in schools and acquire academic knowledge, as well as English language skills. The Presidents request misses an opportunity to move the nation closer to meeting the needs of these students and the schools serving them. A more significant investment remains essential.
EDUCATION
51
21st Century Community Learning Centers

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) $ 1.1 Billion $ 4.6% 4.6% 2010 1.2 Billion $ 3.1% 1.5% 2011 1.2 Billion $ -1.1% -4.1% 2012 1.2 Billion $ -0.2% -2.3% 2013 1.2 Billion $ -5.2% -7.2%
-11.8%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 1.3 Billion 14.7% 12.2%
The 21st Century Community Learning Centers program supports the creation of community learning centers for students who attend high-poverty and low-performing schools. The program also helps students meet standards in core academic subjects, such as reading and math.
Academies for American History and Civics

Department: Education Bureau: Innovation and Improvement Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year 0.0% 0.0% 2010 -6.7% -8.2% 2011 -100.0% -100.0% 2012 N/A N/A 2013 N/A N/A
-100%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 N/A N/A
$ 1.9 Million $ 1.8 Million $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
EDUCATION
This program supports the establishment of Presidential Academies for Teachers of American History and Civics that offer workshops for teachers of American history and civics to strengthen their knowledge and preparation for teaching these subjects. The program also supports the establishment of Congressional Academies for Students of American History and Civics to help high school students develop a broader and deeper understanding of these subjects.
Advanced Credentialing
-100%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 N/A N/A
$ 10.6 Million $ 10.6 Million $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
The Advanced Credentialing Program supports teachers seeking advanced certification or advanced credentialing through high-quality professional programs designed to improve teaching and learning.
52
Advanced Placement
-40.2%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 -100.0%
$ 43.5 Million $ 45.8 Million $ 43.3 Million $ 30.1 Million $ 28.5 Million $ 0
EDUCATION
-100.0%
The Advanced Placement (AP) Program supports state and local efforts to increase access to advanced placement classes and tests for low-income students. It also helps states pay AP test fees for low-income students.
Alaska Native Educational Equity

-13.7%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 5.5% 3.2%
The Alaska Native Educational Program supports projects that recognize and address the educational needs of Native Alaskan students, parents, and teachers.
53
Alcohol Abuse Reduction

Department: Education Bureau: Safe Schools and Citizenship Education Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 0.9% 0.9% 2010 0.0% -1.6% 2011 -78.9% -79.5% 2012 -100.0% -100.0% 2013 N/A N/A
-100%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 N/A N/A
$ 32.7 Million $ 32.7 Million $ 6.9 Million $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Grants to Reduce Alcohol Abuse assist schools in the development and implementation of innovative and effective alcohol abuse prevention programs for secondary school students.
American Printing House for the Blind

Department: Education Bureau: Special Institutions for Persons with Disabilities Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
-6.1%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 5.5% 3.2%
EDUCATION
The American Printing House for the Blind produces and distributes educational materials to public and nonprofit institutions serving individuals who are blind through allotments to the states. These materials are adapted for students who are legally blind and enrolled in formal education programs below college level.
54
Arts in Education
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 9.5% 9.5% 2010 2.7% 1.1% 2011 72.6% 67.3% 2012 -10.4% -12.3% 2013 -3.8% -5.8%
39.7%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 -100.0% -100.0%
Arts in Education encourages the involvement of, and fosters greater awareness of the need for, arts programs for persons with disabilities.
Carol M. White Physical Education for Progress Program

-12.6%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 -100.0% -100.0%
EDUCATION
The Carol M. White Physical Education Program provides grants to initiate, expand, and improve physical education programs for K-12 students. Funds may be used to provide equipment and support staff and teacher training and education.
Character Education
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) -50.0% -50.0% 2010 -100.0% -100.0% 2011 N/A N/A 2012 N/A N/A 2013 N/A N/A
-100%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 N/A N/A
$ 11.9 Million $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
The Character Education Program supports character education programs to be integrated into classroom instruction and carried out in conjunction with other education reform efforts. Programs must take into consideration views of students, parents, and other members of the community.
55
Charter School Grants

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year 2.4% 2.4% 2010 18.5% 16.6% 2011 -0.2% -3.3% 2012 -0.2% -2.3% 2013 -5.3% -7.3%
2.2%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 -100.0% -100.0%
EDUCATION
Charter School Grants support the planning, development, and initial implementation of charter schools.
Civic Education
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 4.8% 4.8% 2010 4.6% 3.0% 2011 -96.7% -96.8% 2012 -100.0% -100.0% 2013 N/A N/A
-100%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 N/A N/A
Civic Education Program funds are used to improve the quality of civics and government education programs in Americas schools. The goal is to promote and strengthen civic responsibility among students.
56
Close Up Fellowships
-100%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 N/A N/A
$ 1.9 Million $ 1.9 Million $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
The Close Up Fellowship Program provides financial aid to the Close Up Foundation to enable low-income students, their teachers, and recent immigrants to come to Washington, D.C. to study the operations of the three branches of the federal government.
College Pathways and Accelerated Learning

Department: Education Bureau: Education Improvement Programs Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
Obama 2014 N/A N/A
N/A $ 102.0 Million
EDUCATION
This proposal would support competitive funds to provide college-level and accelerated courses and instruction, including gifted and talented programs, in high-poverty schools. It consolidates funding for the following programs: Advanced Placement, High School Graduation Initiative, and Javits Gifted and Talented Education.
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

(Proposed)
TOTAL FEDERAL SPENDING ON CHILDRENS EDUCATION PROGRAMS

BILLIONS $
2014
57
Comprehensive Centers
-22.5%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 5.5% 3.2%
The Comprehensive Centers Program supports 21 comprehensive centers that provide training, technical assistance, and professional development in reading, mathematics, and technology to assist districts and schools in meeting their student achievement goals.
Corporation for National and Community Service

Department: Independent Agency Bureau: N/A Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 40%
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year $ 889.9 Million $ 3.9% 3.9% 2010 1.1 Billion $ 29.2% 27.2% 2011 1.1 Billion $ -6.4% -9.3% 2012 1.0 Billion $ -2.5% -4.6% 2013 1.0 Billion $ -5.2% -7.2%
2.1%
2009-2013
TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
$200.0 MILLION Obama 2014 1.1 Billion 6.7% 4.4%

EDUCATION
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) is the nations largest grant maker supporting service and volunteering. Through its three main programsSenior Corps, AmeriCorps, and Learn and Serve AmericaCNCS provides volunteer and community service opportunities to Americans of all ages.
Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 0.0% 0.0% 2010 0.0% -1.6% 2011 20.9% 17.2% 2012 -100.0% -100.0% 2013 N/A N/A
-100%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 N/A N/A
Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities grants help public charter schools improve their credit in order to obtain private sector capital to buy, construct, renovate, or lease academic facilities. The Department of Education established this program to allow charter schools to overcome financial challenges that can limit their ability to find appropriate accommodations.
58
Early Reading First

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 0.0% 0.0% 2010 -100.0% -100.0% 2011 N/A N/A 2012 N/A N/A 2013 N/A N/A
-100%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 N/A
$ 112.5 Million $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
EDUCATION
N/A
Early Reading First supports the development of early childhood centers of excellence that provide preschool age children, particularly those from low-income families, with language and cognitive skills and an early reading foundation.
Education Construction
Department: Interior Bureau: Bureau of Indian Affairs Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) -9.9% -9.9% 2010 -12.3% -13.7% 2011 24.4% 20.5% 2012 -49.6% -50.7% 2013 -25.5% -27.0%
-62.6%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 -0.9% -3.1%
The Education Construction Program supports the construction and renovation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs schools and dormitories, with the goal of improving student performance and teacher effectiveness.
59
Education for Homeless Children and Youth

-13.7%
2009-2013
TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
$70.0 MILLION Obama 2014 5.5% 3.2%

This program helps to mitigate some of the negative consequences of homelessness for children. The funding supports state coordinators and homeless assistance liaisons in school districts to help identify homeless students, assist them in school enrollment, and coordinate services for them so that they will succeed. For more information, see Programs of Special Note, page 48.
Education for Native Hawaiians

-11.1%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 5.5% 3.2%
EDUCATION
The Native Hawaiian Education Programs purpose is to develop innovative educational programs to assist native Hawaiians and to supplement and expand existing educational programs for this population.
60
Education Jobs Fund (P.L. 111-226)

Department: Education Bureau: Education Jobs Fund Type: Mandatory | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) $ 0 $ N/A N/A 2010 1.2 Billion $ N/A N/A 2011 5.1 Billion $ 310.4% 297.7% 2012 -26.6% -28.2% 2013 -100.0% -100.0%
Obama 2014 N/A N/A
3.7 Billion $ 0 $ 0
This program provides money to states to pay salaries and benefits and to rehire, retain, or hire school-based employees. These funds are specifically targeted at providing educational and related services for early childhood, elementary, and secondary education. The funds may not be used by the local school districts for administrative expenses, overhead, or other support services.
Education Statistics
Department: Education Bureau: Institute of Education Sciences Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 11.4% 11.4% 2010 10.2% 8.4% 2011 -0.2% -3.3% 2012 0.4% -1.8% 2013 -5.2% -7.2%
-4.4%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 19.1% 16.5%
EDUCATION
The Federal Statistics Program collects, analyzes, and reports statistics and information showing the condition and progress of education in the United States and other nations in order to promote and accelerate the improvement of American education.
Educational Technology State Grants

TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
-100%
2009-2013
$650.0 MILLION
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 0.0% 0.0% 2010 -62.6% -63.2% 2011 -100.0% -100.0% 2012 N/A N/A 2013 N/A N/A Obama 2014 N/A N/A
$ 267.5 Million $ 100.0 Million $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
The Enhancing Education Through Technology Program is designed to improve student academic achievement through the use of technology in schools, assist all students in becoming technologically literate by the end of eighth grade, and encourage the integration of technology with teacher training and curriculum development to establish successful research-based instructional methods.
61
Effective Teachers and Leaders State Grants

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) N/A N/A 2010 N/A N/A 2011 N/A N/A 2012 N/A N/A 2013 N/A N/A
$ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $
This proposal would provide formula funds to states and local school districts to recruit, prepare, support, reward, and retain effective teachers, principals, and other school leaders, especially in high-need schools. It consolidates funding for the following programs: Ready-to-Teach and Teacher Quality State Grants.
Effective Teaching and Learning for a Well-Rounded Education

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year N/A N/A 2010 N/A N/A 2011 N/A N/A 2012 N/A N/A 2013 N/A N/A
Obama 2014 N/A N/A
$ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 75.0 Million
EDUCATION
This proposal would provide competitive grants to high-need local school districts, or entities in partnership with at least one high-need local school district, to develop and expand innovative practices to improve teaching and learning in the arts, foreign languages, civics and government, history, geography, and other subjects. It consolidates funding for the following programs: Academies for American History and Civics, Arts in Education, Civic Education, Close Up Fellowships, Excellence in Economic Education, Foreign Language Assistance, and Teaching American History.
0%
-5%
-10%
-15%
-20% Childrens Education Spending (Discretionary) Total Discretionary Spending Total Federal Budget
62
Effective Teaching and Learning: Literacy

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) N/A N/A 2010 N/A N/A 2011 N/A N/A 2012 N/A N/A 2013 N/A N/A
Obama 2014 N/A
$ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 186.9 Million
EDUCATION
N/A
This proposal would provide competitive grants to states, State Education Agencies (SEAs), or SEAs in partnership with outside entities to support comprehensive state and local efforts to improve literacy instruction, particularly in high-need schools. It consolidates funding for the following programs: Even Start, Improving Literacy Through School Libraries, the National Writing Project, Reading is Fundamental, Ready to Learn Television, and Striving Readers.
Elementary and Secondary School Counseling

-12.9%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 -100.0% -100.0%
The Elementary and Secondary School Counseling Program provides grants to Local Education Agencies to establish or expand elementary and secondary counseling programs. Funded projects tend to use a developmentally appropriate preventative approach, including in-service training, and involve parents and community groups.
63
English Language Acquisition State Grants

Department: Education Bureau: English Language Acquisition Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
-13.1%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 5.5% 3.2%
EDUCATION
The English Language Acquisition State Grants Program ensures that English language learner (ELL) children learn academic English, develop high levels of academic achievement, and meet the same challenging state academic standards as all children. The program assists states, school districts, and higher education institutions in building capacity, including upgrading curricula and providing teacher training to more effectively teach ELL students. For more information, see Programs of Special Note, page 50.
Evaluation of Title I Programs

-69.8%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 -100.0% -100.0%
Evaluation funds are used to carry out a national assessment of Title I that examines how well schools, school districts, and states are implementing the Title I Grants to LEAs program, as well as the programs impact on improving student academic achievement.
64
Expanding Educational Options

Obama 2014 N/A N/A
N/A $ 294.8 Million
This proposal would support two competitive grant opportunities to increase education options for students attending low-performing schools: (1) Supporting Effective Charter School Grants and (2) Promoting Public School Choice Grants. It consolidates funding for the following programs: Charter School Grants, Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities, Parental Information and Resource Centers, Smaller Learning Communities, and Voluntary Public School Choice.
Foreign Language Assistance

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 2.6% 2.6% 2010 2.3% 0.7% 2011 -0.2% -3.3% 2012 -100.0% -100.0% 2013 N/A N/A
-100%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 N/A N/A
EDUCATION
The Foreign Language Assistance Program provides grants to support innovative foreign language programs for elementary and secondary school students.
Fund for the Improvement of Education

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) -1.9% -1.9% 2010 4.6% 3.0% 2011 -83.4% -83.9% 2012 -0.2% -2.3% 2013 -5.2% -7.2%
-84.9%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 19.6% 17.0%
The Fund for the Improvement of Education supports activities to improve the quality of elementary and secondary education and to assist all students in meeting academic standards.
65
Gallaudet University
Department: Education Bureau: Special Institutions for Persons with Disabilities Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 31%
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 9.4% 9.4% 2010 -0.8% -2.4% 2011 -0.2% -3.3% 2012 2.3% 0.0% 2013 -5.2% -7.2%
-12.3%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 -1.2% -3.3%
Gallaudet University provides a liberal education and career development for deaf and hard-of-hearing undergraduate students. The University runs two federally supported elementary and secondary programs for deaf and hard-of-hearing children.
GEAR UP
-16.4%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 5.5% 3.2%
EDUCATION
GEAR UP assists states in providing services and financial assistance in high-poverty middle and high schools with the goal of increasing the number of low-income students who are prepared to enter and succeed in postsecondary education.
Grants to Local Education Agencies for Indian Education

Department: Education Bureau: Indian Education Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
-7.6%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 5.5% 3.2%
The Indian Education Grant Program addresses the academic needs of Indian students, including preschool children, by helping Indian children sharpen their academic skills, assisting students in becoming proficient in the core content areas, and providing students with an opportunity to participate in enrichment programs that would otherwise be unavailable.
66
High School Graduation Initiative

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) N/A N/A 2010 N/A N/A 2011 -2.2% -5.2% 2012 -0.2% -2.3% 2013 -5.2% -7.2%
Obama 2014 -100.0% -100.0%
N/A $ 50.0 Million $ 48.9 Million $ 48.8 Million $ 46.3 Million $ 0
The High School Graduation Initiative provides funding for grants to Local Education Agencies to implement proven strategies for reducing the number of students who drop out before completing secondary school and for assisting youth to reenter school after they have dropped out.
High School Redesign

Obama 2014 N/A N/A
N/A $ 300.0 Million
EDUCATION
This newly proposed competition would fund district partnerships with postsecondary institutions and business, industry, nonprofits or community based organizations to redesign high schools. Redesigned high schools would ensure that students graduate from high school with college credit and career-related experience, putting them on a path to career and college success.
67
IDEA BGrants to States

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year 4.2% 4.2% 2010 0.0% -1.6% 2011 -0.2% -3.3% 2012 0.8% -1.3% 2013 -5.2% -7.2%
-12.8%
2009-2013
TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
$11.7 BILLION Obama 2014 5.5% 3.2%

EDUCATION
Special Education Grants to States assist states in meeting the cost of providing free special education and related services to children with disabilities.
IDEA DParent Information Centers

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 1.9% 1.9% 2010 3.7% 2.1% 2011 -0.2% -3.3% 2012 3.4% 1.2% 2013 -5.2% -7.2%
-7.3%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 5.5% 3.2%
The Parent Information Centers Program funds parent information centers and community parent centers to ensure that parents of children with disabilities receive training and information to help improve results for their children.
68
IDEA DPersonnel Preparation

-15.6%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 2.5% 0.3%
The Personnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities Program provides funds to be used to train personnel in leadership, early intervention and early childhood, low-incidence, high-incidence, related services, special education, and regular education in order to work with children with disabilities.
IDEA DState Personnel Development

-20.7%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 8.1% 5.8%
EDUCATION
The State Personnel Development Grant Program assists State Educational Agencies in reforming and improving their systems for personnel preparation and professional development of individuals providing early intervention, educational, and transition services in order to improve results for children with disabilities.
IDEA DTechnical Assistance and Dissemination

-16.5%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 5.5% 3.2%
The Technical Assistance and Dissemination Program is designed to promote academic achievement and improve results for children with disabilities by supporting technical assistance, model demonstration projects, dissemination of information, and implementation activities that are supported by scientifically-based research.
69
IDEA DTechnology and Media Services

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) -1.7% -1.7% 2010 13.9% 12.1% 2011 -34.9% -36.9% 2012 3.3% 1.1% 2013 -5.2% -7.2%
-33.6%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 5.5% 3.2%
The Technology and Media Services Program promotes the use of technology and supports educational media activities for children with disabilities. It also provides support for captioning and video description services for use in classrooms to improve results for children with disabilities.
Impact Aid
Department: Education Bureau: Impact Aid Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year $ 1.3 Billion $ 2.0% 2.0% 2010 1.3 Billion $ 0.8% -0.8% 2011 1.3 Billion $ -0.2% -3.3% 2012 1.3 Billion $ 1.4% -0.8% 2013 1.2 Billion $ -5.2% -7.2%
-11.6%
2009-2013
TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
$100.0 MILLION Obama 2014 1.2 Billion 0.0% -2.1%

EDUCATION
Impact Aid provides financial support to school districts affected by federal activities, with the goal of providing quality education to children living on Indian and other federal lands.
70
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

(Proposed)
BILLIONS $
TOTAL DISCRETIONARY SPENDING ON CHILDRENS EDUCATION PROGRAMS

2014
Improving Literacy Through School Libraries

-100%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 N/A
$ 19.1 Million $ 19.1 Million $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
EDUCATION
N/A
The Improving Literacy Through School Libraries Program helps Local Education Agencies improve reading achievement by providing students with increased access to up-to-date school library materials, a well-equipped technologically advanced school library media center, and professionally certified school library media specialists.
Indian Education
Department: Interior Bureau: Bureau of Indian Affairs Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
-3.8%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 6.5% 4.2%
The Bureau of Indian Education is a service organization devoted to providing quality education for American Indian people. It operates and maintains 184 elementary and secondary schools for 50,000 students.
71
Investing in Innovation
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) N/A N/A N/A 2010 N/A N/A 2011 N/A N/A 2012 -0.2% -2.3% 2013 -5.2% -7.2%
Obama 2014 51.8% 48.6%
N/A $ 149.7 Million $ 149.4 Million $ 141.6 Million $ 215.0 Million
This program, based on the $640 million program authorized by ARRA, provides grants to develop and validate promising practices, strategies, or programs for which there is potential but for which efficacy has not yet been systematically studied.
Javits Gifted and Talented Education

-100%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 N/A N/A
$ 7.5 Million $ 7.5 Million $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
EDUCATION
The Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Grant Program supports state and local education agencies, institutions of higher education, and other public and private agencies and organizations to stimulate research, development, training, and similar activities designed to meet the special educational needs of gifted and talented elementary and secondary school students.
Magnet Schools Assistance

-20.1%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 8.7% 6.4%
The Magnet Schools Assistance Program supports the development and implementation of magnet schools that are part of approved desegregation plans and that are designed to bring together students from different social, economic, racial, and ethnic backgrounds.
72
Mathematics and Science Partnerships

-27.5%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 -100.0% -100.0%
Mathematics and Science Partnerships support projects to improve the academic achievement of students in mathematics and science.
Migrant Education Program

-13.7%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 5.5% 3.2%
EDUCATION
The Migrant Education State Grant Program assists states in providing education and support services to ensure that migratory children have the opportunity to meet the same challenging state content and performance standards expected of all children.
73
National Activities for Indian Education

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year 0.0% 0.0% 2010 0.0% -1.6% 2011 -0.2% -3.3% 2012 51.2% 48.0% 2013 -5.2% -7.2%
30.7%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 5.5% 3.2%
EDUCATION
National Activities funds are used to expand efforts to improve research, evaluation, and data collection on the status and effectiveness of Indian education programs.
National Assessment of Educational Progress

-13.7%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 0.9% -1.2%
The National Assessment of Educational Progress supports programs that assess the academic performance of students nationwide in reading, mathematics, science, writing, U.S. history, civics, geography, and the arts.
74
National Programs for Vocational Education

Department: Education Bureau: Career, Technical and Adult Education Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 48%
-13.7%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 140.3% 135.1%
Vocational Education National Programs support research, development, demonstration, dissemination, evaluation, and assessment activities aimed at improving the quality and effectiveness of vocational and technical education.
National Science Foundation K-12 Programs

Department: National Science Foundation Bureau: Education and Human Resources Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 25%
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 16.5% 16.5% 2010 3.3% 1.6% 2011 -1.3% -4.4% 2012 -3.7% -5.8% 2013 6.6% 4.4%
-4.5%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 -0.3% -2.5%
EDUCATION
Through its Education and Human Resources Department, the National Science Foundation funds several projects and programs that seek to improve K-12 science education.
National Writing Project

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 3.0% 3.0% 2010 5.6% 3.9% 2011 -100.0% -100.0% 2012 N/A N/A 2013 N/A N/A
-100%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 N/A N/A
$ 24.3 Million $ 25.6 Million $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
The National Writing Project supports K-16 teacher training programs that promote effective strategies to teach writing.
75
Parental Information and Resource Centers

-100%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 N/A N/A
$ 39.3 Million $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Parental Information and Resource Centers help implement successful and effective parental involvement policies, programs, and activities that lead to improvements in student academic achievement and that strengthen partnerships among parents, teachers, principals, administrators, and other school personnel.
Promise Neighborhoods
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year N/A N/A 2010 N/A N/A 2011 200.0% 190.7% 2012 99.6% 95.3% 2013 -5.2% -7.2%
Obama 2014 428.6% 417.2%
EDUCATION
Promise Neighborhoods provides grants to community-based organizations for the development and implementation of plans for comprehensive neighborhood services modeled after the Harlem Childrens Zone.
PROMISE: Promoting Readiness of Minors in SSI

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) N/A N/A N/A 2010 N/A N/A N/A 2011 N/A N/A 2012 N/A N/A 2013 -5.2% -7.2%
Obama 2014 -100.0% -100.0%
N/A $ 2.0 Million $ 1.9 Million $ 0
This program develops and evaluates innovative approaches to improving outcomes for children receiving Supplemental Security Income and their families.
76
Race to the Top

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) N/A N/A N/A 2010 N/A N/A 2011 N/A N/A 2012 -21.4% -23.1% 2013 -5.2% -7.2%
Obama 2014 1.0 Billion 92.2%
N/A $ 698.6 Million $ 549.0 Million $ 520.2 Million $
EDUCATION
88.1%
This program, modeled after the $4 billion program authorized by ARRA, creates incentives for state and local reforms and innovation that lead to significant improvements in student achievement, high school graduation rates, and college enrollment rates.This years appropriation will be used to again fund early childhood innovation as well as grants to individual school districts.
Reading is Fundamental
-100%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 N/A N/A
$ 24.8 Million $ 24.8 Million $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Reading is Fundamental provides books for low-income children and youths from infancy to high school age and supports activities to motivate them to read.
77
Ready to Learn Television

-7.2%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 -100.0% -100.0%
EDUCATION
Ready to Learn Television supports the development of educational television programming for preschool and early elementary school children and their families.
Recognizing Education Success, Professional Excellence, & Collaborative Teaching (RESPECT)

N/A $ N/A N/A
Funds under this new competitive grant would be used to reform teacher and principal preparation programs; strengthen teacher and principal evaluation and professional development systems; redesign educator career ladders and compensation systems to attract and retain top talent; and create conditions in schools that support effective teaching, including by providing teachers greater autonomy, shared leadership and responsibility for student outcomes, and time for collaboration.
78
Regional Educational Laboratories

-26.4%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 5.5% 3.2%
The Regional Educational Laboratories Program supports laboratories that conduct applied research and development, provide technical assistance, develop multimedia educational materials and other products, and disseminate information, in an effort to help others use knowledge from research and practice to improve education.
Research, Development and Dissemination

-1.7%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 12.5% 10.0%
EDUCATION
The Education Research, Development and Dissemination Program supports the development and distribution of scientifically valid research, evaluation, and data collection that supports learning and improves academic achievement.
Research in Special Education

-38.8%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 26.7% 23.9%
The Research in Special Education Program supports scientifically rigorous research contributing to the solution for specific early intervention and educational problems associated with children with disabilities.
79
Rural Education
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 0.9% 0.9% 2010 0.9% -0.7% 2011 -0.2% -3.3% 2012 2.7% 0.5% 2013 -5.2% -7.2%
-10.5%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 5.5% 3.2%
The Rural Education Program provides financial assistance to rural school districts to carry out activities to help improve the quality of teaching and learning in their schools.
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities National Activities

-59.6%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 -100.0% -100.0%
EDUCATION
The goals of the National Activities are to enhance the countrys efforts to prevent illegal drug use, reduce violence among students, and promote safety and discipline for students at all educational levels by supporting drug and violence prevention and education activities.
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grant Program

-100%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 N/A N/A
$ 294.8 Million $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grant Program provides support for a variety of drug and violence prevention activities focused primarily on school-aged youths. Activities are coordinated with related federal, state, and community efforts and resources.
80
School Improvement Grants

TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
-15.3%
2009-2013
$3.0 BILLION
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 11.1% 11.1% 2010 0.0% -1.6% 2011 -2.0% -5.1% 2012 -0.2% -2.3% 2013 -5.2% -7.2% Obama 2014 30.2%
EDUCATION
27.4%
School Improvement Grants provide academic support and learning opportunities to Local Education Agencies and schools with high numbers or a high percentage of poor children to ensure that these children meet academic achievement standards.
School Leadership
31.2%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 255.3% 247.6%
The School Leadership Program provides grants to support the development, enhancement, or expansion of innovative programs to recruit, train, and mentor principals and assistant principals for high-need schools.
81
Smaller Learning Communities

-100%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 N/A N/A
$ 88.0 Million $ 88.0 Million $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
The Smaller Learning Communities program supports school districts and large schools in the development, implementation, and expansion of more effective and personalized learning environments by reducing the size of schools and by creating schools within schools.
Special Education Studies and Evaluations

4.5%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 5.5% 3.2%
EDUCATION
The Special Education Studies and Evaluations Program is designed to assess progress in implementing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, including the effectiveness of state and local efforts to provide free appropriate public education to children with disabilities and early intervention services to infants and toddlers with disabilities.
Special Olympics Education Programs

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) -31.3% -31.3% 2010 0.0% -1.6% 2011 -0.2% -3.3% 2012 -1.0% -3.1% 2013 -5.2% -7.2%
-14.4%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 5.5% 3.2%
These programs provide financial assistance to the Special Olympics for activities that promote expansion of the Special Olympics and for the design and implementation of education programs that can be integrated into classroom instruction.
82
Special Programs for Indian Children

-13.7%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 5.5% 3.2%
Special Program grants are used for projects and programs that improve Indian student achievement through early childhood education and college preparation programs, and for professional development grants for training Indians who are preparing to begin careers in teaching and school administration.
State Assessments and Enhanced Assessment Instruments

-17.9%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 5.5%
EDUCATION
3.2%
State Assessment Grants support the development or subsequent implementation of standards-based state academic assessments.
83
State Grants for Career and Technical Education

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year $ 1.2 Billion $ -1.2% -1.2% 2010 1.2 Billion $ 0.0% -1.6% 2011 1.1 Billion $ -3.2% -6.2% 2012 1.1 Billion $ -0.1% -2.2% 2013 1.1 Billion $ -5.2% -7.2%
-16.2%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 1.1 Billion 5.5% 3.2%
EDUCATION
State Grants for Career and Technical Education provide states with funds to more fully develop the academic, career, and technical skills of secondary and postsecondary students in career and technical programs.
State Grants for Improving Teacher Quality

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) $ 3.0 Billion $ -0.4% -0.4% 2010 3.0 Billion $ 0.0% -1.6% 2011 2.5 Billion $ -16.3% -18.9% 2012 2.5 Billion $ -0.1% -2.2% 2013 2.3 Billion -5.2% -7.2%
-27.5%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 0 -100.0% -100.0%
State Grants for Improving Teacher Quality are designed to increase academic achievement of children by recruiting and retaining highly qualified teachers and principals and holding Local Education Agencies and schools accountable for improvements in student academic achievement.
84
Statewide Data Systems

TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
-49.3%
2009-2013
$250.0 MILLION
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 34.6% 34.6% 2010 -10.4% -11.8% 2011 -27.6% -29.9% 2012 -9.7% -11.6% 2013 -5.2% -7.2% Obama 2014 135.6% 130.5%
These grants are given to state education agencies so they can design, develop, and implement statewide, longitudinal data systems that efficiently and accurately manage, analyze, and disaggregate individual student data. Grants may support salaries, travel, equipment, and supplies as required to carry out these efforts.
STEM Innovation
Obama 2014 N/A N/A
N/A $ 414.7 Million
EDUCATION
This reorganization of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) initiatives will help to increase the impact of federal investments, focusing on things like increasing the number of STEM students, building a virtual learning network, and creating a STEM master teacher corps.
Striving Readers
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 0.0% 0.0% 2010 465.4% 456.5% 2011 -100.0% -100.0% 2012 N/A N/A 2013 -5.2% -7.2%
291.2%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 -100.0% -100.0%
$ 35.4 Million $ 200.0 Million $ 0 $ 159.7 Million $ 151.4 Million $ 0
The Striving Readers Program supports efforts to improve the reading skills of struggling middle school and high school aged readers.
85
Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students

Department: Education Bureau: Supporting Student Success Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
Obama 2014 N/A N/A
N/A $ 280.0 Million
This proposal would authorize funds to support states, local school districts, and schools in their comprehensive efforts to create safe, healthy, and drug-free environments that promote improved teaching and learning. It consolidates funding for the following programs: Alcohol Abuse Reduction, the Carol M. White Physical Education for Progress Program, Elementary and Secondary School Counseling, Foundations for Learning, Mental Health Integration in Schools, and Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities National Activities.
Teach For America

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) N/A N/A 2010 N/A N/A 2011 -100.0% -100.0% 2012 N/A N/A 2013 N/A N/A
Obama 2014 N/A N/A
N/A $ 18.0 Million $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
EDUCATION
Teach For America recruits, selects, trains, and supports recent college graduates who commit to serve as teachers for at least two years in high-need schools.
86
Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund

Obama 2014 N/A N/A
N/A $ 400.0 Million
This proposal would fund competitive grants to states and local school districts to implement bold plans to improve the education workforce in high-need schools. It consolidates funding for the following programs: Advanced Credentialing and the Teacher Incentive Fund.
Teacher Incentive Fund Grants

TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
166.6%
2009-2013
$200.0 MILLION
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 0.0% 0.0% 2010 311.2% 304.8% 2011 -0.2% -3.3% 2012 -25.0% -26.6% 2013 -5.2% -7.2% Obama 2014 -100.0% -100.0%
EDUCATION
The Teacher Incentive Fund supports efforts to develop and implement performance-based teacher and principal compensation systems in high-need schools.
Teacher Quality Partnerships

-25.8%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 -100.0% -100.0%
Teacher Quality Partnership grants are meant to reduce the shortages of qualified teachers in high-need school districts and improve the quality of the current and future teaching force.
87
Teaching of Traditional American History

-100%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 N/A N/A
The Teaching of Traditional American History program is designed to raise student achievement by helping teachers develop a greater understanding of traditional American history.
Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies

-13.2%
2009-2013
TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
$10.0 BILLION Obama 2014 5.5% 3.2%

EDUCATION
The purpose of Title I is to provide financial assistance to school districts and schools serving low-income students in order to help them meet challenging academic standards. Title I funds are distributed to school districts based on a four-part formula that targets resources to low-income students. For more information, see Programs of Special Note, page 46.
Title I Neglected and Delinquent Program

-13.7%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 5.5% 3.2%
The Title I Neglected and Delinquent Program provides grants to state education agencies to provide educational continuity for children and youth in state-run institutions as well as in adult correctional institutions.
88
Training and Advisory Services

-36.4%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 5.5%
EDUCATION
3.2%
The Training and Advisory Services Program funds Equity Assistance Centers to provide technical assistance and training, upon request, in the areas of race, sex, and national origin to public school districts and other responsible governmental agencies to help schools and communities ensure that equitable education opportunities are available and accessible for all children.
Transition to Teaching
-48.4%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 -100.0% -100.0%
The Transition to Teaching program provides grants to recruit and retrain highly qualified mid-career professionals and recent graduates of institutions of higher education as licensed and successful teachers in high-need schools.
89
TRIO Programs
-14.2%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 5.5% 3.2%
The federal TRIO Programs include six outreach and support programs targeted to serve and assist low-income, first-generation college students and students with disabilities to progress from middle school to post-baccalaureate programs.
Voluntary Public School Choice

-100%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 N/A N/A
EDUCATION
The Voluntary Public School Choice Program supports projects that provide parents, particularly parents of children attending low-performance public schools, with expanded education options by establishing or expanding intradistrict, interdistrict, and open enrollment public school choice programs.
90
-3.6%
EDUCATION: MILITARY
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) $ 1.8 Billion $ 6.0% 6.0% 2010 1.9 Billion $ 8.5% 6.8% 2011 1.9 Billion $ -0.4% -3.5% 2012 2.0 Billion $ 5.4% 3.1%
2009-2013
TOTAL SPENDING ON MILITARY EDUCATION1

2013 1.9 Billion $ -7.3% -9.3% Obama 2014 1.9 Billion 3.7% 1.5%
Of the nearly two million U.S. children who have parents connected with the military, 1.1 million are school age. The overwhelming majority, about 80 percent of these students, attend U.S. public schools. Roughly 8 percent are enrolled in schools run by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), which operates 191 schools in 14 districts located in 12 foreign countries, seven states, Guam, and Puerto Rico. The Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) operates these schools through two programs. The Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools serve dependents within the continental United States as well as Cuba, Guam, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The DoD Dependents Schools serve dependents outside the continental United States. DoDEA also provides support and resources to local school districts that serve children of military families through the Impact Aid program. The program began in 1950 as a Department of Education effort to support local school districts with high concentrations of military children. The program was subsequently expanded to include children who live on Indian and other federal lands that are exempt from local property taxes. Since 1990, when Department of Education Impact Aid funds began to decline, DoDEA has provided a supplement to school districts whose military child populations are 20 percent or greater.
At the time this book was published, the Department of Defense had not yet released final FY 2013 for all accounts. These figures Firstfunding Focus: levels Childrens Budget 2013 91 are based off an estimated 7.8 percent sequester cut to all defense discretionary items as ordered by the Office of Management and Budget.
CHILDRENS MILITARY EDUCATION SPENDING AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING
0.10% 0.09% 0.08% 0.07% 0.06% 0.05% 0.04% 0.03% 0.02% 0.01% 0% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
(Proposed)
2014
While 2009 to 2012 had seen a steady increase in investments for military schools, this years funding took a significant cut because of sequestration. When adjusting for inflation, investments in 2013 have been cut by 9.3 percent, with a drop of nearly $200 million. Unfortunately, the Department of Defense has announced that military schools will be closed an extra five days in the 2013-2014 school year to cover the cuts. These cuts and closures will put an additional strain on children and families with loved ones serving in the armed forces.

President Obamas fiscal year (FY) 2014 budget request is a small increase from 2013, rising 1.5 percent when adjusting for inflation. This includes a restoration of sequestration cuts and no request for Supplemental Impact Aid. Troops to Teachers would receive a small boost. If the Presidents budget is passed as requested, funding for military schools would be 2.1 percent lower, in real terms, than it was in 2009.
0%
-5%
-10%
-15%
-20% Military Education Spending (Discretionary) Total Discretionary Spending Total Federal Budget
92
Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA)

Department: Defense Bureau: N/A Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) $ 1.7 Billion $ 5.7% 5.7% 2010 1.9 Billion $ 8.9% 7.2% 2011 1.9 Billion $ -0.3% -3.4% 2012 2.0 Billion $ 5.2% 3.0% 2013 1.8 Billion $ -7.3% -9.2%
-3.2%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 1.9 Billion 6.0% 3.7%
DoDEA is the agency of the Department of Defense that oversees all schools on military bases abroad.
Supplemental to Impact Aid

Department: Defense Bureau: N/A Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 25.7% 25.7% 2010 -6.8% -8.3% 2011 -2.4% -5.5% 2012 12.5% 10.1% 2013 -10.0% -11.9%
-15.9%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 -100.0% -100.0%
The Supplemental to Impact Aid Program provides financial assistance to LEAs that are heavily impacted by the presence of military dependent students.
EDUCATION: MILITARY
93
Troops to Teachers
Department: Defense Bureau: Defense Dependents Education Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 0.0% 0.0% 2010 0.0% -1.6% 2011 0.1% -3.0% 2012 4.2% 1.9% 2013 -7.3% -9.2%
-11.7%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 14.3% 11.8%
The Troops to Teachers program assists eligible members of the armed forces to obtain certification or licensing as elementary, secondary, vocational, or technical school teachers and helps these individuals find employment in high-need Local Education Agencies or charter schools.
BILLIONS $
TOTAL FEDERAL SPENDING ON CHILDRENS MILITARY EDUCATION PROGRAMS

3.0
2.5 2.0
1.5 1.0
0.5 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

(Proposed)
2014
EDUCATION: MILITARY
94
HEALTH
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 14.2% 14.2% 2010 16.7% 14.8% 2011 2.1% -1.1% 2012 -6.1% -8.1%
7.3%
2009-2013
TOTAL SPENDING ON CHILDRENS HEALTH

2013 5.0% 2.8% Obama 2014 11.6% 9.2% $ 60.4 Billion $ 70.5 Billion $ 72.0 Billion $ 67.6 Billion $ 71.0 Billion $ 79.2 Billion
Since a drop in funding in 2012, investments in childrens health are once again on the rise. The majority of this increase comes from increases in Medicaid outlays because of higher need. Medicaid outlays had dropped substantially in 2012 because expansions passed with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), then subsequently extended, had expired. An increase in outlays for the Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP) also contributed to the rise in spending. Since the most significant federal childrens health initiatives are mandatory, this area was less impacted by sequestration. Several larger discretionary programs like the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) did see substantial cuts. With the increase in 2013, overall federal spending on childrens health has grown more than 7 percent in real terms since 2009. However, this overall growth masks a very different trend among health spending on discretionary initiatives. In the same time period, discretionary spending on childrens health has declined by nearly 23 percent in real terms. Fortunately for many children across the nation, most of the yearly funding on childrens health is not dependent on annual Washington budget politics.
95
CHILDRENS HEALTH SPENDING AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING
3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
(Proposed)
2014

One of the largest ARRA expenditures was a substantial increase in the amount of Medicaid Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) funds available for states. ARRA increased federal Medicaid FMAP spending by $93 billion, with approximately 26 percent of these funds going toward spending on childrens health. Together with aid to several other programs, ARRA included about $25 billion in additional resources for childrens health. In fiscal year (FY) 2012, $450 million of ARRA funds were spent on childrens health, a 0.7 percent increase over the 2012 non-ARRA level. If the remaining Medicaid investments from ARRA are spent according to the timeframe projected by the Congressional Budget Office, it would mean a 0.5 percent increase to childrens health spending in FY 2013 over non-ARRA levels and a 0.4 percent increase in 2014.

President Obamas FY 2014 request is a 9.2 percent real increase in funding levels from 2013. Ninety percent of this increase comes from higher expected outlays in Medicaid, much of which will help states implement provisions of the Affordable Care Act. CHIP, Vaccines for Children Community, and Community Health Centers are other mandatory programs that would see an increase. Notably, the budget request zeros out a mandatory investment for School Based Health Centers. Even with restoration of sequester cuts, discretionary health investments continue to decline, falling 3.4 percent before accounting for inflation when compared to 2012 levels. Areas like the Childrens Hospitals Graduate Medical Education Program and the National Childrens Study would see significant cuts, and Teen Pregnancy Prevention grants would be eliminated. Many other discretionary areas would see level funding. The President does propose three new initiatives totaling $130 million to help schools and states provide more mental health services for children and families. The budget also provides an increase for the Healthy Homes Program and the NICHD. Altogether, President Obamas budget request represents a near 17.2 percent real increase in spending on childrens health since 2009. Whether mandatory or discretionary, this is a substantial increase in investments to ensure the health of our nations children.
96

HEALTH
Medicaid
TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
7.4%
2009-2013
$92.6 BILLION
Department: Health and Human Services Bureau: Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Type: Mandatory | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 20%
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 14.5% 14.5% 2010 20.2% 18.3% 2011 0.8% -2.3% 2012 -8.6% -10.6% 2013 6.4% 4.2% Obama 2014 13.9% 11.5%
Medicaid is a joint federal-state program that provides health insurance coverage to certain categories of lowincome individuals including children, pregnant women, low-income seniors, and people with disabilities. In 2012, Medicaid provided coverage for 67 million Americans, including nearly 32 million children. Each state administers its own Medicaid program, while the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services provides oversight and establishes requirements for service delivery, quality, funding, and eligibility standards. Medicaid is the cornerstone of the nations health care safety net, successfully ensuring access to cost-effective, high-quality health coverage for those with the greatest medical needs: children and adults whose financial means are very modest and people who are in poorer health compared to the population at large, including individuals with significant disabilities and people with multiple, chronic illnesses. Medicaid currently covers 42 percent of all children in the United States and more than half of all low-income children. It also covers 11 million Americans who have serious disabilities, approximately 70 percent of all nursing home residents, and slightly less than 20 percent of all seniors, for whom Medicaid supplements and fills gaps in Medicare coverage.
97
HEALTH
FEDERAL FUNDING FOR MEDICAID

Nominal Value
BILLIONS $
350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
(Proposed)
Inflation Adjusted
2014
There is an extensive body of research showing that high out-of-pocket costs prevent people with low incomes from receiving needed care. Medicaid is uniquely designed to meet the needs of low-income individuals by covering a wide range of services that many private insurers, whose benefit packages are designed for a higherincome population, do not cover. As a result, Medicaid ensures that people can afford to enroll and, once enrolled, afford the care they need. Through its Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) requirement, Medicaid ensures that all children get the services they require to meet their unique health and developmental needs. EPSDT ensures coverage for developmental assessments for infants and young children, as well as well-child visits, vision, dental, and hearing services. It also allows access to medically necessary therapies to manage disorders and chronic illnesses that become more costly when left untreated. In 2012, Medicaid accounted for more than 15 percent of national health care spending, due in large part to increased Medicaid enrollment resulting from the economic recession. Medicaid funding has become an important budgetary issue for states. According to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commissions March 2013 Report to Congress on Medicaid and the Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP), looking only at the state-funded portion of state budgets, Medicaids share of the budget was 13.4 percent in state fiscal year 2011. Total federal spending on Medicaid in FY 2012 was $251 billion. Federal spending on Medicaid is expected to rise significantly in the next few years due to the new Affordable Care Act (ACA) requirement (effective in 2014) to expand Medicaid coverage to individuals under age 65 with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL). According to the ACA, the federal government will initially cover the entire cost of coverage for this newly eligible population.
98
Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP)

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) $ 7.5 Billion $ 14.3% 14.3% 2010 7.9 Billion $ 4.5% 2.9% 2011 8.6 Billion $ 9.4% 6.0% 2012 9.1 Billion $ 5.1% 2.8% 2013 9.2% 6.9%
19.9%
2009-2013
HEALTH
Obama 2014 1.0% -1.2%
9.9 Billion $ 10.0 Billion
The Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP) provides health coverage to more than eight million lowincome children in families whose income is too high to qualify for Medicaid, but who dont earn enough to purchase private health insurance. Since CHIPs inception in 1997, the number of uninsured children has been cut in half, even as uninsured rates for adults increased steadily. No government program has been more successful than CHIP in improving health coverage for children. In 2012, 8.4 million children were enrolled in CHIP. Built on the shoulders of Medicaid, CHIP ensures that millions of children in working families are able to access necessary medical services. Like Medicaid, CHIP is jointly funded through a federal-state partnership. States design and operate their CHIP programs, which can be run as an expansion of a states Medicaid program, as a stand-alone program, or as a combination of the two. In states where CHIP is operated as a Medicaid expansion, children in CHIP receive Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) services, Medicaids comprehensive and preventive child health benefit. It requires states to provide eligible children with regular screenings; vision, dental, and hearing assessments; and any necessary follow-up services. It also requires states to provide medically necessary health care services. In states that operate stand-alone CHIP programs, children receive a range of benefits such as health screenings including vision and hearing exams; preventive health care, such as immunizations; inpatient and outpatient hospital care; well-child check-ups and sick-child care; lab services; and prescription medications.
99
HEALTH
CHIP also allows children access to pediatric-specific provider networks, and goes above and beyond many private insurance plans in addressing the unique needs of low-income children. CHIP provides cost-sharing protections to ensure that no families face out-of-pocket costs that exceed 5 percent of their family income. In FY 2011, CHIP and Medicaid provided coverage for more than 43.5 million children in the United States. With more than half of all children relying on CHIP and Medicaid at some point last year, these programs are essential to our nations overall health and well-being. Children with health insurance are more likely than their uninsured counterparts to have a usual source of health care, to have seen a doctor in the previous year, and to have their health care needs met. CHIP and Medicaid ensure critical access to the services that allow our children, the future American workforce, to grow up healthy and strong. Despite CHIPs success, there are still seven million children who are uninsured. While CHIP and Medicaid have significantly reduced the numbers of uninsured children, about two-thirds of children eligible for CHIP and Medicaid (approximately 4.3 million) remain un-enrolled due to bureaucratic barriers and administrative red tape. Since 2009, CHIP reauthorizations Express Lane simplifications have improved state enrollment processes, moving an additional 1.2 million eligible kids into coverage. The ACAs No Wrong Door approach to enrollment will help further reduce the numbers of uninsured children by 40 percent due to its singlepointofentry enrollment process that will pick up millions of children who are already eligible for public coverage. Together, CHIP and Medicaid are important examples of programs that have been successful in providing affordable, comprehensive, high-quality coverage for low-income children. Our nation must continue building on the progress of both of these programs to help us reach the day when every child in America has access to health coverage and services they need.
100
Community Health Centers

TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
$2.0 BILLION
Department: Health and Human Services Bureau: Health Resources and Services Administration Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 37%
HEALTH
Mandatory (ACA)
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) N/A N/A N/A 2010 N/A $ N/A N/A 2011 1.0 Billion $ N/A N/A 2012 1.2 Billion $ 17.1% 14.6% 2013
Obama 2014 1.2 Billion 2.1% -0.1%
1.2 Billion $ 4.2% 2.0%
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) $ 2.2 Billion $ 6.1% 6.1% 2010 2.1 Billion $ -2.2% -3.8% 2011 1.5 Billion $ -30.8% -33.0% 2012 1.5 Billion $ -0.6% -2.7% 2013 1.4 Billion $ -5.5% -7.5%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 1.5 Billion 5.9% 3.6%
For more than 40 years, the federal government has supported efforts to ensure the availability of highquality health care services for low-income children and adults in communities across the nation. Today, the Community Health Centers (CHC) program continues this tradition by providing care regardless of ability to pay to those who are underserved by Americas health care system: the poor, uninsured, homeless, minorities, migrant and seasonal farm workers, public housing residents, and people with limited English proficiency. CHCs play a critical role in the health care system as the health care home to over 22 million people.
101
HEALTH
FEDERAL FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS

Nominal Value: Discretionary N ominal Value: Mandatory Inflation Adjusted: Discretionary Inflation Adjusted: Mandatory
BILLIONS $
4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
(Proposed)
2014
The CHC program is housed in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Health Resources and Services Administrations (HRSA) Bureau of Primary Health Care. In 2014, CHCs are expected to provide primary and preventive care services to 23 million patients in more than 8,900 sites in underserved areas throughout all 50 states. CHCs are an essential component of our nations health care safety net and represent our nations largest primary care system. As the largest national network of primary care providers, CHCs are a critical element of the reformed health care system that was created by the ACA. With a focus on ensuring access to care for lower income and minority communities, 72 percent of CHC patients have incomes below 100 percent of the FPL, 92 percent are below 200 percent of the FPL, and 35 percent are children under age 19. The majority of individuals who receive care are uninsured or on Medicaid. CHCs serve one in seven uninsured patients, one in seven Medicaid beneficiaries, and one in three children below the FPL. In addition, nearly two-thirds of CHC patients represent racial and ethnic minorities. CHCs serve over five million children across the nation, including more than 350,000 children who are covered under CHIP. Underserved children benefit greatly from CHCs. For example, communities served by a CHC have significantly reduced the rates of infant mortality and low birth weight babies. The core mission of CHCs is to provide essential access to primary care to children and adults with no health coverage at all or those on Medicaid. CHCs rely heavily on the Medicaid program to fund their operations; Medicaid accounts for more than one-third of their total operating budgets. CHCs also receive funding through an annual appropriation in the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill, but these funds contribute less than one-fourth of the needed monies to allow these centers to serve their communities. The presidents FY 2014 budget includes an increase of $77 million in discretionary funding from 2013 sequestration levels, for a total of $2.7 billion in FY 2014, for CHCs to provide affordable high-quality primary and preventive care to underserved populations, including the uninsured. When compared to FY 2012 presequestration, discretionary funding has remained flat. The presidents budget also included $1.5 billion in mandatory funding for ACA-related activities.
102
National Asthma Control Program

Department: Health and Human Services Bureau: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
-31.4%
2009-2013
HEALTH
Obama 2014 23.2% 20.6%
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)s National Asthma Control Program (NACP) was created in 1999 to help the 25 million Americans, including 7.1 million children, with asthma gain control over their disease. The programs goals are to reduce the number of deaths, hospitalizations, emergency department visits, missed school days or workdays, and limitations on activity due to asthma. With a modest budget, the NACP provides funding to states, cities, school programs, and non-government organizations to help improve surveillance of asthma, train health professionals, educate individuals with asthma and their families, and increase the publics understanding of asthma. NACPs community-based programs train educators and health professionals to diagnose, treat, and manage asthma. Critical to children, they teach families and school personnel to recognize, prevent, and control symptoms. These programs also help school districts implement asthma management programs and develop asthma policies for students. Prior to the creation of the NACP by Congress in 1999, there was no national strategy to combat asthma. As a result of the program, asthma death rates have decreased more than 45 percent, even as asthma prevalence has increased by more than 10 percent. NACP is an excellent example of a cost-effective investment that improves asthma outcomes and reduces the costs associated with managing the effects of this pervasive disease. To maintain the NACPs progress, CDC and its federal, state, local, and nonprofit partners must continue the vital work of tracking asthma; enhancing the capacity of federal, state, and local public health offices; training health practitioners and educators; implementing proven interventions; and filling gaps in research.
103
Abstinence Education
HEALTH
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) -13.1% -13.1% 2010 -100.0% -100.0% 2011 N/A N/A 2012 N/A N/A 2013 -5.2% -7.2%
-95.4%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 -100.0% -100.0%
$ 94.7 Million $ 0 $ 0 $ 5.0 Million $ 4.7 Million $ 0
The Abstinence Education Program enables states to provide abstinence education with a focus on at-risk populations subject to out-of-wedlock births. The program teaches the social, psychological, and health gains of abstaining from sexual activity.
Adolescent Family Life Program

Department: Health and Human Services Bureau: Office of the Secretary Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 0.0% 0.0% 2010 -44.1% -44.9% 2011 -25.1% -27.4% 2012 -100.0% -100.0% 2013 N/A N/A
-100%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 N/A N/A
The Adolescent Family Life Program provides grants to nonprofit organizations and local governments to develop and test programs that encourage adolescents to postpone sexual activity and supports research projects concerning the societal causes and consequences of adolescent sexual activity, contraceptive use, pregnancy, and child rearing.
REAL PERCENT CHANGE IN FUNDING, 2009-2013
10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% -2% -4% -6% -8% Childrens Health Spending (Mandatory) Total Mandatory Spending Total Federal Budget
104
HEALTH
Autism and Other Developmental Disorders Initiative

Department: Health and Human Services Bureau: Maternal and Child Health Bureau Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
-2.8%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 5.3% 3.0%
The Autism and Other Developmental Disorders Initiative supports surveillance, early detection, education, and intervention activities on autism and other developmental disorders. The initiative was authorized in the Combating Autism Act of 2006.
Birth Defects, Developmental Disabilities, Disability and Health

-13.8%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 9.1% 6.8%
The National Center on Birth Defects, Developmental Disabilities, Disability and Health aims to provide a national focus for the prevention of secondary conditions in persons within selected disability domains including mobility, personal care, communication, and learning. The program also supports research projects to understand secondary conditions and measure the impact of environment on the lives of persons with disabilities. First Focus: Childrens Budget 2013
105
Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program

HEALTH
-95.2%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 173.9% 168.0%
The Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program was created to develop initiatives and policies to prevent childhood lead poisoning, educate the public and health care providers about childhood lead poisoning, provide funding to state and local health departments to determine the extent of childhood lead poisoning by screening children for elevated blood lead levels and helping to ensure that lead-poisoned children receive medical and environmental follow-up, and support research to determine the effectiveness of prevention efforts.
Children, Youth, Women, and Families (HIV/AIDS Bureau)

Department: Health and Human Services Bureau: HIV/AIDS Bureau Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
-13.9%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 6.4% 4.1%
Title IV of the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act provides grants for coordinated HIV services and access to research for children, youth, women, and families.
Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP)

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) $ 7.5 Billion $ 14.3% 14.3% 2010 7.9 Billion $ 4.5% 2.9% 2011 8.6 Billion $ 9.4% 6.0% 2012 9.1 Billion $ 5.1% 2.8% 2013 9.2% 6.9%
19.9%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 1.0% -1.2%
The Childrens Health Insurance Program provides funds to states to initiate and expand child health assistance to uninsured, low-income children. For more information, see Programs of Special Note, page 99.
106
Childrens Hospitals Graduate Medical Education Program

-25.9%
2009-2013
HEALTH
Obama 2014 -65.0% -65.7%
The Childrens Hospitals Graduate Medical Education Payment Program provides funds to childrens teaching hospitals for the operation of accredited graduate medical residency training programs.
Childrens Mental Health Services

Department: Health and Human Services Bureau: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
-6.0%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 5.0% 2.7%
The Childrens Mental Health Services Initiative provides community-based services for children under age 22 with a diagnosed serious emotional disturbance, serious behavioral disorder, or serious mental disorder and their families.
107
Community Health Centers

HEALTH
Department: Health and Human Services Bureau: Health Resources and Services Administration Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 37%
TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
$2.0 BILLION
Mandatory (ACA)
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) N/A N/A N/A 2010 N/A $ N/A N/A 2011 1.0 Billion $ N/A N/A 2012 1.2 Billion $ 17.1% 14.6% 2013
Obama 2014 1.2 Billion 2.1% -0.1%
1.2 Billion $ 4.2% 2.0%
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) $ 2.2 Billion $ 6.1% 6.1% 2010 2.1 Billion $ -2.2% -3.8% 2011 1.5 Billion $ -30.8% -33.0% 2012 1.5 Billion $ -0.6% -2.7% 2013 1.4 Billion $ -5.5% -7.5%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 1.5 Billion 5.9% 3.6%
For more than 40 years, the federal government has supported efforts to ensure the availability of high-quality health care services for low-income children and adults in communities across the nation. Today, the Community Health Centers program continues this tradition by providing care regardless of ability to pay to those who are under-served by Americas health care system. For more information, see Programs of Special Note, page 101.
Compassion Capital Fund

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) -9.5% -9.5% 2010 -100.0% -100.0% 2011 N/A N/A 2012 N/A N/A 2013 N/A N/A
-100%
2009-2013
TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
$50.0 MILLION Obama 2014 N/A N/A

$ 47.7 Million $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
The Compassion Capital Fund offers grants to charitable organizations to provide technical assistance at no cost to faith-based and community organizations to increase their effectiveness, enhance their ability to provide social services, expand their organizations, diversify their funding sources, and create collaborations to better serve those most in need.
108
HEALTH
Coordinated School Health Programs

-34.8%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 12.2% 9.8%
The Coordinated School Health Programs provide funds to support the development and implementation of important health education programs for children, youth, parents, and relevant school, health, and education personnel.
Emergency Medical Services for Children

-8.6%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 5.6% 3.3%
The Emergency Medical Services for Children Program provides grants to states and accredited schools of medicine for the expansion and improvement of emergency medical services for children who need critical care or treatment for trauma.
109
HEALTH
Healthy Homes Program

Department: Housing and Urban Development Bureau: Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 112.5% 112.5% 2010 17.6% 15.8% 2011 17.6% 14.0% 2012 -57.5% -58.4% 2013 -5.2% -7.2%
-49.0%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 163.8% 158.1%
The Healthy Homes Program protects children and their families from housing-related health and safety concerns including mold, lead, allergens, asthma, carbon monoxide, pesticides, and radon.
Healthy Start Initiative

-12.4%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 6.1% 3.8%
The Healthy Start Initiative aims to eliminate disparities in prenatal infant and maternal health by enhancing the community health care service system and improving access to comprehensive prenatal and womens health services, particularly for women and infants at higher risk for poor health outcomes.
110
Healthy Transitions
HEALTH
Obama 2014 N/A N/A
N/A $ 25.0 Million
This new competitive grant will help states support youth with mental health and substance abuse problems and their families as they move from systems that serve the under-18 population into systems geared towards adults.
Maternal and Child Health Block Grant

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) -0.6% -0.6% 2010 -0.2% -1.8% 2011 -0.7% -3.7% 2012 -2.6% -4.7% 2013 -5.3% -7.3%
-16.5%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 5.6% 3.4%
The Maternal and Child Health Block Grant, as authorized under Title V of the Social Security Act, aims to improve the health, safety, and well-being of all mothers and children. Through funding to the states, MCH programs strive to support community-based initiatives to address the comprehensive physical, psychological, and social needs of the maternal and child population.
Medicaid
TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
7.4%
2009-2013
$92.6 BILLION
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 14.5% 14.5% 2010 20.2% 18.3% 2011 0.8% -2.3% 2012 -8.6% -10.6% 2013 6.4% 4.2% Obama 2014 13.9% 11.5%
Medicaid is a joint federal and state program that provides health insurance coverage to certain categories of low-income individuals, including children, pregnant women, parents of eligible children, and people with disabilities. Each state administers its own Medicaid program, while the federal Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services provides oversight and establishes requirements for service delivery, quality, funding, and eligibility standards. For more information, see Programs of Special Note, page 97.
111
National Asthma Control Program

HEALTH
-31.4%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 23.2% 20.6%
The National Asthma Control Programs (NACP) goals include reducing the number of deaths, hospitalizations, emergency department visits, school days or work days missed, and limitations on activity due to asthma. The NACP funds states, cities, school programs, and non-government organizations to help them improve surveillance of asthma, train health professionals, educate individuals with asthma and their families, and explain asthma to the public. For more information, see Programs of Special Note, page 103.
National Child Traumatic Stress Initiative

4.2%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 5.5% 3.2%
The National Child Traumatic Stress Initiative is designed to address child trauma issues by providing support for a national effort to improve treatment and services for child trauma, expand availability and accessibility of effective community services, and promote a better understanding of effective interventions for children and adolescents exposed to traumatic events.
CHILDRENS HEALTH SPENDING, 2012

Discretionary Mandatory
112
HEALTH
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund

Department: Justice Bureau: Office of the Inspector General Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 14.6% 14.6% 2010 0.0% -1.6% 2011 -0.2% -3.3% 2012 0.2% -2.0% 2013 0.0% -2.1%
-8.6%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 0.0% -2.2%
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund provides funding to compensate vaccine-related injury or death claims for covered vaccines administered on or after October 1, 1988.
National Childrens Study

Department: Health and Human Services Bureau: National Institutes of Health Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
-26.5%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 6.6% 4.3%
The National Childrens Study examines the effects of environmental influences on the health and development of more than 100,000 children across the United States, following them from before birth until age 21. The goal of the study is to improve the health and well-being of children.
113
HEALTH
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

Department: Health and Human Services Bureau: National Institutes of Health Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) $ 1.3 Billion $ 3.2% 3.2% 2010 1.3 Billion $ 2.5% 0.9% 2011 1.3 Billion $ -0.7% -3.8% 2012 1.3 Billion $ 0.3% -1.9% 2013 1.2 Billion $ -5.8% -7.7%
-12.1%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 1.3 Billion 7.6% 5.3%
The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) supports and conducts basic, clinical, and epidemiological research on the reproductive, neurobiological, developmental, and behavioral processes that determine and maintain the health of children, adults, families, and populations. NICHD also supports and develops research programs concerned with the impact of the environment on infant and child development.
Office of Childrens Health Protection

Department: Environmental Protection Agency Bureau: Office of the Administrator Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) -5.5% -5.5% 2010 3.9% 2.3% 2011 23.8% 20.0% 2012 -14.9% -16.7% 2013 -17.6% -19.3%
-17.6%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 37.4% 34.4%
The Office of Childrens Health Protection (OCHP) makes the protection of childrens health a fundamental goal of public health and environmental protection. OCHP supports and facilitates Agency efforts to protect childrens health from environmental threats.
114
Personal Responsibility Education Program

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) N/A N/A 2010 N/A N/A 2011 -4.0% -7.0% 2012 4.2% 1.9% 2013 -5.1% -7.1%
HEALTH
Obama 2014 5.4% 3.1%
The Personal Responsibility Education Program was created through the Affordable Care Act and was established to distribute grants to states to provide youth with comprehensive sex education and life skills that will enable them to make responsible decisions to lead safe and healthy lives.
Project AWARE
Obama 2014 N/A N/A
N/A $ 55.0 Million
Project AWARE (Advancing Wellness and Resilience in Education) is a new initiative to improve mental health awareness, increase referrals to services for those who need help, improve school safety, reduce substance abuse, and improve mental health outcomes for approximately 750,000 students every year.
10% 5% 0% -5% -10% -15% -20% -25% Mandatory Discretionary
REAL PERCENT CHANGE IN MANDATORY & DISCRETIONARY CHILDREN'S HEALTH SPENDING, 2009-2013
115
Safe Motherhood and Infant Health Program

HEALTH
-15.2%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 18.8% 16.2%
The Safe Motherhood and Infant Health Program provides funds to develop a surveillance system that will identify behavioral risk factors during pregnancy and early infancy and problems in health care delivery.
School-Based Health Centers

Department: Health and Human Services Bureau: Health Resources and Services Administration Type: Mandatory | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) N/A N/A 2010 N/A N/A 2011 96.0% 89.9% 2012 -84.7% -85.0% 2013 480.0% 468.1%
Obama 2014 -100.0% -100.0%
The School-Based Health Center Capital Program awards funds made available by the Affordable Care Act to support school-based health centers in efforts to expand their capacity to provide health care services to school-aged children. This funding is available to new and existing school-based health centers to address significant and pressing capital needs.
116
Teen Pregnancy Prevention Grants

Department: Health and Human Services Bureau: Office of the Secretary Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
HEALTH
Mandatory
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) N/A N/A 2010 N/A N/A 2011 0.0% -3.1% 2012 0.0% -2.2% 2013 -5.1% -7.1%
Obama 2014 5.4% 3.1%
Discretionary
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) N/A N/A 2010 N/A N/A 2011 -4.7% -7.7% 2012 -0.2% -2.3% 2013 -6.0% -7.9%
Obama 2014 -100.0% -100.0%
Teen Pregnancy Prevention Grants support community and faith-based efforts to reduce teen pregnancy using evidenced-based and promising models.
Universal Newborn Hearing Screening and Intervention Program

-15.0%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 5.6% 3.3%
The Universal Newborn Hearing Screening and Intervention Program provides grants to states for the implementation of universal newborn hearing screening prior to hospital discharge, diagnostic evaluation, and enrollment in a program of early intervention.
117
Vaccines for Children

HEALTH
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) $ 3.4 Billion $ 22.3% 22.3% 2010 3.8 Billion $ 11.3% 9.6% 2011 4.0 Billion $ 5.1% 1.8% 2012 4.0 Billion $ 1.2% -1.0% 2013 3.6 Billion $ -9.8% -11.7%
-2.4%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 4.3 Billion 19.0% 16.5%
The Vaccines for Children Program assists states and communities in establishing and maintaining preventive health service programs to immunize individuals against vaccine-preventable diseases. Funds may be used for costs associated with planning, organizing, and conducting immunization programs and for the purchase of vaccines.
Workforce Expansion for Mental Health

Obama 2014 N/A N/A
N/A $ 50.0 Million
This new initiative will go to provide training for more than 5,000 additional professionals to work with students and young adults with mental illnesses and other behavioral health problems.
118
-4.9%
HOUSING
2009-2013
TOTAL SPENDING ON CHILDRENS HOUSING

Federal housing programs are not specific to children, but they nevertheless aid millions of young people across the country. As a result, any accounting of children in the federal budget must include some portion of the federal investment in public housing and housing assistance.1 Funding for childrens housing needs mainly flows through programs in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), especially Tenant-Based Rental Assistance, Project-Based Rental Assistance, and public housing. Together, these three funding streams contributed nearly $9 billion in federal spending on children in 2013, and make up nearly 85 percent of all housing investments that impact children. Housing assistance is one area of the federal childrens budget that prior to 2012 had enjoyed relatively consistent real growth. Since all of the housing initiatives that impact children are discretionary, sequestration and budget impasses have had a negative impact. Over the past two years, funding has fallen by nearly $1.5 billion after adjusting for inflation, a drop of nearly 11 percent. Overall real spending on housing for children has dropped by nearly 5 percent, in real terms, from 2009 to 2013. This drop has been driven, in large part,
n this analysis, we allocate the childrens share of the Public and Indian Housing programs based on two sources. For the Tenant-Based I Rental Assistance Program, the multiplier is derived from the percentage of beneficiary families who have children, based on the Resident Characteristics Report. The multiplier for the Public Housing Operating fund is derived the same way. For Project-Based Rental Assistance, First Focus: Childrens Budget 2013 119 the multiplier comes from the HUD report, The Characteristics of HUD Assisted Renters.
CHILDRENS HOUSING SPENDING AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING
0.50% 0.45% 0.40% 0.35% 0.30% 0.25% 0.20% 0.15% 0.10% 0.05% 0% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
(Proposed)
2014
by cuts to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and the Public Housing Operating Fund in 2012. In addition, there have been sizable sequestration cuts, particularly to the Tenant-Based Rental Assistance Program and Project-Based Rental Assistance Program in 2013. Sequester cuts could have been worse if not for an increase in the 2013 Continuing Resolution prior to the implementation of the cuts. These significant cuts mean 100,000 or more low-income families could face homelessness. Childrens housing is the one policy category that contains almost no exclusively child-oriented programs. Most childrens housing programs are initiatives that deliver housing services to adults as well. This may explain why prior to the past few years this policy area has experienced growth while most others, especially those that have relied on discretionary funding, have suffered declines.

ARRA included close to $520 million in funding for childrens housing programs through increases to one program, Tenant-Based Rental Assistance. All ARRA funding was spent in 2009 and 2010.

Childrens housing received a substantial increase in the Presidents budget request, rising more than $1.6 billion, or 12.6 percent, after inflation. Even after accounting for restoring sequester, when comparing the Presidents request to 2012 pre-sequester levels, it is still a real increase of 6.3 percent. Much of this comes in increases to Tenant-Based Rental Assistance, Project-Based Rental Assistance, the Public Housing Operating Fund, and Homeless Assistance Grants. The President also requests full funding for the National Housing Trust Fund, which would provide resources to build and rehabilitate housing in low-income areas. Almost every childrens housing initiative would receive an increase. LIHEAP does see a substantial cut, but this is justified with lower projected fuel costs and a new initiative to move recipients to more energy efficient heating and cooling systems. If enacted, the Presidents request would be a 7 percent real increase above 2009 levels.
120

Homeless Assistance Grants
Department: Housing and Urban Development Bureau: Community Planning and Development Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 50%
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) $ 1.7 Billion $ 5.7% 5.7% 2010 1.9 Billion $ 10.4% 8.7% 2011 1.9 Billion $ 2.7% -0.5% 2012 1.9 Billion $ 0.0% -2.2% 2013 1.9 Billion $ 1.7% -0.4% Obama 2014 2.4 Billion 23.2% 20.5%
5.4%
2009-2013
HOUSING
The recent economic downturn has caused an unprecedented rise in the number of homeless families with children. Many families who lose their homes due to foreclosure find themselves homeless due to a lack of affordable housing. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), families with children make up 37 percent of all people living in homeless shelters, and at least one in five homeless families are living unsheltered. McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Grants are the main source of federal funding for efforts that assist homeless families and individuals. These grants fund local, regional, and state homeless assistance programs and provide supports such as shelter, food, and mental health services for homeless individuals and families. These necessary supports help families who have lost their homes secure a safe place to stay and meet their needs while they find a permanent home.
121
FEDERAL FUNDING FOR HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

BILLIONS $
4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
(Proposed)
2014
HOUSING
The Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act of 2009 reauthorized the homeless assistance grants and included significant reforms, such as the expansion to serve families and children who are defined as at risk for homelessness through homelessness prevention efforts. HUD has been working to issue regulations to implement the HEARTH Act, but much of the needed funding to put these reforms into action has yet to be appropriated by Congress. President Obamas fiscal year (FY) 2014 funding level would allow for HUD to continue implementation of changes made by the HEARTH Act. This includes the Emergency Solutions Grant, which, in addition to providing shelter, will now provide homelessness prevention and rapid re-housing activities to replace part of the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing funding, a temporary investment that was a part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Housing assistance programs, including the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Grants, were subject to sequestration under the Budget Control Act of 2011, which took effect in March of 2013. As budget discussions continue, it is critical for lawmakers to increase the homeless assistance grants so that homeless families and children can be provided the assistance that they need during the transition to permanent housing. The over 20 percent funding increase in the presidents budget over the last year will be imperative to help homeless children, as about half of the homeless assistance grant funding goes to children, and there is no doubt that the sequester has led to fewer children receiving homelessness assistance.
122
Consolidated Runaway and Homeless Youth Program

-14.4%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 10.2% 7.8%
The Runaway and Homeless Youth Program is designed to meet the needs of runaway and homeless youth by funding local facilities, providing temporary residential care and counseling, and establishing a national toll-free hotline.
HOUSING
Homeless Assistance Grants

Department: Housing and Urban Development Bureau: Community Planning and Development Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 50%
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) $ 1.7 Billion $ 5.7% 5.7% 2010 1.9 Billion $ 10.4% 8.7% 2011 1.9 Billion $ 2.7% -0.5% 2012 1.9 Billion $ 0.0% -2.2% 2013 1.9 Billion $ 1.7% -0.4%
5.4%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 2.4 Billion 23.2% 20.5%
Homeless Assistance Grants provide funding for homeless programs under Title IV of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. These programs include the Emergency Shelter Grants Program, the Supportive Housing Program, the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy Program, and the Shelter Plus Care Program. For more information, see Programs of Special Note, page 121.
123
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) $ 5.1 Billion $ 98.4% 98.4% 2010 5.1 Billion $ 0.0% -1.6% 2011 4.7 Billion $ -7.8% -10.7% 2012 3.5 Billion $ -26.1% -27.7% 2013 3.3 Billion $ -6.2% -8.2%
-41.7%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 3.0 Billion -7.2% -9.2%
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program provides grants to states and other jurisdictions to assist eligible low-income households in meeting the costs of home energy.
HOUSING
National Housing Trust Fund

Department: Housing and Urban Development Bureau: Public and Indian Housing Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 26%
N/A $ N/A N/A
The National Housing Trust Fund (NHTF) was established by Congress in 2008 as part of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. Funding has been included in each of President Obamas budgets at $1 billion. The NHTF would address the severe shortage of affordable rental homes and provide adequate funding for the Housing Choice Voucher Program.
TOTAL FEDERAL SPENDING ON CHILDRENS HOUSING PROGRAMS

BILLIONS $
15
12
0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

(Proposed)
2014
124
HOUSING
Prevention Grants to Reduce Sexual Abuse of Runaway, Homeless, and Street Youth
-13.6%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 6.9% 4.6%
The Street Outreach Program supports organizations with goals to protect and treat youth who have been, or who are, at risk of sexual abuse or exploitation. Services may include street-based education and outreach, emergency shelter, survival aid, treatment and counseling, prevention and education activities, and follow-up support.
Project-Based Rental Assistance Program

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) $ 7.1 Billion $ 11.3% 11.3% 2010 8.6 Billion $ 20.5% 18.6% 2011 9.3 Billion $ 8.2% 4.9% 2012 9.3 Billion $ 0.8% -1.4% 2013 -5.2% -7.2%
13.9%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 16.1% 13.6%
The Project-Based Rental Assistance Program provides funding to landlords who rent a specified number of affordable apartments to low-income families or individuals.
125
HOUSING
Public Housing Operating Fund

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) $ 4.5 Billion $ 6.1% 6.1% 2010 4.8 Billion $ 7.2% 5.5% 2011 4.6 Billion $ -3.3% -6.3% 2012 4.0 Billion $ -14.2% -16.0% 2013 4.1 Billion $ 2.3% 0.2%
-16.8%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 4.6 Billion 13.5% 11.0%
The Public Housing Operating Fund supports the operation of public housing including maintenance, security, and social services for residents.
Rental Assistance Program

Department: Agriculture Bureau: Rural Housing Service Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 28%
-15.2%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 1.0 Billion 21.3% 18.6%
$ 902.5 Million $ 980.0 Million $ 953.7 Million $ 905.0 Million $ 837.1 Million $
The Rental Assistance Programs goal is to reduce the rents paid by low-income families occupying eligible Rural Rental Housing, Rural Cooperative Housing, and Farm Labor Housing projects financed by the Rural Housing Service that exceed 30 percent of adjusted annual income.
126
Rural Housing Assistance Grants

-32.7%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 -18.2% -20.0%
The Rural Rental Assistance Payments Program funds projects to assist very low- and low-income rural individual homeowners, rental property owners, and consumer cooperative housing projects in repairing their dwellings and bringing them up to development standards.
HOUSING
Rural Housing Voucher Program

70.1%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 252.6% 245.0%
The Rural Housing Voucher Program is designed to provide qualifying low-income families with vouchers to pay their mortgages and avoid being displaced.
0%
-5%
-10%
-15%
-20% Childrens Housing Spending (Discretionary) Total Discretionary Spending Total Federal Budget
127
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) -1.0% -1.0% 2010 11.5% 9.7% 2011 1.6% -1.6% 2012 3.0% 0.7% 2013 -5.0% -7.0%
1.2%
2009-2013
TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
$2.0 BILLION Obama 2014 11.3% 8.9%

The Housing Choice Voucher Program or Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (commonly referred to as Section 8) helps subsidize housing costs for over two million families through the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It is the federal governments largest low-income housing assistance program.
HOUSING
128
INCOME SUPPORT
1.1%
2009-2013
TOTAL SPENDING ON CHILDRENS INCOME SUPPORT

2013 5.5% 3.4% Obama 2014 0.9% -1.3% $ 57.4 Billion $ 59.5 Billion $ 60.9 Billion $ 60.2 Billion $ 63.5 Billion $ 64.1 Billion
The second largest area of federal spending on children comes in the form of income support for families. A little less than a quarter of all childrens spending is related to income support, even though these initiatives do not specifically target young people. For example, the largest area of income support for children, Social Securitys Old Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI), is actually aimed primarily at Americas seniors. About 4 percent of total outlays for OASI go to children, which amounted to about $23 billion in 2012. There are, however, two very important areas of income support that specifically target children, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) and Child Support Enforcement (CSE). Because of its eligibility requirements, TANF delivers aid only to families with children. CSE, by its nature, only applies to families with dependent children. These two areas together contribute more than 26 percent of all childrens income support spending. Over the past five years, TANF funding has decreased, in real terms, by nearly 10 percent. Funding for CSE has decreased by nearly 15 percent due in large part to a significant cut in 2011 funding.
129
CHILDRENS INCOME SUPPORT SPENDING AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING
4.0% 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
(Proposed)
2014

TANF and CSE both received funding through ARRA. TANF was allocated nearly $4 billion in funding for children, with a small percentage remaining to be disbursed. CSE received $1.4 billion, which has already been spent. In fiscal year (FY) 2012, nearly $100 million in ARRA money was spent on TANF, representing a 0.2 percent increase over non-ARRA 2012 income support levels. If the remaining income support money in ARRA is spent as projected by the Congressional Budget Office, $159 million will be spent in 2013 and $134 million in 2014. This would be a 0.3 percent increase over non-ARRA 2013 income support levels and a 0.2 percent increase over the level in President Obamas 2014 budget request.

Because all spending on income support programs is mandatory, the resources dedicated to this area in the Presidents budget are generally projections of what will be spent, rather than reflections of conscious policy decisions. However, President Obamas 2013 budget does include some policy changes for particular areas and some notable increases in funding. The Presidents request restores the TANF Supplemental Grants by diverting $319 million from the TANF Contingency Fund. The other changes come to CSE, where the President proposes a $1.4 billion investment to support states that distribute child support payments directly to families who receive TANF, rather than retaining those funds as reimbursements for public assistance. The President also invests new resources over ten years to promote access and visitation services. In a more modest investment, the President proposes a $5 million State Paid Leave Fund within the U.S. Department of Labor, which would provide technical assistance to states that want to establish paid leave programs.
130

Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)
TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
-9.7%
2009-2013
$5.3 BILLION
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 0.1% 0.1% 2010 0.0% -1.6% 2011 0.3% -2.8% 2012 -5.7% -7.8% 2013 4.4% 2.3% Obama 2014 2.5% 0.3%
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) was created in 1996 to replace the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. TANF is designed to assist struggling families through direct cash payment, as well as work supports like job training and child care assistance. TANF has been due for a full reauthorizationa renewed Congressional funding authorizationsince FY 2010. Rather than complete a full five-year reauthorization, Congress has adopted a number of short-term funding extensions, usually through the end of each subsequent quarter or fiscal year. This has made it difficult to increase TANF investments, or indeed, protect existing investments. The June 2011 short-term extension was the first TANF extension that failed to include funding for the TANF Supplemental Grantsgrants designed to bolster funding in 17 states with historically low support per person in poverty. The affected states have had difficult choices to make about which services they are willing and able to fund, such as child abuse prevention, kinship care supports, or in some cases the division of crimes against children within the State Police.
INCOME SUPPORT
131
TOTAL FEDERAL SPENDING ON TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE TO NEEDY FAMILIES

BILLIONS $
30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

(Proposed)
2014
TANF is a block grant, with states, territories, and Native American tribes receiving federal funds to develop and implement their own family assistance initiatives. Under TANFs maintenance of effort requirement, states must supplement the federal contribution with state funds (facing penalties if they do not do so), to draw down all available federal funding. TANF funding is subject to a wide array of federal requirements. Families may only receive direct assistance for up to 60 months, and states are required to ensure that 50 percent of all families and 90 percent of two-parent families receiving cash assistance meet specific work participation standards. States may also use TANF funds for a wide variety of other family support services. For example, many states use TANF funding to provide transportation to and from the workplace for low-income parents or transfer a portion of their TANF allocations to the Social Services Block Grant or to the Child Care and Development Fund. Indeed, almost 20 percent of TANF funds are spent on subsidizing and providing child care services that allow parents to work. TANF serves just over four million Americans each yearand in recent years, roughly 75 percent of TANF beneficiaries have been children. However, the percentage of families that are eligible, but not receiving assistance has increased steadily since the mid-1990s. Last year, TANF served less than 10 percent of all Americans living in poverty. This is largely due to the fact that TANF funding has been stagnant for years, as the block grant has not been adjusted for inflation since its inception in 1996. While all states have seen a real-dollar loss in the value of their TANF funding, the recent dissolution of the Supplemental Grants now places the 17 states affected at an even greater disadvantage. The TANF Emergency Contingency Fund created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funded subsidized employment initiatives and short-term, non-recurring benefits to families, providing a temporary boost in 2009-2010, but this funding stream has run out. As a result, the real value of TANF in 2013 is 9.7 percent below that of 2009. It is vital that Congress and the President utilize the next reauthorization opportunity to improve TANF by targeting the programs goals more specifically on child poverty reduction and improved child well-being. Such reforms would better assist the countrys most vulnerable families.
INCOME SUPPORT
132
TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
Payments to States for Child Support Enforcement and Family Support Programs
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) $ 4.3 Billion $ 3.4% 3.4% 2010 4.7 Billion $ 9.0% 7.2% 2011 4.2 Billion $ -10.4% -13.1% 2012 4.0 Billion $ -5.4% -7.4% 2013 4.0 Billion $ 0.9% -1.1%
-14.7%
2009-2013
$1.4 BILLION
Obama 2014 4.0 Billion 1.0% -1.1%
Child Support Enforcement (CSE) is a collaborative effort by federal, state, and tribal governments to ensure financial and medical support for children from their non-custodial parents. Authorized by Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, CSE efforts are run by states and territories, with federal financial support and guidance. Primary services include locating non-custodial parents, establishing paternity and child support orders, collecting support payments, and special initiatives, such as preventing and reducing arrears and promoting healthy relationships among custodial and non-custodial parents. Services are available to any family with children where one parent is not living in the same home as the children. CSE is automatically provided to families receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). CSE currently serves one in four American children (over 17.3 million total) and distributed over $27 billion in collected child support to families in 2011. In part because it reaches so many families, child support is a vital anti-poverty tool. For low-income families who receive it, child support represents close to half (40 percent) of their annual income. As a result, the Congressional Research Service has found that 30 percent of the children currently receiving support would fall into poverty without these funds.
INCOME SUPPORT
133
Historically, states that recovered child support for families on public assistance kept this money as reimbursement for the cost of providing TANF or other supports to families. There has been a shift in recent yearsespecially in light of the impact that child support can have on child poverty reductionto ensure that any collected support for families on public assistance is passed through directly to families and no longer kept by the state. The pass through is one example of program improvements the federal government has urged in recent years as part of the federal-state enforcement partnership. To do so, the federal government has provided incentive payments to states to make such changes and to reinvest any gains or savings back into services. The 2005 Deficit Reduction Act, however, cut the funding streams for these payments. The incentive payments were temporarily restored in 2009-2010 under ARRA, but the federal funding for CSE has yet to return to pre-2005 levels since the ARRA boost expired. The area of child support enforcement has seen much improvement over the years and is an important factor in reducing child poverty. However, restoration of the federal incentive payments to states and a continued effort to ensure all collected funds are passed directly to children and families are necessary in order to continue this progress.
INCOME SUPPORT
134
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation

Department: Veterans Affairs Bureau: Benefits Programs Type: Mandatory | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 4%
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) $ 5.0 Billion $ 6.0% 6.0% 2010 5.2 Billion $ 4.2% 2.5% 2011 5.3 Billion $ 2.1% -1.1% 2012 5.8 Billion $ 8.4% 6.1% 2013 6.1 Billion $ 5.4% 3.2%
11.1%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 6.4 Billion 6.1% 3.8%
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation pays a monthly payment to a veterans surviving spouse, child, or parent after a service-connected death.
Disability Compensation
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 11.1% 11.1% 2010 8.6% 6.9% 2011 15.1% 11.6% 2012 9.4% 7.1% 2013 13.6% 11.3%
42.1%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 7.5% 5.2%
INCOME SUPPORT
Disability Compensation provides tax-free paid benefits to veterans to compensate for disabilities incurred or aggravated during active military service.
135
Disability Insurance Trust Fund (Outlays to Children)

Department: Treasury Bureau: Social Security Administration Type: Mandatory | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
2009 2010 8.5 Billion $ 4.9% 3.3% 2011 8.7 Billion $ 2.4% -0.8% 2012 9.0 Billion $ 3.4% 1.2% 2013 9.4 Billion $ 4.4% 2.3%
6.1%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 9.7 Billion 3.2% 1.0%
INCOME SUPPORT
Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted)
8.1 Billion $ 6.6% 6.6%
The Disability Insurance Trust Fund provides monthly benefits to disabled-worker beneficiaries and their spouses and children.
Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund (Outlays to Children)

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 7.7% 7.7% 2010 2.8% 1.2% 2011 0.5% -2.7% 2012 3.7% 1.4% 2013 3.5% 1.4%
1.4%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 3.0% 0.8%
The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund provides monthly income to aged insured individuals and their spouses and children, and to survivors of deceased insured workers.
136
TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
Payments to States for Child Support Enforcement and Family Support Programs
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) $ 4.3 Billion $ 3.4% 3.4% 2010 4.7 Billion $ 9.0% 7.2% 2011 4.2 Billion $ -10.4% -13.1% 2012 4.0 Billion $ -5.4% -7.4% 2013 4.0 Billion $ 0.9% -1.1%
-14.7%
2009-2013
$1.4 BILLION
Obama 2014 4.0 Billion 1.0% -1.1%
The Child Support Enforcement Program enforces the support obligations owed by absent parents to their children, locates absent parents, establishes paternity, and obtains child, spousal, and medical support. For more information, see Programs of Special Note, page 133.
Supplemental Security Income (Outlays to Children)

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) $ 8.5 Billion $ 9.2% 9.2% 2010 6.1% 4.4% 2011 12.3% 8.8% 2012 -11.1% -13.0% 2013 12.2% 9.9%
8.6%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 9.0 Billion -10.9% -12.8%
9.0 Billion $ 10.1 Billion $
9.0 Billion $ 10.1 Billion $
INCOME SUPPORT
Supplemental Security Income provides payments to individuals who are least 65 years of age, or are blind or disabled. The programs goal is to ensure a minimum level of income for certain individuals.
2% 1% 0% -1% -2% -3% -4% -5% -6% -7% -8% Childrens Income Support Spending (Mandatory) Total Mandatory Spending Total Federal Budget
137
Survivors Pension Benefits

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) $ 1.0 Billion $ 12.1% 12.1% 2010 1.2 Billion $ 12.4% 10.7% 2011 1.3 Billion $ 8.9% 5.5% 2012 1.4 Billion $ 12.2% 9.7% 2013 1.6 Billion $ 10.1% 7.8%
38.2%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 1.7 Billion 10.8% 8.4%
Survivors Pension Benefits provide direct payments to needy surviving spouses and children of deceased war-time veterans whose deaths were not due to service.
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year 0.1% 0.1% 2010 0.0% -1.6% 2011 0.3% -2.8% 2012 -5.7% -7.8% 2013 4.4% 2.3%
-9.7%
2009-2013
TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
$5.3 BILLION Obama 2014 2.5% 0.3%

INCOME SUPPORT
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families is designed to assist struggling families both through direct cash payments and through work supports such as job training and child care assistance. For more information, see Programs of Special Note, page 131.
BILLIONS $
TOTAL FEDERAL SPENDING ON CHILDRENS INCOME SUPPORT PROGRAMS

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

(Proposed)
2014
138
CHILD WELFARE NUTRITION

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 22.8% 22.8% 2010 8.3% 6.6% 2011 18.3% 14.6% 2012 3.0% 0.8%
24.7%
2009-2013
TOTAL SPENDING ON CHILDRENS NUTRITION

2013 3.5% 1.3% Obama 2014 -2.5% -4.6% $ 47.2 Billion $ 51.0 Billion $ 60.4 Billion $ 62.2 Billion $ 64.3 Billion $ 62.7 Billion
While a small, scattered number of discretionary federal initiatives relate to the nutritional needs of children, the vast majority of federal spending in this area is mandatory. This includes the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (commonly known as food stamps, or SNAP) and the School Lunch and Breakfast programs, which help millions of children nationwide receive nutritious food, stay focused at school, and develop healthy habits. Unlike most policy areas, childrens nutrition has experienced significant growth over the past five years. Since 2009, real value has increased by nearly 25 percent, though that increase is beginning to level out. Federal funding for child nutrition in fiscal year (FY) 2013 will grow by only 1.3 percent in real terms, due to increases in the School Lunch and Breakfast Programs and SNAP. Other areas of child nutrition received increases as well, including the Child and Adult Care Food Program and the Summer Food Service Program. Since most of these programs are mandatory formulas and not appropriated from year to year, much of this growth, especially in SNAP, was necessitated by the broad economic downturn rather than a renewed awareness in Congress of the acute nutritional needs of Americas low-income children. Nevertheless, these additional resources will have a positive impact on millions of American children. These increases were coupled with a significant sequester-related cut to the Special Supplemental Program for Women Infants and Children (WIC) and a cut to the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program.
139
CHILDRENS NUTRITION SPENDING AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING
3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
(Proposed)
2014

ARRA included more than $20 billion in additional spending on child nutrition, of which $19.8 billion was invested in SNAP. In FY 2012, $3.9 billion of ARRA child nutrition funds were spent. This represents a 6.3 percent increase over non-ARRA 2012 levels. If child nutrition money in ARRA is spent along the timeframe projected by the Congressional Budget Office, it would mean a 4.5 percent increase over non-ARRA 2013 levels, and a 0.3 percent increase over the levels included in President Obamas FY 2014 budget request.

If enacted, the Presidents budget would actually decrease spending on child nutrition by 4.6 percent, in real terms, over FY 2013 funding levels. This drop is a result of significantly lower expected outlays in SNAP, which based on projections would drop by nearly 10 percent after adjusting for inflation. WIC, the School Lunch Program, the School Breakfast Program, and the Child and Adult Care Food Program would all see substantial increases. The Presidents requests calls for an additional $25 million increase over 2013 levels for School Meal Equipment Grants, meant to help schools implement new healthy school meal standards and expand the school breakfast program. Unlike in previous years, and especially after sequestration in 2013, mandatory child nutrition spending actually declines in the Presidents budget request, while discretionary investments increase, primarily due to WIC. Overall, discretionary investments increase by 7.6 percent, while mandatory investments decline 6 percent. This decline in mandatory spending could be a positive sign that although a near historic number of families currently rely on these supports, more and more families no longer need SNAP as the economy recovers. Recently released long-term projections show SNAP outlays eventually returning to pre-recession levels, responding when the need arises and falling when the economy is growing.
140

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
39.9%
2009-2013
$41.9 BILLION
Department: Agriculture Bureau: Food and Nutrition Service Type: Mandatory | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 47%
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 35.7% 35.7% 2010 8.0% 6.3% 2011 33.2% 29.1% 2012 3.6% 1.3% 2013 2.7% 0.6% Obama 2014 -7.7% -9.7%
Now more than ever, providing children access to healthy food is critical, as more than one in five children live in a family that is at risk of going hungry. Given the slow economic recovery, it is likely that many families will require assistance to feed their children in the years ahead. To grow up healthy and concentrate in school, children need access to nutritious foods. By reducing hunger (or food insecurity) in children, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the School Meals Program keep children healthy and help kids concentrate on school rather than hunger. In 2010, Congress took great strides in addressing child hunger and obesity by enacting The Healthy, HungerFree Kids Act. The law authorizes an unprecedented increase of $4.5 billion over 10 years for federal child nutrition programs. As the country continues to recover from the economic downturn, it is imperative that adequate funding is provided to the federal nutrition safety nets to ensure that no child goes hungry. The United States Department of Agricultures (USDA) SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, provides critical food assistance to vulnerable children and families. SNAP provides low-income households with electronic benefits usable at most grocery stores, and is a key component of the federal nutrition safety
NUTRITION
141
BILLIONS $
TOTAL FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

(Proposed)
2014
net. Because the benefits are provided electronically, SNAP has one of the lowest error rates of any federal government program. More than 20 million children are enrolled in SNAP and depend on it for at least a portion of their total daily nutrition. As a mandatory entitlement program, funding for SNAP adjusts in response to changes in need. This allows SNAP to respond when need rises due to unemployment, natural disasters, or other issues that may cause individuals and families economic hardship. President Obamas 2014 budget proposes $76.3 billion in FY 2014 for SNAP, compared to $82.6 billion in FY 2013. This funding level is expected to allow the federal government to serve all eligible participants. The decrease in FY 2014 SNAP expenditures is due to the expected rise in employment levels and household income, which will reduce the number of people who need SNAP nutrition assistance. President Obamas 2014 budget once again restores the additional SNAP funding provided through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). This funding was used to help pay for Child Nutrition Reauthorization, so additional funding is needed to maintain recession-responsive benefit levels provided through ARRA. This restoration avoids a sudden and sharp benefits reduction (a benefits cliff) in November 2013, delaying the end of the benefits boost to March 2014.
NUTRITION
142
TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
Special Supplemental Program for Women, Infants and Children

Department: Agriculture Bureau: Food and Nutrition Service Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
-13.1%
2009-2013
$138.0 MILLION
Obama 2014 7.1 Billion 9.5% 7.1%
USDAs Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) provides federal grants to states. These resources fund supplemental foods, health care referrals, and nutrition education for lowincome pregnant and postpartum women, as well as to infants and children up to age five who are found to be at nutritional risk. President Obamas budget provides $7.1 billion for WIC in FY 2014. This is an increase over FY 2013 funding, as affected by federal budget sequestration and rescissions. WIC is funded by discretionary appropriations, meaning that Congress decisions about WIC funding determine how many people WIC can help. President Obamas proposal is expected to maintain services to current beneficiaries. The Presidents budget estimates and provides for a WIC participation rate averaging 8.9 million people per month, which is slightly lower than the FY 2013 participation rate of 9.1 million. Because of the sequester, WIC will likely deplete all of its contingency funds in order to avoid placing children and women on waiting lists, so it is important that WIC receive full funding in future years. Each budget cycle, WIC advocates and appropriators estimate participation levels and food costs to calculate the most accurate amount needed. As budget discussions continue, it is imperative for lawmakers to preserve funding, so women and children can get the health care and nutrition assistance they need when they need it, rather than face long wait lists. As the country continues to recover from the economic downturn, adequate investment is more imperative now than ever.
NUTRITION
143
Child and Adult Care Food Program

Department: Agriculture Bureau: Child Nutrition Programs Type: Mandatory | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
9.9%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 3.1 Billion 3.5% 1.2%
The Child and Adult Care Food Program assists states in providing meals and snacks to homeless children in emergency shelters and to children and adults receiving non-residential day care, including after-school programs.
Commodity Assistance Program

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 11.3% 11.3% 2010 7.3% 5.6% 2011 -1.9% -5.0% 2012 -1.5% -3.7% 2013 0.6% -1.5%
-4.8%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 11.5% 9.1%
The Commodity Distribution Program is designed to reduce the cost of meals by assisting states in the distribution of food staples to eligible schools and school districts.
NUTRITION
144
Commodity Procurement
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 38.4% 38.4% 2010 2.6% 1.0% 2011 27.3% 23.4% 2012 6.6% 4.3% 2013 1.2 Billion $ 18.3% 15.9%
50.6%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 1.1 Billion -6.7% -8.7%
$ 717.0 Million $ 736.0 Million $ 937.0 Million $ 999.0 Million $
The Commodity Supplemental Food Program provides food and administrative funds to states to improve the health of low-income pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding women, infants, elderly persons, and children up to the age of six by supplementing their diets with nutritious USDA commodity foods.
Coordinated Review
Department: Agriculture Bureau: Child Nutrition Programs Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 2.4% 2.4% 2010 183.9% 179.4% 2011 -62.5% -63.7% 2012 50.0% 46.8% 2013 7.0% 4.8%
56.2%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 3.9% 1.6%
NUTRITION
The Coordinated Review Effort reviews the National School Lunch Program to improve program management, evaluate meal data accuracy, and provide training and technical support to help improve local program accountability.
145
Food Safety Education

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 25.0% 25.0% 2010 0.4% -1.2% 2011 19.5% 15.8% 2012 -33.3% -34.8% 2013 24.5% 21.9%
-9.0%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 20.5% 17.9%
The Food Safety Education Program conducts research into, and implements educational initiatives on, the causes of food-borne illness, especially in schools, and develops materials to educate children and their families on food safety issues.
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program

2009 2010 60.0% 57.5% 2011 43.8% 39.3% 2012 36.5% 33.6% 2013 -73.9% -74.4%
-25.1%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 -2.4% -4.5%
NUTRITION
Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted)
$ 50.0 Million $ 80.0 Million $ 115.0 Million $ 157.0 Million $ 41.0 Million $ 40.0 Million 0.0% 0.0%
The Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program assists states in providing free fresh fruits and vegetables to all children enrolled in participating schools.
146
Hunger Free Community Grants

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) N/A N/A 2010 N/A N/A 2011 0.0% -3.1% 2012 -100.0% -100.0% 2013 N/A N/A
Obama 2014 N/A N/A
N/A $ 5.0 Million $ 5.0 Million $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
These grants were created to provide funding for comprehensive and collaborative efforts to end hunger at the community level. USDA works with local groups to seek out and identify new strategies to end hunger and reduce and prevent food insecurity. Some examples include food distribution, community outreach, and other initiatives that improve access to food.
School Breakfast Expansion Grants

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) N/A N/A N/A 2010 N/A N/A N/A 2011 N/A N/A 2012 N/A N/A 2013 -100.0% -100.0%
Obama 2014 N/A N/A
N/A $ 1.0 Million $ 0 $ 0
The School Breakfast Expansion Grants program provides first-time funding to increase participation in school breakfast by helping schools improve or start a breakfast program.
100 90 80 70
BILLIONS $
TOTAL FEDERAL SPENDING ON CHILDRENS NUTRITION PROGRAMS NUTRITION

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

(Proposed)
2014
147
School Breakfast Program

28.3%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 3.8 Billion 5.0% 2.8%
The School Breakfast Program assists states in providing nutritious breakfast services in schools and residential child care institutions.
School Lunch Program

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) $ 9.0 Billion $ 9.8% 9.8% 2010 10.6% 8.8% 2011 3.9% 0.7% 2012 1.0% -1.1% 2013 8.2% 5.9%
14.7%
2009-2013
TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
$100.0 MILLION Obama 2014 3.9% 1.7%

9.9 Billion $ 10.3 Billion $ 10.4 Billion $ 11.3 Billion $ 11.7 Billion
The School Lunch Program assists states through cash grants and food donations in providing balanced, low-cost or free lunches to school children each school day.
NUTRITION
148
School Meal Equipment Grants

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) N/A N/A N/A 2010 N/A N/A N/A 2011 N/A N/A N/A 2012 N/A N/A 2013 N/A N/A
Obama 2014 259.7% 252.0%
N/A $ 9.7 Million $ 35.0 Million
These grants help schools upgrade their kitchen equipment to serve healthier meals, improve food safety, and help support the establishment, maintenance, or expansion of the school breakfast program.
Special Milk Program

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) -4.2% -4.2% 2010 -14.3% -15.6% 2011 0.0% -3.1% 2012 8.3% 6.0% 2013 -8.2% -10.1%
-22.1%
2009-2013
Obama 2014
$ 14.0 Million $ 12.0 Million $ 12.0 Million $ 13.0 Million $ 11.9 Million $ 11.0 Million -7.8% -9.8%
NUTRITION
The Special Milk Program assists states in providing milk to children in schools and child care institutions who do not participate in other federal meal service programs.
149
Special Supplemental Program for Women, Infants and Children

-13.1%
2009-2013
TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
$138.0 MILLION
Obama 2014 7.1 Billion 9.5% 7.1%
This program provides federal grants to states for supplemental foods, health care referrals, and nutrition education serving low-income pregnant and postpartum women, as well as infants and children up to age five who are found to be at nutritional risk. For more information, see Programs of Special Note, page 143.
State Administrative Expenses

52.2%
2009-2013
NUTRITION
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) -0.9% -0.9%
2010 12.6% 10.9%
2011 6.6% 3.3%
2012 32.1% 29.2%
2013 5.0% 2.8%
Obama 2014 -14.4% -16.2%
State Administrative Expenses for Child Nutrition provides funds to states for administrative expenses incurred from supervising and giving technical assistance to local schools, school districts, and institutions in their conduct of child nutrition programs. Funds are also given to help states in their distribution of USDA donated commodities to schools or child or adult care institutions.
150
Summer Food Service Program

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 14.6% 14.6% 2010 5.1% 3.4% 2011 0.8% -2.3% 2012 6.1% 3.8% 2013 8.7% 6.4%
11.6%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 7.7% 5.3%
The Summer Food Service Program for Children assists states in providing nutritious meals to low-income children during the summer months and at other approved times when schools are out of session or are closed for vacation.
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
39.9%
2009-2013
$41.9 BILLION
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 35.7% 35.7% 2010 8.0% 6.3% 2011 33.2% 29.1% 2012 3.6% 1.3% 2013 2.7% 0.6% Obama 2014 -7.7% -9.7%
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as Food Stamps, provides direct financial assistance to low-income households for use in purchasing food for home consumption. For more information, see Programs of Special Note, page 141.
35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% -5% -10% Childrens Nutrition Spending (Mandatory) Total Mandatory Spending Total Federal Budget
NUTRITION
151
TEAM Nutrition
-11.1%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 16.5% 13.9%
The TEAM Nutrition Grant Program is an integrated comprehensive plan involving schools, parents, and the community in efforts to continuously improve school meals, and to promote the health and education of school children.
NUTRITION
152
-22.7%
SAFETY
TOTAL SPENDING ON CHILD SAFETY
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) $ 1.1 Billion $ 11.6% 11.6% 2010 -6.2% -7.7% 2011 -19.3% -21.8% 2012 1.6% -0.6%
2009-2013
2013 10.0% 7.7%
Obama 2014 1.1 Billion 22.9% 20.3%
1.0 Billion $ 810.0 Million $ 830.0 Million $ 910.0 Million $
Child safety covers a wide range of federal efforts, from juvenile justice to anti-drug efforts to product safety. Child safety initiatives can be found in five different federal departments, as well as several additional independent agencies. Despite this breadth, budgetary resources are relatively slim, with the federal government spending less than a billion dollars per year on child safety. Spending on child safety has decreased by $270 million since 2009 in real dollars, which represents a decrease of nearly 23 percent. Indeed, because of sequestration, every program in this category saw a loss in funding from 2012 to 2013 except one. The only program to see an increase is the Unaccompanied Alien Children Program, which increased by almost $110 million to accommodate a growing need. While child safety is not a high funding priority of the federal government, its status has devolved into what can be described as a budgetary afterthought. During the fiscal year (FY) 2013 appropriations process, child safety programs other than Unaccompanied Alien Children saw a 5.2 percent real decline.
153
CHILD SAFETY SPENDING AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING
0.050% 0.045% 0.040% 0.035% 0.030% 0.025% 0.020% 0.015% 0.010% 0.005% 0% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
(Proposed)
2014

Child safety spending received a substantial increase in the Presidents FY 2014 budget request. Overall, President Obama has requested an increase of approximately $200 million in funding for Safety programs over the next fiscal year. This is a 22.9 percent increase from 2013 levels. The majority of this funding comes from an increase to Juvenile Justice Programs, a long neglected portion of the budget, and another significant increase for the Unaccompanied Alien Child Program. Even if the Presidents budget is passed as requested, child safety funding would still be 7 percent lower, in real terms, than it was in 2009.
154

Juvenile Justice Programs
Department: Justice Bureau: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) -8.8% -8.8% 2010 16.3% 14.5% 2011 -41.9% -43.7% 2012 -3.9% -6.0% 2013 -4.2% -6.2% Obama 2014 43.3% 40.2%
-43.1%
2009-2013
SAFETY
Federal juvenile justice funding for at-risk youth is concentrated primarily in three major initiatives: Title II State Formula Grants, the Title V Local Delinquency Prevention Program, and the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program. Juvenile justice funding is also used for several smaller initiatives including youth mentoring and violence prevention. Title II of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) supports innovative state juvenile justice initiatives. In particular, Title II supports state efforts to reduce the risk of harm to young people involved with the criminal justice system, ensure fair treatment of minority youth, and improve the way states and local governments address delinquent behavior. Title V of the JJDPA authorized the original, and still one of the only, federal initiatives specifically designed to prevent delinquency at the local level. Commonly known as Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention, Title V prioritizes the use of evidence-informed approaches. It requires local government coordination with a statewide plan to ensure strategic use of resources to reduce delinquency, and leverages the commitment
155
SAFETY
TOTAL FEDERAL SPENDING ON JUVENILE JUSTICE PROGRAMS

MILLIONS $
600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
(Proposed)
2014
and resources of state and local jurisdictions by requiring a 50% match. The grant also provides support for collaborative community-focused and community-based prevention efforts to reach youth in highrisk situations before they make poor choices. The Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program (JABG) reduces juvenile recidivism by providing judges, probation officers, case managers and other juvenile justice professionals a range of graduated sanctions including restitution, community service, victim-offender mediation and other restorative justice methods. These options effectively hold youth accountable for their behavior in age- and developmentally-appropriate ways. The President, in his 2014 budget request, has proposed a substantial juvenile justice funding increase of $87.3 million. In real terms, this is a 47.5 percent gain over 2013 levels. Much of the increase is directed to the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant and Title V. These increased investments will serve nearly 250,000 at-risk youth and establish a new initiative aimed at reducing arrests for non-serious youth misbehavior. However, even if the Presidents budget is enacted, investments for Juvenile Justice Programs would still be, in real terms, 43.1 percent lower in 2013 than they were in 2009.
156
Consumer Product Safety Commission

Department: Executive Branch Bureau: Consumer Product Safety Commission Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 50%
-5.9%
2009-2013
SAFETY
Obama 2014 7.8% 5.5%
The Consumer Product Safety Commission is an independent regulatory agency whose primary responsibilities include protecting children and families against unreasonable risks of injury associated with consumer products, developing uniform safety standards for consumer products, and promoting research and investigation into the causes and prevention of product-related deaths, illnesses, and injuries.
Juvenile Justice Programs

Department: Justice Bureau: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) -8.8% -8.8% 2010 16.3% 14.5% 2011 -41.9% -43.7% 2012 -3.9% -6.0% 2013 -4.2% -6.2%
-43.1%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 43.3% 40.2%
Federal juvenile justice funding for at-risk youth is concentrated primarily in three separate programs: Title II State Formula Grants, the Title V Local Delinquency Prevention Program, and the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program. For more information, see Programs of Special Note, page 155.
157
Mentoring
SAFETY
-100%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 N/A N/A
$ 48.5 Million $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Mentoring programs provide grants to promote mentoring for children with the greatest need. They aim to improve academic performance, improve relationships between mentored children and other people in their lives, and reduce dropout rates and juvenile delinquency.
Missing Children Program

Department: Justice Bureau: Office of Justice Programs Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
-18.7%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 -0.4% -2.5%
The Missing Childrens Assistance Program provides funds to public agencies or private nonprofit organizations for research, training, technical assistance, demonstration projects, or service programs designed to enhance support for missing children and their families.
TOTAL FEDERAL SPENDING ON CHILD SAFETY PROGRAMS

BILLIONS $
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

(Proposed)
2014
158
SAFETY
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign

Department: Executive Branch Bureau: Office of National Drug Control Policy Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 6.7% 6.7% 2010 -29.7% -30.8% 2011 -22.4% -24.8% 2012 -100.0% -100.0% 2013 N/A N/A
-100%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 N/A N/A
The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign uses a mix of modern communications techniques, from advertising and public relations to interactive media, and all possible venues, such as television programs and after-school activities, to educate and empower young people to reject illicit drugs.
Poison Control
Department: Health and Human Services Bureau: Health Care Systems Bureau Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 65%
-43.0%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 6.6% 4.3%
The Poison Control Centers Program funds a national toll-free number that connects callers with a poison center in their area. It also supports a grant program for centers around the country as well as supporting other system enhancements, including improved data collection. These activities help to ensure universal access to quality poison control services.
159
SAFETY
Safe Routes to Schools

Department: Transportation Bureau: Federal Highway Administration Type: Mandatory | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
-13.3%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 5.4% 3.1%
The Safe Routes to Schools Program provides funds to states to substantially improve the ability of primary and middle school students to safely walk and bicycle to school. This program is funded through the transportation bill, which has not been fully reauthorized and is on a one-year extension. FY 2014 funding levels assume a similar investment in a future transportation bill.
Sober Truth on Preventing Underage Drinking Act Programs

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 29.6% 29.6% 2010 0.0% -1.6% 2011 0.0% -3.1% 2012 -0.2% -2.3% 2013 0.1% -2.0%
-8.7%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 0.1% -2.1%
The Sober Truth on Preventing Underage Drinking Act Program addresses the harm caused by underage drinking by supporting prevention projects and activities.
160
State Grants for Incarcerated Youth Offenders

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) -23.2% -23.2% 2010 0.0% -1.6% 2011 -100.0% -100.0% 2012 N/A N/A 2013 N/A N/A
-100%
2009-2013
SAFETY
Obama 2014 N/A N/A
$ 17.2 Million $ 17.2 Million $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
The State Grants for Incarcerated Youth Offenders program provides funds to state correctional education agencies to assist and encourage incarcerated youth to acquire literacy, life skills, and job skills, through the pursuit of a postsecondary education certificate, or an associates or bachelors degree while in prison.
Support for Missing and Exploited Children

Department: Homeland Security Bureau: United States Secret Service Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
-15.0%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 -100.0% -100.0%
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children assists federal law enforcement agencies in the investigation and recovery of missing children and supports the maintenance of a national resource center dedicated to these issues.
Unaccompanied Alien Children Program

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 54.7% 54.7% 2010 -27.2% -28.4% 2011 -0.2% -3.3% 2012 79.3% 75.4% 2013 40.7% 37.8%
67.6%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 31.5% 28.7%
The Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) Program provides for the care and placement of unaccompanied alien minors who are either in the custody of federal agencies or have been apprehended by federal officials at a border, port of entry, or in the interior of the United States. UAC generally leave their home countries to join family already in the U.S.; escape abuse, persecution, or exploitation in the home country; or to seek employment or educational opportunities. Some UAC are sent by their families or other traffickers for labor or commercial sex exploitation.
161
Violence in Schools Prevention Programs

SAFETY
-78.8%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 5.5% 3.2%
The Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative provides grants to help communities design and implement comprehensive educational, mental health, social service, law enforcement, and juvenile justice services for youth, with the goal of reducing school violence.
Youth Farm Safety Education and Certification

Department: Agriculture Bureau: Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 2.6% 2.6% 2010 1.5% -0.1% 2011 1,008.6% 974.3% 2012 -14.4% -16.3% 2013 -7.6% -9.5%
712.8%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 8.2% 5.9%
The Youth Farm Safety and Education Certification Program supports efforts to deliver timely, pertinent, and appropriate training to youth seeking employment or already employed in agricultural production.
0%
-5%
-10%
-15%
-20%
-25% Child Safety Spending (Discretionary) Total Discretionary Spending Total Federal Budget
162
-17.3%
TRAINING
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 2.7% 2.7% 2010 2.4% 0.8% 2011 -6.6% -9.5% 2012 -0.2% -2.3%
2009-2013
TOTAL SPENDING ON YOUTH TRAINING

Youth employment and job training remains a small part of the federal budget. Even with the investments contained in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the federal government has spent less than $11 billion on training programs for young people in the past five years combined. Annual spending on youth training makes up less than one tenth of one percent of the federal non-defense budget. Even though funding for youth training and employment makes up a small slice of federal spending, its real value has shrunk considerably over the past five years. Small increases in 2009 and 2010 have been undone by large cuts in 2011 and more cuts in the current fiscal year from sequestration. At a time when 3.5 million youth are unemployed, the highest levels in 60 years, this is a move in the wrong direction. The bulk of federal youth training funding is allocated to two programs: Workforce Investment Act (WIA) job training for youth programs and Job Corps. Together, these two combine to claim more than 95 percent of all the federal youth training funds. The WIA youth program in particular experienced a substantial real decline in funding over the past five years. After sizable gains, Job Corps has seen a series of cuts over the past three years. When taking inflation into account, the program has experienced a 12 percent decline in funding from 2009 to 2013. Of this small slice of federal funding, the amount spent on youth training is 17.3 percent smaller today than it was five years ago, when measured in real terms. As a result, despite any nominal gains that might be made to youth training, funding in this area continues its downward trend.
163
YOUTH TRAINING SPENDING AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING
0.10% 0.09% 0.08% 0.07% 0.06% 0.05% 0.04% 0.03% 0.02% 0.01% 0% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
(Proposed)
2014

ARRA included about $1.5 billion in funding for youth training programs, through increases to the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), YouthBuild, and Job Corps. Though this $1.5 billion is less than 0.2 percent of all the money in ARRA, even that small slice was enough to substantially boost the overall federal investment in this area. At this point, the additional investment has been exhausted. In 2012, the remaining $25 million of ARRA youth training funds were spent. This equals a 1.4 percent increase over non-ARRA 2012 levels.

President Obamas fiscal year (FY) 2014 budget reflects a significant increase in youth training funding from 2013 levels, because it restores sequester cuts. In addition to restoring sequester, the budget includes a small increase of $20 million to WIA initiatives. Overall, the 2014 request is, in real terms, more than 10 percent less than funding levels for 2009. Not included in the total is proposed legislation that would expand summer jobs initiatives in FY 2013, which seems unlikely to become law, but if passed would be a substantial investment.
0%
-5%
-10%
-15%
-20% Youth Training Spending (Discretionary) Total Discretionary Spending Total Federal Budget
164

TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
Workforce Investment Act Youth Training Programs

Department: Labor Bureau: Employment and Training Administration Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 100%
-22.7%
2009-2013
$1.2 BILLION
Obama 2014 8.4% 6.0%
TRAINING
Enacted in 1998, the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) consolidated programs under the Job Training Partnership Act to create a comprehensive system of workforce preparation for the nations young people. Under WIA, the U.S. Department of Labor provides funds to the Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs) within each state that in turn provide funding to local Workforce Investment Boards. Funding is disseminated based on a formula that includes the local unemployment rate and the number of disadvantaged youth (i.e., youth in families below the poverty level) within the WIBs jurisdiction. The local WIB administers a request for proposals annually and distributes funds to selected service providers on a competitive basis. There are approximately 600 local WIBs throughout the country. Each WIB is composed of representatives from various sectors, including business, labor, education, elected officials, community based organizations, and career centers (e.g., One-Stop Center). Under current law, young people are eligible to receive services funded by WIA if they are between the ages of 14-21, are low-income, and have one of several barriers to employment including dropping out of school,
165
MILLIONS $
TOTAL FEDERAL SPENDING ON WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT YOUTH TRAINING PROGRAMS

1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
(Proposed)
2014
TRAINING
experiencing homelessness, and being a runaway or foster child, among others. Current law also requires that 30 percent of WIA funds be spent to serve out-of-school youth. Each WIB is required to ensure that ten program elements are available to the eligible youth in its jurisdiction. These elements include: T utoring, study skills training, and instruction leading to completion of secondary school, including dropout prevention strategies; Alternative secondary school services; Summer employment opportunities directly linked to academic and occupational learning; Paid and unpaid work experiences, including internships and job shadowing; Occupational skill training; L eadership development opportunities, which may include community service and peer-centered activities encouraging responsibility and other positive social behaviors during non-school hours; Supportive services; Adult mentoring for the period of participation and at least 12 months subsequently; and F ollow-up services for not less than 12 months after the completion of participation, including comprehensive guidance and counseling for drug and alcohol abuse.
President Obamas budget calls for much-needed new investments at a time when youth unemployment is more than double the national unemployment rate. When adjusting for inflation, the FY 2014 request is a 6 percent increase from 2013 post sequestration levels. As this book goes to print, Congress is working on legislation nearly a decade past due that, if passed, would reauthorize WIA. The U.S. House of Representatives has passed a reauthorization that would dramatically shift the priorities away from youth. The U.S. Senate has yet to unveil a bill, though most expect it to differ widely from the House. It remains unclear whether policy differences will be reconciled. With the current fiscal situation, it is also unclear how a reauthorization will affect long-term funding levels.
166
Job Corps
TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
-12.4%
2009-2013
$250.0 MILLION
Department: Labor Bureau: Office of Job Corps Type: Discretionary | Share of Funding Allocated to Children: 52%
2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) $ 1.7 Billion $ 4.6% 4.6% 2010 1.7 Billion $ 1.4% -0.2% 2011 1.7 Billion $ -0.1% -3.2% 2012 1.7 Billion $ -0.2% -2.3% 2013 1.6 Billion $ -5.2% -7.2% Obama 2014 1.7 Billion 4.8% 2.6%
Job Corps provides young people ages 16 through 24 education and vocational training at no cost. The program also offers students a monthly stipend, assistance in job placement, and career counseling and transition support for up to 12 months after they graduate.
TRAINING
TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
Workforce Investment Act Youth Training Programs

-22.7%
2009-2013
$1.2 BILLION
Obama 2014 8.4% 6.0%
The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) helped create a comprehensive system of workforce preparation for the nations young people. Under WIA, the Department of Labor provides funds to Workforce Investment Boards, which distribute money to local providers on a competitive basis. For more information, see Programs of Special Note, page 165.
167
Young Parents Employment and Training Demonstration Program

2009 Funding Level Percent Change from Previous Year Percent Change (Inflation Adjusted) 1.8% 1.8% 2010 10.0% 8.3% 2011 -100.0% -100.0% 2012 N/A N/A 2013 N/A N/A
-100%
2009-2013
Obama 2014 N/A N/A
$ 5.0 Million $ 5.5 Million $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
TRAINING
The Young Parents Employment and Training Demonstration Program awards competitive grants to local organizations with the goal of providing educational and occupational skills to young parents and expectant mothers under the age of 24.
YouthBuild
-22.7%
2009-2013
TOTAL ARRA AMOUNT
$50.0 MILLION Obama 2014 8.4% 6.0%

YouthBuild offers grants to be used to provide education, employment skills, and training opportunities to disadvantaged youth, with the goal of helping them succeed.
TOTAL FEDERAL SPENDING ON YOUTH TRAINING PROGRAMS

BILLIONS $
3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
(Proposed)
2014
168
THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT (ARRA)

In February 2009, Congress passed and the President signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), a package of tax cuts and spending intended to help stimulate economic growth and stem losses from a deepening recession. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates ARRA will total $831 billion over ten years, with nearly 75 percent going to spending and the remainder to tax cuts. The majority of ARRA resources have been distributed and, as of 2013, are almost gone. More than $116 billion, or nearly 15 percent of the total investment, was intended for children, the majority of which has been spent on education. The single largest childrens expenditure in ARRA is the $53.6 billion State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, of which $35.9 billion will be spent on children. In addition to the Stabilization Fund, ARRA included $30.6 billion in education investments that benefit kids like Title I and IDEA. The total educational investment in ARRA passes $66.5 billion, accounting for nearly 55 percent of all ARRA spending on children. Childrens health and child nutrition were the next-largest recipients of ARRA funding. Most of the $25 billion allotted for childrens health comes from federal aid to states for Medicaid. Additional investment to support families on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) makes up 99 percent of the $20 billion in child nutrition funding. While education, health, and nutrition comprise the bulk of the stimulus investments benefiting children, other areas such as income support, early childhood, training, housing, and child welfare also received additional investments.
169
TOTAL ARRA SPENDING PER YEAR ON CHILDREN

BILLIONS $
50
40
30
20
10
0 2009 2010 2011 2012

(Projected)
2013
(Projected)
2014
To put the total childrens investment from ARRA into perspective, $49.5 billion of ARRA funds were spent on kids in fiscal year (FY) 2010, meaning that the federal government spent 18.8 percent more on kids in FY 2010 than would have been spent without ARRA. In 2011, even with the drop-off, total investments on kids were still 11.2 percent greater than they would otherwise have been. In 2012, $9.1 billion in ARRA investments were distributed, representing a 3.4 percent increase over non-ARRA levels. Assuming the pace of ARRA outlays projected by the CBO, $6 billion will be spent in FY 2013 and $1.4 billion in FY 2014. This amounts to increases of 2.2 percent and 0.5 percent over the non-ARRA funding levels, assuming the Presidents budget is passed with minimal changes. After 2014, the impact of ARRA will be almost unnoticeable.
BREAKDOWN OF TOTAL ARRA INVESTMENT FOR KIDS

Education Nutrition Health Income Support Early Childhood Child Welfare Training Housing
170
With these ARRA investments, the total share of spending on children as a percentage of total government spending reached peak levels, topping out at 8.5 percent of total spending in 2010. In 2011 that share dropped to 8.4 percent and for 2012, it fell another 10 percent to 7.7 percent. This year it is up slightly to 7.8 percent, but overall funding for kids has still dropped, because overall government funding has dropped more. This is still up from 7.4 percent in FY 2008. It is noteworthy that this year and last, many childrens initiatives benefiting from ARRA have faced difficult budget situations as ARRA funds begin to run out and federal budget sequestration took hold. These initiatives will be forced to scale back to pre-2009 levelsunless Congress chooses to appropriate higher yearly levels of support. As the economy continues to slowly recover, scaling back may not pose significant problems in certain areas. For others, especially those which have faced several years of underfunding, a substantial and sudden drop in available resources may have serious consequences. For example, Head Start has been able to serve nearly 61,000 additional children in Head Start and Early Head Start. Fortunately, appropriation levels for Head Start have increased specifically to ensure those children continue to receive quality early childhood services. This year, that is not the case, resulting in thousands of kids losing their classroom seats. For other education programs like Title I and IDEA, the investment is also not being replaced. With continued near record levels of child poverty, the disappearance of those vital supports will have dire and lasting consequences.
171
ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF PROGRAMS

21st Century Community Learning Centers 52 Abandoned Infants Assistance 24 Abstinence Education 104 Academies for American History and Civics 52 Adolescent Family Life Program 104 Adoption Awareness 24 Adoption Incentives 25 Adoption Opportunities 25 Advanced Credentialing 52 Advanced Placement 53 Alaska Native Educational Equity 53 Alcohol Abuse Reduction 54 American Printing House for the Blind 54 Arts in Education 55 Autism and Other Developmental Disorders Initiative 105 Birth Defects, Developmental Disabilities, Disability and Health 105 Carol M. White Physical Education for Progress Program 55 Character Education 55 Charter School Grants 56 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Programs 26 Child and Adult Care Food Program 144 Child Care and Development Block Grant 37, 39 Child Care Access Means Parents in School 40 Child Welfare Services 26 Child Welfare Training 27 Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program 106 Children, Youth, and Families at Risk 27 Children, Youth, Women, and Families (HIV/AIDS Bureau) 106 Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP) 99, 106 Childrens Hospitals Graduate Medical Education Program 107 Childrens Mental Health Services 107 Civic Education 56 Close Up Fellowships 57 College Pathways and Accelerated Learning 57 Commodity Assistance Program 144 Commodity Procurement 145 Community Health Centers 101, 108 Community Services Block Grant 28 Compassion Capital Fund 108 Comprehensive Centers 58 Consolidated Runaway and Homeless Youth Program 123 Consumer Product Safety Commission 157 Coordinated Review 145 Coordinated School Health Programs 109 Corporation for National and Community Service 58 Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities 58 Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) 93 Dependency and Indemnity Compensation 135 Disability Compensation 135 Disability Insurance Trust Fund (Outlays to Children) 136 Early Reading First 59 Education Construction 59 Education for Homeless Children and Youth 48, 60 Education for Native Hawaiians 60 Education Jobs Fund (P.L. 111-226) 61 Education Statistics 61 Educational Technology State Grants 61 Effective Teachers and Leaders State Grants 62 Effective Teaching and Learning for a Well-Rounded Education 62 Effective Teaching and Learning: Literacy 63 Elementary and Secondary School Counseling 63 Emergency Medical Services for Children 109 English Language Acquisition State Grants 50, 64 Evaluation of Title I Programs 64 Even Start Family Literacy Program 40 Expanding Educational Options 65 Food Safety Education 146 Foreign Language Assistance 65 Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program 146 Fund for the Improvement of Education 65 Gallaudet University 66 GEAR UP 66 Grants to Local Education Agencies for Indian Education 66 Head Start 36, 41 Healthy Homes Program 110 Healthy Start Initiative 110 Healthy Transitions 111 High School Graduation Initiative 67 High School Redesign 67 Homeless Assistance Grants 121, 123 Hunger Free Community Grants 147 IDEA BGrants to States 68 IDEA BPreschool Grants 41 IDEA CGrants for Infants and Families 41 IDEA DParent Information Centers 68 IDEA DPersonnel Preparation 69 IDEA DState Personnel Development 69 IDEA DTechnical Assistance and Dissemination 69 IDEA DTechnology and Media Services 70 Impact Aid 70 Improving Literacy Through School Libraries 71 Indian Education 71 Investing in Innovation 72 Javits Gifted and Talented Education 72 Job Corps 167 Juvenile Justice Programs 155, 157 Kinship Guardianship 28 Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program 124 Magnet Schools Assistance 72 Maternal and Child Health Block Grant 111 Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program 42 Mathematics and Science Partnerships 73
PROGRAM INDEX
172
Medicaid 97, 111 Mentoring 158 Mentoring Children of Prisoners 29 Migrant Education Program 73 Missing Children Program 158 National Activities for Indian Education 74 National Assessment of Educational Progress 74 National Asthma Control Program 103, 112 National Child Traumatic Stress Initiative 112 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund 113 National Childrens Study 113 National Housing Trust Fund 124 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 114 National Programs for Vocational Education 75 National Science Foundation K-12 Programs 75 National Writing Project 75 National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign 159 Office of Childrens Health Protection 114 Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund (Outlays to Children) 136 Parental Information and Resource Centers 76 Payments to States for Adoption Assistance 29 Payments to States for Child Support Enforcement and Family Support Programs 133, 137 Payments to States for Foster Care 19, 30 Personal Responsibility Education Program 115 Poison Control 159 Preschool Development Grants 38, 42 Preschool for All 38, 42 Prevention Grants to Reduce Sexual Abuse of Runaway, Homeless, and Street Youth 125 Project AWARE 115 Project-Based Rental Assistance Program 125 Promise Neighborhoods 76 PROMISE: Promoting Readiness of Minors in SSI 76 Promoting Safe and Stable Families 21, 30 Public Housing Operating Fund 126 Race to the Top 77 Reading is Fundamental 77 Ready to Learn Television 78 Recognizing Education Success, Professional Excellence, & Collaborative Teaching (RESPECT) 78 Regional Educational Laboratories 79 Rental Assistance Program 126 Research, Development and Dissemination 79 Research in Special Education 79 Rural Education 80 Rural Housing Assistance Grants 127 Rural Housing Voucher Program 127 Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities National Activities 80 Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grant Program 80 Safe Motherhood and Infant Health Program 116 Safe Routes to Schools 160 School-Based Health Centers 116 School Breakfast Expansion Grants 147 School Breakfast Program 148
School Improvement Grants 81 School Leadership 81 School Lunch Program 148 School Meal Equipment Grants 149 Smaller Learning Communities 82 Sober Truth on Preventing Underage Drinking Act Programs 160 Social Services Block Grant 31 Social Services Research 31 Special Education Studies and Evaluations 82 Special Milk Program 149 Special Olympics Education Programs 82 Special Programs for Indian Children 83 Special Supplemental Program for Women, Infants and Children 143, 150 State Administrative Expenses 150 State Assessments and Enhanced Assessment Instruments 83 State Grants for Career and Technical Education 84 State Grants for Improving Teacher Quality 84 State Grants for Incarcerated Youth Offenders 161 Statewide Data Systems 85 STEM Innovation 85 Striving Readers 85 Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students 86 Summer Food Service Program 151 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 141, 151 Supplemental Security Income (Outlays to Children) 137 Supplemental to Impact Aid 93 Support for Missing and Exploited Children 161 Survivors Pension Benefits 138 Teach For America 86 Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund 87 Teacher Incentive Fund Grants 87 Teacher Quality Partnerships 87 Teaching of Traditional American History 88 TEAM Nutrition 152 Teen Pregnancy Prevention Grants 117 Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) 131, 138 Tenant-Based Rental Assistance 128 Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies 46, 88 Title I Neglected and Delinquent Program 88 Training and Advisory Services 89 Transition to Teaching 89 TRIO Programs 90 Troops to Teachers 94 Unaccompanied Alien Children Program 161 Universal Newborn Hearing Screening and Intervention Program 117 Vaccines for Children 118 Victims of Domestic Trafficking 32 Violence in Schools Prevention Programs 162 Voluntary Public School Choice 90 Workforce Expansion for Mental Health 118 Workforce Investment Act Youth Training Programs 165, 167 Young Parents Employment and Training Demonstration Program 168 Youth Farm Safety Education and Certification 162 YouthBuild 168
PROGRAM INDEX
173
INDEX OF PROGRAMS BY DEPARTMENT AND BUREAU

AGRICULTURE Child Nutrition Programs Child and Adult Care Food Program Commodity Procurement Coordinated Review Food Safety Education Hunger Free Community Grants School Breakfast Expansion Grants School Breakfast Program School Lunch Program School Meal Equipment Grants Special Milk Program State Administrative Expenses Summer Food Service Program TEAM Nutrition 144 145 145 146 147 147 148 148 149 149 150 151 152 Migrant Education Program School Improvement Grants Striving Readers Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies Title I Neglected and Delinquent Program Education Improvement Programs College Pathways and Accelerated Learning Effective Teaching and Learning for a Well-Rounded Education Effective Teaching and Learning: Literacy Education Jobs Fund Education Jobs Fund (P.L. 111-226) English Language Acquisition English Language Acquisition State Grants Higher Education Child Care Access Means Parents in School GEAR UP Teacher Quality Partnerships TRIO Programs Impact Aid Impact Aid Indian Education Grants to Local Education Agencies for Indian Education National Activities for Indian Education Special Programs for Indian Children Innovation and Improvement Academies for American History and Civics Advanced Credentialing Advanced Placement Arts in Education Charter School Grants Close Up Fellowships Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities Fund for the Improvement of Education Magnet Schools Assistance National Writing Project Parental Information and Resource Centers Reading is Fundamental Ready to Learn Television School Leadership STEM Innovation Teach For America Teacher Incentive Fund Grants Teaching of Traditional American History Transition to Teaching Voluntary Public School Choice 73 81 85 46, 88 88 57 62 63 61 50, 64 40 66 87 90 70 66 74 83 52 52 53 55 56 57 58 65 72 75 76 77 78 81 85 86 87 88 89 90
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service Children, Youth, and Families at Risk 27 Youth Farm Safety Education and Certification 162 Food and Nutrition Service Commodity Assistance Program Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program Special Supplemental Program for Women, Infants and Children Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Rural Housing Service Rental Assistance Program Rural Housing Assistance Grants Rural Housing Voucher Program DEFENSE Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) Supplemental to Impact Aid Defense Dependents Education Troops to Teachers EDUCATION Career, Technical and Adult Education National Programs for Vocational Education Smaller Learning Communities State Grants for Career and Technical Education State Grants for Incarcerated Youth Offenders Education for the Disadvantaged Early Reading First Evaluation of Title I Programs Even Start Family Literacy Program High School Graduation Initiative Improving Literacy Through School Libraries 144 146 143, 150 141, 151 126 127 127 93 93 94
PROGRAM INDEX
75 82 84 161 59 64 40 67 71
174
Innovation and Instructional Teams Effective Teachers and Leaders State Grants Expanding Educational Options High School Redesign Investing in Innovation Preschool Development Grants Preschool for All Race to the Top Recognizing Education Success, Professional Excellence, & Collaborative Teaching (RESPECT) Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund Institute of Education Sciences Education Statistics National Assessment of Educational Progress Regional Educational Laboratories Research, Development and Dissemination Research in Special Education Special Education Studies and Evaluations Statewide Data Systems
62 65 67 72 38, 42 38, 42 77 78 87 61 74 79 79 79 82 85
PROMISE: Promoting Readiness of Minors in SSI Special Olympics Education Programs Special Institutions for Persons with Disabilities American Printing House for the Blind Gallaudet University Supporting Student Success Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Office of the Administrator Office of Childrens Health Protection EXECUTIVE BRANCH Consumer Product Safety Commission Consumer Product Safety Commission Office of National Drug Control Policy National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Abandoned Infants Assistance Abstinence Education Adoption Awareness Adoption Incentives Adoption Opportunities Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Programs Child Care and Development Block Grant Child Welfare Services Child Welfare Training Community Services Block Grant Compassion Capital Fund Consolidated Runaway and Homeless Youth Program Head Start Kinship Guardianship Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program Mentoring Children of Prisoners Payments to States for Adoption Assistance Payments to States for Child Support Enforcement and Family Support Programs Payments to States for Foster Care Personal Responsibility Education Program Prevention Grants to Reduce Sexual Abuse of Runaway, Homeless, and Street Youth Promoting Safe and Stable Families Social Services Block Grant Social Services Research Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) Unaccompanied Alien Children Program Victims of Domestic Trafficking Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Medicaid Vaccines for Children
76 82 54 66 86
114
157 159
Safe Schools and Citizenship Education Alcohol Abuse Reduction 54 Carol M. White Physical Education for Progress Program 55 Character Education 55 Civic Education 56 Elementary and Secondary School Counseling 63 Mentoring 158 Promise Neighborhoods 76 Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities National Activities 80 Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grant Program 80 School Improvement Programs 21st Century Community Learning Centers Alaska Native Educational Equity Comprehensive Centers Education for Homeless Children and Youth Education for Native Hawaiians Educational Technology State Grants Foreign Language Assistance Javits Gifted and Talented Education Mathematics and Science Partnerships Rural Education State Assessments and Enhanced Assessment Instruments State Grants for Improving Teacher Quality Training and Advisory Services Special Education IDEA BGrants to States IDEA BPreschool Grants IDEA CGrants for Infants & Families IDEA DParent Information Centers IDEA DPersonnel Preparation IDEA DState Personnel Development IDEA DTechnical Assistance and Dissemination IDEA DTechnology and Media Services 52 53 58 48, 60 60 61 65 72 73 80 83 84 89 68 41 41 68 69 69 69 70
24 104 24 25 25 26 37, 39 26 27 28 108 123 36, 41 28 124 29 29 133, 137 19, 30 115 125 21, 30 31 31 131, 138 161 32 99, 106 97, 111 118
PROGRAM INDEX
(continued on next page)
175
INDEX OF PROGRAMS BY DEPARTMENT AND BUREAU (CONTINUED)

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (continued) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Birth Defects, Developmental Disabilities, Disability and Health 105 Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program 106 Coordinated School Health Programs 109 Healthy Homes Program 110 National Asthma Control Program 103, 112 Safe Motherhood and Infant Health Program 116 Health Care Systems Bureau Poison Control 159 Public and Indian Housing National Housing Trust Fund Project-Based Rental Assistance Program Public Housing Operating Fund Tenant-Based Rental Assistance INDEPENDENT AGENCY Corporation for National and Community Service INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs Education Construction Indian Education JUSTICE Office of Justice Programs Missing Children Program 124 125 126 128 58
Health Resources and Services Administration Community Health Centers 101, 108 Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program 42 School-Based Health Centers 116 HIV/AIDS Bureau Children, Youth, Women, and Families (HIV/AIDS Bureau) Maternal and Child Health Bureau Autism and Other Developmental Disorders Initiative Childrens Hospitals Graduate Medical Education Program Emergency Medical Services for Children Healthy Start Initiative Maternal and Child Health Block Grant Universal Newborn Hearing Screening and Intervention Program National Institutes of Health National Childrens Study National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Office of the Secretary Adolescent Family Life Program Teen Pregnancy Prevention Grants 106 105 107 109 110 111 117 113 114 104 117
59 71
158
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Juvenile Justice Programs 155, 157 Office of the Inspector General National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund 113
LABOR Employment and Training Administration Workforce Investment Act Youth Training Programs 165, 167 Young Parents Employment and Training Demonstration Program 168 YouthBuild 168 Office of Job Corps Job Corps NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Education and Human Resources National Science Foundation K-12 Programs TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Safe Routes to Schools 167
75
PROGRAM INDEX
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Childrens Mental Health Services 107 Healthy Transitions 111 National Child Traumatic Stress Initiative 112 Project AWARE 115 Sober Truth on Preventing Underage Drinking Act Programs 160 Violence in Schools Prevention Programs 162 Workforce Expansion for Mental Health 118 HOMELAND SECURITY United States Secret Service Support for Missing and Exploited Children
160
TREASURY Social Security Administration Disability Insurance Trust Fund (Outlays to Children) 136 Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund (Outlays to Children) 136 Supplemental Security Income (Outlays to Children) 137 VETERANS AFFAIRS Benefits Programs Dependency and Indemnity Compensation Disability Compensation Survivors Pension Benefits
161
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Community Planning and Development Homeless Assistance Grants 121, 123
135 135 138
176
1110 Vermont Ave. NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005 T: (202) 657-0670 F: (202) 657-0671
www.firstfocus.net

Childrens Budget 2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Childrens Budget 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHILDRENS BUDGET 2013

CHILDRENS BUDGET 2013

ABOUT FIRST FOCUS

CHILDRENS BUDGET 2013

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF FIRST FOCUS

First Focus: Childrens Budget 2013

Americas Report Card on Children

First Focus: Childrens Budget 2013

Federal Budget Cuts to Children

First Focus: Childrens Budget 2013

State Budget Cuts to Children

The Public Values Investing in ChildrenOur Future

Money Matters: Cost Effectiveness and Adequacy

First Focus: Childrens Budget 2013

First Focus: Childrens Budget 2013

Action and Change

First Focus: Childrens Budget 2013

First Focus: Childrens Budget 2013

Comparing Budget Levels

First Focus: Childrens Budget 2013

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

First Focus: Childrens Budget 2013

Obama 2014 6.6% 4.7%

First Focus: Childrens Budget 2013

MANDATORY FEDERAL SPENDING ON CHILDREN

2013 3.2% 1.0%

Obama 2014 6.7% 4.4%

DISCRETIONARY FEDERAL SPENDING ON CHILDREN

Obama 2014 12.9% 10.5%

ARRA FEDERAL SPENDING ON CHILDREN

Obama 2014 1.4 Billion -76.2% -76.7%

6.0 Billion $ -34.1% -35.4%

First Focus: Childrens Budget 2013

TOTAL CHILDRENS SPENDING AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING

14% 12% 10%

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

The Presidents 2014 Budget

TOTAL FEDERAL CHILDRENS SPENDING

Nominal Value Inflation Adjusted

0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

CHILDREN IN THE FEDERAL BUDGET, 2013

First Focus: Childrens Budget 2013

BREAKDOWN OF FEDERAL CHILDRENS SPENDING, 2013

FEDERAL SPENDING ON CHILDREN, 2013

Sequesters Continued and Future Impact on Kids

First Focus: Childrens Budget 2013

CHILDREN'S DISCRETIONARY SPENDING, 2009-2013

First Focus: Childrens Budget 2013

CHILDRENS SPENDING AS A PERCENT OF GDP

0.5% 0% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

First Focus: Childrens Budget 2013

2013 8.9 Billion $ 3.3% 1.2%

Obama 2014 9.1 Billion 1.4% -0.8%

First Focus: Childrens Budget 2013

CHILD WELFARE SPENDING AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)

The Presidents 2014 Budget

First Focus: Childrens Budget 2013

PROGRAMS OF SPECIAL NOTE

First Focus: Childrens Budget 2013

FEDERAL FUNDING FOR PAYMENTS TO STATES FOR FOSTER CARE

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Nominal Value Inflation Adjusted

First Focus: Childrens Budget 2013

I nflation Adjusted: Mandatory