A small clarification. The effective date for State plan amendments under Section 2(b)(1) has been delayed by one year, from October 1, 2026, to October 1, 2027. Additionally, the fiscal year for the inclusion of new data in the annual child welfare outcomes report to Congress under Section 3(8) has been shifted from fiscal year 2025 to fiscal year 2028.
Recruiting Families Using Data Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA]
- Committees
- Finance Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 15, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to enhance the stability and appropriateness of foster and adoptive placements by requiring states to adopt data-informed strategies and increase transparency in their child welfare systems.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Social Security Act to require states to develop and implement data-driven 'family partnership plans' to improve the recruitment and retention of foster and adoptive families. These plans must involve various stakeholders, detail strategies for identifying and supporting relatives, develop child-specific recruitment, and use data to assess needs and measure progress. The bill also mandates that states report detailed data on foster and adoptive families, including challenges and barriers, to Congress annually.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this legislation is crucial for addressing the persistent shortage of stable foster and adoptive homes by mandating a more strategic, data-driven approach to recruitment and retention. They contend that involving diverse stakeholders, including youth with lived experience, and focusing on kinship care, will lead to better outcomes for children in foster care. Proponents also highlight the importance of increased transparency and accountability through annual reporting to Congress.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that the bill imposes significant unfunded administrative burdens on states, potentially diverting resources from direct services to data collection and reporting. They may also contend that while data is valuable, federal mandates on specific plan components could limit state flexibility to address unique local challenges effectively, or that the bill doesn't address the root causes of foster care entry or placement instability.
The bill is concise and can be read and understood within a short timeframe, making it accessible for informed readers to evaluate its provisions.
Section 2(a)(1) and (2), amending 42 U.S.C. 622(b)(7) and adding (d)
Mandatory State Family Partnership Plans
This provision requires states, as a condition for receiving federal funds under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act, to develop and implement a 'family partnership plan.' This plan must outline how the state will identify, recruit, screen, license, support, and retain foster and adoptive families. It emphasizes consultation with birth, kinship, foster, and adoptive families, community providers, and youth with lived experience in foster care.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that requiring a structured, data-informed plan will professionalize and optimize state efforts to find stable homes for children, moving beyond ad-hoc recruitment. They believe that involving diverse stakeholders ensures the plan is responsive to real-world needs and challenges.
Critics contend
Critics may contend that this mandate represents federal overreach into state-level operations and could create significant unfunded administrative burdens. They might argue that states already engage in similar planning and that a federal mandate might not be the most efficient way to achieve these goals.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the federal interest in improving child welfare outcomes with state autonomy in managing their systems. It trades potential administrative costs for the promise of more effective and equitable family recruitment and retention.
Section 2(d)(2)(D) and (E), and (3)-(5)
Data-Driven Strategies and Reporting Requirements for States
This section details specific components required within the family partnership plan. States must use data to establish goals, assess needs, measure progress, reduce congregate care, increase kinship placements, and align family demographics with child needs. It also mandates the creation or support of foster family advisory boards. Annually, states must collect and report data on foster family capacity, congregate care utilization, feedback from foster/adoptive parents and youth, and challenges in recruiting racially and ethnically diverse families.
Section 3, amending 42 U.S.C. 679b(a)
Enhanced Federal Reporting on Foster and Adoptive Families
This section requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to include specific, State-by-State data on foster and adoptive families in the annual Child Welfare Outcomes Report to Congress, starting in fiscal year 2028. This includes data on the number, demographics, and characteristics of families, unused capacity, challenges faced by parents, and barriers to recruiting racially and ethnically diverse families, along with state efforts to overcome these barriers.
This subsection allows for a delay in the effective date of the state plan amendments if state legislation (other than appropriations) is required for a state to comply. The delay extends until the first day of the first calendar quarter after the close of the first regular legislative session that begins after the enactment date.
Section 2(b)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to accommodate states whose legislative cycles might not align with federal mandates, ensuring a smoother transition for compliance.
Case for: Supporters would argue this flexibility is essential for practical implementation, preventing states from being penalized for legislative processes beyond their immediate control. It ensures a more realistic timeline for compliance.
Case against: Critics might argue that such delays could prolong the implementation of critical reforms, especially if states are slow to act. However, this is a common and generally accepted legislative mechanism.
Estimated impact: Allows states up to two years or more, depending on their legislative calendar, to enact necessary statutory changes to comply with the federal mandate.