PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Human Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 26, 2000
Flexible Funding for Child Protection Act of 2000 - Title I: Flexible Funding Demonstrations - Amends title XI of the Social Security Act (SSA) to replace provisions on the effect of failure to carry out a State plan with provisions on demonstrations of flexible funding. Authorizes a State to apply to conduct a demonstration project with respect to one or more categories of foster care or adoption expenditures, in order to determine whether providing States with flexible funding for child protection: (1) has an effect on caseload levels; and (2) enhances availability and use of services, efficiency of service delivery, and child safety, permanency, and well-being. Makes necessary appropriations.Title II: Waivers Modification - Amends SSA title XI with regard to demonstration projects that the Secretary finds likely to promote the objectives of part B (Child-Welfare Services) or E (Foster Care and Adoption Assistance) of SSA title IV. Eliminates the limitation on the number of such projects for FY 1998 through 2002. Prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from refusing to grant a waiver to a State on the grounds that a purpose of the waiver or of the demonstration project for which the waiver is necessary would be the same as or similar to a purpose of another waiver or project that is or may be conducted under such demonstration projects.Prohibits the Secretary from imposing any limit on the number of waivers that may be granted to a State, or the number of demonstration projects that a State may be authorized to conduct under such demonstration projects.Requires the Secretary to develop a streamlined process for consideration of amendments proposed by States to demonstration projects.Urges the Secretary to consider use of historical baselines of foster care utilization, designs involving random assignment, or designs involving comparison groups under cost neutrality provisions.
People & committees
Rep. Johnson, Nancy L. [R-CT-6] · R–CT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Human Resources.
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 20, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.5292 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.5292 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.5292 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.5292 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.