On the other hand, Gov. Jim Gibbons and his staff are looking at a $285 million cut in government spending, a reduction that might include a child welfare hit of more than $3 million. That money is earmarked to pay for the staffing improvements the county needs to meet federal child welfare mandates.

It's an impossible situation, Reid said. It threatens to undo months of careful planning by county, state and federal child welfare officials who came together to fix a broken system of services.

"If they want us to do what we agreed to do, they need to do what they agreed to do," Reid said.

The issue boiled over last week, when county commissioners delayed the renewal of a contract with the state on the provision of child welfare services. Commissioners Reid, Tom Collins, Chip Maxfield and Chris Giunchigliani questioned how they could approve a new contract at a time when state budget cuts are looming.

A new contract clause that would pass on financial responsibility to the county for federal penalties proved to be a sticking point, especially because commissioners found that the provision wasn't backed by a state commitment to meet the child welfare funding levels approved by the Legislature.

"A deal's a deal," Giunchigliani said. "I don't think we should sign."

However, not having a contract in place threatens the monthly release of state funds to the county, which is $4 million for child welfare. Tom Morton, director of Family Services, said he received an e-mail from Nevada Health and Human Services Director Michael Willden indicating as much.

"I have not yet set a date certain to stop the funds flow," Willden said in a Nov. 5 communication with Morton. "I would again hope that you could help get this issue resolved by helping to get the agreement signed."

Morton said Clark County Family Services has already received state funding for November. At the meeting, he told commissioners that the department had enough funding in reserve to continue operations to January. He also advised them not to sign the contract as it stands.

"In essence the county would be saying it is willing to agree to accept federal penalties at the same time the state is not fully funding child welfare services," Morton said.

The proposed contract language was agreed upon by fiscal staff from both the county and the state, said Fernando Serrano, administrator for Nevada's Division of Child and Family Services. Although the contract remains unsigned, Serrano said, the state plans to continue funding Clark County until more information is available on the state budget.

"As of today, no cuts have been made," Serrano emphasized Friday.

In fiscal year 2007-08, which began on July 1, the county's child welfare budget includes $41.9 million in county funds, $55.5 million in state funds and $6 million in federal funding.

The 5 percent budget reduction being considered for all state-funded entities except for kindergarten through 12th-grade education would hit child welfare hard, Morton said. In Clark County, 52 percent of the child welfare budget goes to making payments to foster parents and adoptive parents. The remaining 48 percent pays for personnel and emergency shelter services.

Taking 5 percent off the top of personnel expenditures would mean that 59 of the 85 new child welfare positions approved by the Legislature this year would not be funded, Morton said. If the 5 percent cut is taken out of personnel and emergency shelter costs, then 47 of the 85 positions would go unfunded.

Gary Peck, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, said viewing child welfare funding as optional is unacceptable. Promises have been made to fix a child welfare system in crisis, he said.

Earlier this year, Clark County commissioners approved a nonbinding resolution with the ACLU and the California-based Youth Law Center to keep children under the age of 3 years in family settings and out of institutional care.

The impetus for negotiating that resolution sprang from the chronic overpopulation at Child Haven, the county's emergency shelter for abused and neglected children. In 2006, the problem was so severe that newborns in county custody were left in hospital nurseries waiting for shelter space to become available.

"When it comes to these sorts of things, whether or not to spend the money is not a discretionary matter," Peck said. "You can't continue to systematically violate the rights of these children."

Other issues have spurred public outrage with the failings of Clark County's child welfare services, including the underreporting of child deaths related to abuse and neglect, the deaths of children in foster care and the inefficiency of the county's child abuse reporting hot line.

The adequacy of the county child welfare system also is being challenged in several federal court lawsuits. In 2006, the National Center for Youth Law, a California-based advocacy group, filed a class-action lawsuit against the county, claiming that foster children were being placed in settings that were unsafe, overpopulated and inadequately monitored.

In addition to the lawsuits, Morton told commissioners that failing to meet federal standards for child welfare could result in between $1 million to $3 million in penalties, a liability that the state now wants to shift to the county.

To Peck, it seems that government officials face two choices: "The state and the county can either spend the money now on efforts to improve the system or spend a lot more money later on litigation and penalties."