Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
A. Summary
In 1994, James Bell Associates was awarded a contract by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, to study the implementation of the Family Preservation and Family Support (FP/FS) services program. The purpose of the study is to examine how states and communities chose to implement the 1993 legislation creating the FP/FS program and the subsequent expansion of the program under the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA).1 The major study activities were in-depth case studies of 15 states and 20 localities within these states,2 and an annual review of the 50 state FP/FS Five-Year Plans and Annual Progress and Services Reports.
Areas examined in the Implementation Study include planning and decision-making processes, funding allocations, program models of service delivery, collaborative arrangements and consumer involvement. The study also focused on the relationship between the child welfare agency, especially frontline staff, and the newly funded FP/FS programs. To supplement the individual case studies and the synthesis reports, a series of issue papers addressing topics of special interest are being developed. In the course of this study, states and communities faced many challenges and found innovative approaches to implementing new programs. These papers are focused on lessons learned from their experiences that are applicable to a broad range of family services implementation efforts.
The focus of this particular paper is the effect the FP/FS program had on the relationship between traditional child welfare services and the communities served. Examples are drawn from a number of state and local efforts that addressed some or all of the subtle and difficult issues involved with bridging this gap. As explained in this paper, although FP/FS funding enabled child welfare agencies to fund or augment community services, these services remained separate and distinct from child welfare in the vast majority of sites visited for this study.
However, a number of sites used FP/FS funding to partially bridge this gap. Within these sites, it was evident that staff from both child welfare and community based organizations had reached the following conclusions:
-
Each agency was limited in the actions it could take with families: In sites that developed a service continuum, staff from community-based organizations realized their limitations with respect to addressing family environments in which child endangerment was probable. Similarly, CPS staff were blunt in their assessment of their own limitations with respect to interacting with families’ in a mutually constructive manner.
-
The perspectives of both organizations fulfilled a critical role in approaching families: Staff from both organizations noted instances in which they realized the two agencies efforts could complement one another; for instance, collaborating on investigations of abuse/neglect.
-
The missions of both agencies were better met when the two agencies collaborated in the development of a service continuum. For instance, brokering a case plan workable for all involved meant that families were more likely to comply with the requirements specified and permanency could be achieved in a timely manner.
In short, these experiences proved to be a learning experience for staff in both agencies.
1 Two companion outcomes studies also carried out under contract to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services are studying the impact of family support and family preservation programs. (back)
2 The states participating in the Implementation Study are: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Oregon, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. (back)
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |