In addition to introducing new programs, almost every state used federal funds to fill gaps in existing FPS services. States Place Somewhat More Emphasis on Family Support Services

As the law requires, most states are spending a significant portion of their federal funds for family preservation services and family support services. According to federal and state officials, some states had already spent considerable state or other federal funds for family preservation services and decided—either at the onset or based on planning results—to place greater emphasis on family support services. Most of these states said that they experienced delays in designing or developing FPS services. Other Activities Are Designed to Improve Service Delivery

While states appear to be using most of their federal FPS funds to initiate or expand family preservation or family support services, many states are also undertaking a variety of activities to enable the service-delivery system to serve vulnerable children and families more effectively and efficiently. States Will Use Various Measures and Methods to Track Results

States plan to track the results of federally funded services by using a variety of measures. At a minimum, all states report that they will track the number of children and families served and most will measure the extent to which their needs are being met. Finally, at least 45 states plan to monitor traditional indicators of child welfare, such as the number of child abuse and neglect reports, and changes over time in one or more aspects of the service-delivery system. Federal Evaluations Are Designed to Assess Impact

Two federal evaluations are underway to rigorously assess the impact of FPS programs on children and families—one for family preservation and the other for family support services. Early Results Are Few, but Service-Delivery Approaches Have Been Affected

Although it is too early to identify service impacts on children and families, 10 states reported that program results were available on federally funded FPS services. In particular, HHS emphasized the availability of new and expanded programs for both family preservation and support services, the focus on family support as a balance to family preservation, and the extension of services to families otherwise overlooked. The Congress has asked us to study the nature and extent of new family preservation and support services since the enactment of OBRA 1993, and how states are assessing the impact of these services on families, children and communities. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Expand existing family preservation programs to new locations? 5. of types of (2) (3) (1) (1) know (2)
1. 2. 4. Changes in parent-child relationships, family satisfaction, or family functioning? 11.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the status of states' use of funds for family preservation and support (FPS) services, focusing on: (1) the nature and extent of states' use of federal funds for new and expanded FPS services; and (2) states' plans to assess the impact of these services on children and their families and impacts identified to date.

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) all states reported that they are using federal funds to increase the availability of family preservation and family support services either by creating new programs or expanding existing programs; (2) 44 states said that they introduced new programs; (3) 47 states reported enhancing their existing programs or expanding them to serve more clients; (4) as required by the law, GAO's analysis shows that states appear to be allocating a significant portion of their federal funds to both family preservation and family support services: (5) in the last 2 years, states budgeted 56 percent of their service dollars to family support and 44 percent to family preservation; (6) the somewhat greater emphasis on family support services reflects priorities established through state and community planning efforts; (7) moreover, many states already had family preservation programs in place and decided to bolster family support services; (8) to determine whether this infusion of federal funds improves services for children and families, GAO identified a number of efforts that are underway or planned to assess programs providing FPS services; (9) states plan to track the results of their federally funded services, for example, by measuring the number of clients served and the extent to which their needs are met, improvements in parent-child relationships, the degree that services are coordinated, and indicators of community well-being, such as child abuse rates; (10) although not required to do so, at least 11 states are also planning formal evaluations to determine whether the services actually improve outcomes for families; (11) two federally sponsored evaluations are underway to assess the effectiveness of family preservation and family support services; (12) early results from 10 states indicate some successes, such as preventing child removal and continued maltreatment; and (13) while it is too early to determine the impact of these programs, federal and state officials report that the extensive community and interagency collaboration required by the law has resulted in improved identification of service needs, setting of priorities, and receipt of services by at-risk families otherwise overlooked.