2.1 Inventory of services and resources to keep families together

To ensure that the necessary array of services and supports are available for vulnerable children to thrive within their own families, policymakers need to inventory existing resources and determine whether services and funding are aligned with the desired outcomes. An accurate snapshot of state investments helps policymakers consider total state services and expenditures across programs, rather than examining individual programs in isolation. For example, an inventory might include services administered by the child welfare agency, the health or mental health system, the Medicaid program, domestic violence systems, education systems, housing authorities, and other entities.

Such an analysis allows decision makers to compare the state’s investment in family preservation to spending for services provided out of home. An inventory and analysis of services and spending helps policymakers identify:

· gaps in evidence-based services,

· ways that available funds can be used more effectively to keep families safely together rather than apart,

· areas where funding can be redirected without causing harm, and

· services or strategies that require additional investment.

Rather than a one-time exercise, ongoing monitoring of service availability, utilization, and investment is required. Policymakers can use many tools and processes for ensuring routine analysis and comparison of family preservation and out-of-home placement. While the most effective mechanism is likely to vary from state to state depending on the budget process, legislative structure, legislative-executive branch relationships, and other factors, it is critical that this analysis be incorporated into routine planning and budgeting.

Comparing utilization and funding for services to keep families together and for out-of-home placement . In Maryland, the legislative budget committees add language to the budget bill each year requesting the executive branch (specifically the Governor’s Office for Children) to submit data regarding the number and costs of out-home-placements by local jurisdiction, reasons for new placements, family assessment data, number of children served and costs of family preservation, and child abuse and neglect reports during and after family preservation services. For 2005, there were 4,447 new entries in out-of-home care compared to 1,870 children served by interagency family preservation services – a ratio of 2.3 to 1. [i]

The following analysis from San Diego County, California, presents and compares expenditures for different types of services within one department and demonstrates that it is much more expensive to invest in restrictive and remedial programs than it is to support prevention efforts. [ii] This same type of analysis could be conducted for state child welfare services and/or cross-system services.

Comparing cross-systems expenditures for children and families . A number of local jurisdictions (including Philadelphia, Seattle, and the California counties of San Francisco, Contra Costa, Solano, and San Diego) have used children’s budgets to identify different types of spending for children across agencies. [iii]

Examining how expenditures align with desired outcomes . In Contra Costa County, the children’s budget examines and compares the top 20 programs (including foster care) by gross expenditures. The budget is also organized to identify major expenditures that contribute to desired outcomes including family self-sufficiency, family safety, and children ready for school. [iv]

Policy Options: States can mandate a comparison of expenditures for safely keeping families together versus expenditures for out-of-home placement at one of the following levels of organization (listed in order of increasing value for decision making):

• Within the child welfare system
• Within the child welfare system and across state agencies
• Within the child welfare system, across state agencies, and across other systems (such as juvenile justice and mental health)