Family preservation programs that maintain a highly intensive service model are an essential component of an effective child welfare system.[i] For a number of reasons, repeated attempts to rigorously evaluate family preservation services have frustrated social scientists. The services are intended to reduce placement in foster care by strengthening the capacity of families to safely care for their children, but placement decisions are actually influenced by a complex array of factors that are difficult to measure. Variation among family preservation models and their implementation further complicate evaluation. In addition, the short-term, crisis intervention strategy is not intended as a stand-alone solution, and many experts consider the expectations for Intensive Family Preservation Services (IFPS) to be unrealistic for a single intervention. IFPS providers maintain that vulnerable families must be connected with ongoing community supports and even follow-up IFPS “booster shots.”

Although family preservation services take many forms, intensive family preservation services (IFPS) incorporate specific elements designed to support families in crisis with children who are either at imminent risk of placement or in out-of-home placement:

· Immediate response within 24 hours,

· Accessibility of staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week,

· Small caseloads (two to four families),

· Intensive interventions (five to 20 hours per week as needed),

· Service delivery in the family's home and community,

· Usually short-term services (four to eight weeks), to be followed by other support services,

· Concrete services (such as health care, housing and other tangible services) and soft services (such as counseling and emotional support) delivered by the same worker,

· Recognition of the importance of interaction between families and communities, and help for families to forge those links,

· Goal-oriented, "limited" objectives,

· Focus on teaching skills.[ii]

One of the latest in a long string of studies, a 2006 meta-analysis of previous evaluations in 14 sites, demonstrated that IFPS programs adhering to the original and very intensive, Homebuilders™ model prevented out-of-home placement, reduced subsequent child abuse and neglect, and produced positive returns on public investment.[iii] In addition to the Homebuilders model, an intensive, home-based reunification program that incorporates group work with parents and children and an innovative twice-weekly support group for parents has demonstrated higher reunification rates and shorter duration of out-of-home care.[iv]

In 2006, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy reviewed randomized evaluation studies of IFPS programs and sorted the studies based on programs that incorporate the characteristics of the Homebuilders™ approach (listed above). The research concluded that these IFPS programs reduced out-of-home placement rates by an estimated 31 percent, while other programs did not significantly reduce placement. It also estimated that such programs produce $2.59 of benefits for each dollar of cost, based on reduction of placement (and associated costs) plus impacts on crime, high school graduation, K-12 grade repetition, test scores, and disordered use of alcohol and drugs resulting from abuse and neglect.[v]

In 2007, the National Family Preservation Network analyzed IFPS data from state or private contract agencies with well-defined program models in seven states (Colorado, Indiana, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Washington). Six of the seven sites offer both intensive family preservation and reunification services. The IFPS programs achieved a 93 percent placement prevention rate; at the conclusion of services, 85 percent of children were living with their biological parent, and the others were living with their adoptive parent or a relative. Although some service providers specialized or focused on cases involving particular types of maltreatment, placement prevention success did not vary significantly by type of maltreatment experienced. Families achieved substantial progress on several domains of family functioning, including the families’ environment, parental capabilities, family interactions, family safety and child well-being. Intensive reunification services yielded positive, though more mixed outcomes. Although local definitions of reunification varied among sites, 69 percent of families were reunited.[vi]

In 2005, Maryland’s Interagency Family Preservation Services and Department of Human Resources family preservation services reported that:

· Placement was avoided for 90 percent of participating children;

· Environment, parental capability, family interaction, family safety, and child well-being improved for participants in the interagency services;

· The cost/benefit ratio for the interagency services for FY03 was 1 to 8.4; for every $1 spent providing family preservation services, up to $8.40

in placement costs was avoided.[vii]

Many states have legislation authorizing intensive family preservation services, and some specify intensive family preservation services. Washington State statutes require that IFPS incorporate many characteristics of the Homebuilders™ model.[viii]

Policy Options: States can authorize and fund intensive family preservation services with evidence-based characteristics for the following (listed in order of increasingly broad impact):

· A limited number of families with a child at imminent risk of placement

· All families with a child at imminent risk of placement