! Needs assessment as a catalyst: The assessments often engaged a broad array of stakeholders and encouraged them to review the problems facing children and their families. The assessments also prompted stakeholders to examine existing resources and consider ways to use them effectively. In this regard, state needs assessment efforts were largely successful.

! Needs assessment as a targeting tool: Acknowledging that funds were limited, some states used needs assessment data to target funds to specific counties (or communities). Some states used existing data on such measures as poverty, abuse/neglect rates and teen pregnancy rates to select counties and communities that had the greatest need for additional services.

! Needs assessment as a technical planning tool: One weakness in the planning process in many states was that needs assessment data were seldom used to establish program priorities and determine which program models might best address the most pressing gaps in the existing service delivery system. It appears that a lack of time (some planning decisions were made prior to needs assessment completion), and the effects of other contextual factors played a greater role in making these funding and service delivery decisions. In this regard, needs assessment efforts were less useful than they might have been.

! Definition of a consumer: While planning groups typically sought to include parents in the process, there was a tendency for consumer participation to be limited to parents who were active in civic affairs (e.g., a PTA president) or who were experienced advocates (e.g., parents of children with disabilities). Few planning groups focused on involving parents who had received public assistance or services from the child welfare agency, had substance abuse problems or were teenage parents. One notable example of efforts to reach a more diverse consumer population occurred in Phoenix, Arizona, where a member of the planning group visited local unemployment and public assistance offices and talked with individuals in the waiting rooms about their service needs.

! Efforts to attract consumers: Planning groups attempted to attract consumers primarily by providing child care and transportation services. Despite these efforts, non-traditional consumers typically came to only one or two meetings and then dropped out. Whether or not consumers attend all meetings may be less important than their active participation at critical junctures in the planning process. For example, in Broward County, Florida, special efforts were made to include residents in reviewing provider proposals to establish service programs in their neighborhood.

! Allocation of significant funds for FP and FS programs: States employing the child welfare agency decision model set aside funds for both FP and FS programs. While they involved other stakeholders in the decision-making process (especially as it related to family support programs), these states had a clear vision of the types of programs they wished to develop. In contrast, stakeholders who were most knowledgeable about family support programs tended to predominate on the collaborative planning bodies. Often child welfare administrators or front-line staff did not participate actively in this process. As a result, the collaborative planning bodies allocated relatively fewer dollars for intensive family services or reunification programs targeted to the child welfare population.

! Geographic allocation of funds: States that delegated authority to the local level divided their FP/FS funds proportionately among all districts or counties. In contrast, states using the child welfare agency decision model targeted funds to selected counties. Some of the sites using state-level collaborative bodies also targeted funds.

! Size of service delivery projects: Funding allocations for programs were also affected by the size and diversity of the planning bodies. Large, diverse planning groups tended to achieve consensus by "giving everyone something." This resulted in numerous projects with few resources to achieve the often far-reaching goals that were established.

! Establishing measurable objectives: States encountered considerable difficulties in establishing measures that were realistic and appropriate for the service delivery efforts funded. Many states had plans to use aggregate data available through existing management information systems. However, the size of most programs made it unrealistic to expect that programs serving a small number of families could dramatically affect statewide or even countywide rates of foster care, teenage pregnancy or high school graduation. States acknowledged problems in this area and the need for assistance.

! Monitoring: Some of the planning groups retained a role as an oversight committee once implementation began; however, in this capacity they met on a limited basis and focused almost exclusively on allocation of the next year's FP/FS funds. To more adequately monitor existing programs, collaborative oversight bodies needed staff assigned to periodically review programs, collect program data, analyze and interpret findings, and report to the oversight group on a regular basis. Although a few states specifically charged staff with these functions (e.g., Arizona and Florida), most did not. While a portion of each state=s FP/FS allocation was allotted for planning and service delivery, only 10 percent could be used for administrative purposes. States varied considerably as to whether they considered management and monitoring to be administrative costs. Without sufficient funds designated for this purpose, states did not appear to invest in creating management and monitoring structures.

!C Family Continuity Program, Pinellas County, Florida (In-home service delivery): This program provides intensive family preservation services for mothers who are part of a welfare reform demonstration and who have had some involvement with the child welfare agency. In addition, staff from this program act as advisors and provide technical assistance to some of the community-based family support programs in their district.

! Caring Communities, St. Louis, Missouri (School-based center): This school-based family center provides a comprehensive continuum of services that range from broadly based community-level prevention efforts, cultural and recreational activities, and tutoring and after-school programs, through more targeted assessments of child and family needs, drug counseling, case management and intensive family services.

!C The Healthy Grandparents Program, Atlanta, Georgia (Network): This program represents an example of the formation of an inter-disciplinary network of health, social work, education and law professionals, as well as students and volunteers, who provide multi-disciplinary services to both relative caregivers and the children in their care. Services are provided both in the home and at various other locations. They include health screenings for caregivers and children, parent training, legal services, tutoring, counseling and support groups.

!C Youth and Family Impact Center, Dallas, Texas (Community-based center): This center-based program serves children ages 4 through 19 who have been identified by the school, child welfare or juvenile services as needing additional services. A staff of five case managers and a supervisor work with children and youth assessing both child and family needs, establishing a service plan, conducting home visits, arranging services and providing transportation to services, as well as monitoring and tracking their progress. Through agreements with approximately 20 public and private sector providers, the Center offers psychological testing, individual and family counseling, tutoring, mentoring programs, a parent involvement program, access to a food bank, and cultural and recreational activities. Typically, services are provided at the Center, and service providers meet quarterly to discuss specific cases and generally maintain a collaborative relationship.

! Great Start, San Antonio, Texas (In-home services-parent training): This in-home services program provides parent training to new mothers screened to be at especially high risk of abuse/neglect. Mothers who have given birth (at an area hospital with the largest number of publicly-assisted births) are assessed for life stressors and parenting skills. With their consent, the two screeners contact one-of-three participating social service agencies who provide home visiting until the child is at least three years of age: Avance, which serves the area=s poorest Hispanic neighborhoods; Child Abuse Prevention Services, a licensed Healthy Families America provider that specializes in assisting abused teens and pregnant and parenting teens; and Family Services Association, an established social service agency.

! Child welfare agency involvement: Historically, child welfare agencies and community-based family support programs rarely interacted. Federal guidance on FP/FS attempted to facilitate a greater degree of collaboration among stakeholders who had not traditionally worked together. This has proved to a challenging goal that has not yet been achieved. Child welfare staff in some localities appeared largely unaware of the family support programs that were developed with FP/FS funds. Linkages between child welfare and family support programs in some communities appear weak and a sense of distrust persists between the child welfare agency and other programs.

! Centralized intake and comprehensive assessment at family centers: Some family centers established a centralized unit that was responsible for intake and assessment functions, while others chose not to do so. Centers that had such units practiced the principles of family-centered practice by emphasizing family strengths in their assessment process, ensuring that families were involved in developing their service plan and providing only those services that a family wanted to receive. In contrast, several centers believed that centralized intake and assessment activities were contrary to the principles of family-centered practice. They did not want to be perceived as intrusive or judgmental by asking questions that might not relate to the reasons a family contacted a center, or that might be perceived as requiring families to accept services that they did not want. However, centers without centralized intake and assessment units may miss the opportunity to comprehensively explore and address family needs.

! The role of case managers and family advocates: Though program planners defined these positions as brokers of community services needed by families, some case managers or advocates focused on directly providing services. Further, some of these staff expressed distrust of public agencies and were reluctant to make referrals. While the case management and family advocate positions were intended to provide a bridge between communities and public agencies, in some instances they appeared to reinforce client fears of public agencies.

! Influence of welfare reform: Virtually all of the family centers offered some support for family members who were seeking their GED. However for some, welfare reform issues such as adult education and job training were their paramount concern. The question should not be whether FP/FS should support welfare reform, but how it can do this most appropriately. Programs that support families' abilities to provide for the safety and healthy development of their children as they transition from welfare to work are consistent with the goals of FP/FS. Given the limited amount of FP/FS funds, programs need to work with TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) agencies to provide family services that enhance and complement the education and work-related programs funded through TANF and other job training programs. Use of FP/FS funds largely as a supplemental funding source for education and training does not appear to reflect the definitions of FP and FS services provided in the legislation.