THE MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE

The Joint Committee on
Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review

Report # 362

A Review of the Department of Human Services' Decision to Reduce the Level of Funding to the Department of Education for Operation of the Home Ties Program for Family Preservation

September 11, 1997

Introduction

PEER reviewed the Mississippi Department of Human Services' July 1996 decision to reduce the level of funding to the Mississippi Department of Education for operation of the Home Ties Program for Family Preservation.

Background

The Mississippi Legislature passed the Family Preservation Act of 1994 in response to the federal Family Preservation and Support Services Act of 1993. One provision of the state act requires the state's Department of Human Services (MDHS) to apply annually for available federal funds to defray expenses for a program of family preservation and support services.

The act requires MDHS to work with the State Department of Education (SDE) to develop a plan for such services and to follow guidelines of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for developing such services as a five-year pilot program. The state act mandates that the plan address a wide range of services and programs which affect children at imminent risk of placement outside the home and their families&emdash;e.g., child welfare, housing, community-based programs, and social service programs. The act also requires that MDHS conduct ongoing evaluations of family preservation services and file an annual report on such services with the Governor and selected members of the Legislature.

As a result of the state's Family Preservation Act, in September 1994 MDHS entered into an agreement with SDE to develop and implement Mississippi's Home Ties Program. Home Ties was based on the Homebuilders model, a program developed in Washington state in 1974 and implemented with reported success in several states, including Washington, Utah, Tennessee, North Carolina, New Jersey, and Michigan. The program was designed to enable children who are at imminent risk of being placed by the state in temporary custodial care (e.g., foster care, residential facilities) to remain safely in their own homes. SDE sub-contracted operation of the program on a competitive basis to selected public school districts and social service organizations around the state.

Overview

The State Department of Education implemented the Home Ties Program at five pilot sites in March 1995, using federal grant money available through the Family Preservation and Support Services Act of 1993 and state match money from SDE's Education Enhancement Fund.

During its first full year of operation (FFY 1996), $944,769 was expended on the Home Ties Program, including $622,608 in federal funds. In July 1996, MDHS, the state agency charged with responsibility for the distribution of federal funds under the act, elected to reduce the level of annual federal funding to the Home Ties program by $149,177. During its 1996 Regular Session, the Legislature reduced the amount of state funds set aside for the Home Ties program in SDE's appropriation from $300,000 to $100,000; however, SDE had identified $213,811 in in-kind contributions for FFY 97, which were intended to provide the additional $125,000 in state match necessary to draw down the $900,000 in federal funds which SDE requested from MDHS for expansion of the Home Ties program in FFY 97. MDHS's decision to reduce the level of federal funding by $149,177, combined with the $200,000 reduction in state appropriations (i.e., a cash reduction of 38% in state appropriations and federal funds) resulted in SDE's termination of Home Ties pilot programs in Meridian and Greenville.

PEER concluded that MDHS's reduction in funding to the Home Ties Program was legal. Neither the federal Family Preservation and Support Services Act of 1993 nor the state Family Preservation Act of 1994 specifies the amount of Family Preservation and Support Act funds which must be directed to any specific program such as the Home Ties pilot program operated by SDE. State appropriations bills for MDHS and SDE for FY 95 through FY 97 do not specifically mention the Home Ties Program.

However, MDHS's decision to reduce funding to the Home Ties Program was not prudent because:

• the program was based on a treatment model with a relatively long history of improving conditions in the home to reduce the need for out-of-home placements;
• the program was established in Mississippi as a five-year pilot program, but MDHS reduced funding only fifteen months into the program's existence;
• when MDHS made its decision in July 1996, neither the legally required evaluation of the Home Ties Program nor the external review of the program was complete;
• the limited evaluation data that was available showed that the program was highly successful at all five pilot sites in meeting its primary outcome objective of preventing out-of-home placement for at least seventy percent of children served; and,
• MDHS's claimed justifications for reducing funding to the program (e.g., funds could be better spent on MDHS's own in-house family preservation program, the funds were needed to avoid termination of MDHS adoption specialist social workers) were flawed. For example, MDHS did not conduct the research necessary to determine whether its own in-house family preservation program was more cost-effective than the Home Ties Program and MDHS had planned to reduce the level of funding to the Home Ties program operated by SDE before the funding crisis with respect to MDHS's adoption specialist social workers arose.

PEER also found that:

• the Home Ties Program's outcome objectives and five-year plan objectives are not consistently measurable, which will hamper future evaluations of the program;
• the program's annual report does not contain all of the information required by state law; and,
• according to HHS, MDHS's use of family preservation funds for adoption workers' salaries was not an appropriate use of funds under the Family Preservation and Support Services Act.

Recommendations

1. MDHS should ensure the development of program-specific goals and outcome objectives for the Home Ties Program and all other family preservation and support services under its charge. Further, MDHS should actively monitor the success of each program in meeting its goals and objectives. In addition to monitoring program effectiveness, MDHS should develop and actively monitor measures of program economy and efficiency.
2. In its contracts with subgrantees for administration of programs, MDHS should set forth specific criteria by which it will measure the program's effectiveness, economy, and efficiency. In addition, MDHS should include in each contract any other expectations for program administration, such as expectations related to use of funds, staffing levels, salaries, and client referral procedures.
3. MDHS should adhere to requirements in the state's Family Preservation Act for ongoing evaluation of the Home Ties Program, and should, at a minimum, annually provide to the Legislature all of the information required by MISS. CODE ANN. Section 43-51-9. Further, MDHS should provide evaluation results to service providers on a timely basis, as agreed to in Mississippi's five-year plan.
4. Using existing resources, MDHS should conduct a review of social science literature to identify effective family preservation and family support programs. The department should provide the Legislature with a comprehensive report by January 1, 1998, of its findings and proposed statutory language giving MDHS authority to test specific program models.

Download Full Text Report in Acrobat Format - (696 K)

PEER Home Page.

E-Mail

If you have questions about PEER, send e-mail to director@peer.ms.gov.