Assessing the Field of Post-Adoption Services:
Family Needs, Program Models, and Evaluation Issues: Case Study

3 Post-Adoption Service Program Models

[ Main page of Report | Contents of Report]

This section presents a brief overview of the key characteristics of the PAS program in each of five states included in the case study. (For more detail about each state’s program characteristics, see Section 5.)

Exhibit 3-1.
Key Characteristics of PAS Programs in Case-Study States
Program Characteristic Georgia Massachusetts Oregon Texas Virginia

History A state senate study committee on adoption and foster care recommended that there be a separate Office of Adoption. Subsequently, Gov. Zell Miller created the Office of Adoption in 1997. In mid-1990s, adoptive parents formed SE Mass. Adoption Services Coalition, which eventually became statewide Mass. Coalition for Adoption. Coalitions contacted the legislature to raise awareness, resulting in PAS funding. Program called Adoption Crossroads began in October 1997. In late 1990s, PAS program resulted from combination of adoptive parent and professional advocacy, state executive and legislative interest, state needs assessments, and timing of federal funding. Oregon Post Adoption Resource Center (ORPARC) formed in early 1999. In late 1980s, adoptive parents filed a class-action lawsuit against state for lack of services. The state prevailed, but publicity and increased awareness prompted the legislature to authorize PAS funding. Texas has funded PAS since early 1990s. In late 1990s, state adoption officials collaborated with other states to discuss post-adoption supports and services. Participation led to creation and design of PAS program. Adoptive Family Preservation (AFP) Project has been operating since March 2000.

Structure for provision of PAS State contracted directly with PAS providers that each provide one or more specific service(s) statewide. A recently awarded contract will provide families with regional adoption liaisons, who will offer information and referral services to families and develop regional support groups. State contracted with a lead agency, Child and Family Services, Inc., which subcontracted with five affiliates to serve families in other regions of the state. Each provider is expected to serve families with the full range of PAS. State contracted with one provider, Northwest Resource Associates, which operated ORPARC based in Portland. State contracted with 10 child and family service agencies to cover 11 regions. Each provider is expected to serve families with the full range of PAS. State contracted with one lead service provider, United Methodist Family Services (UMFS) based in Richmond, which subcontracted to four additional providers to serve seven regions. Each provider is expected to serve families with the full range of PAS. The state directly funds two other organizations to provide training and respite resource development services.

Program goals To achieve permanency for children adopted from foster care system

To provide supportive services to all adoptive families in a family-centered manner
To promote permanence, safety, and child well-being

To keep families together
To serve as one side of a “triangle of services for adoptive families” (other sides are subsidies and an “open door” policy)

Assist with adjustment to adoption
Treat effects of abuse in child’s background
Help adoptive families stay together

Develop a full array of PAS (especially for priority populations)
Increase community coordination and collaboration
Increase adoption competency and cultural sensitivity

Eligibility All adoptive families for most services; some services available only for children adopted from the state. In general, children adopted from the state have priority. All adoptive families and families in legalized guardianship arrangements. All adoptive families, with limitations for families with children adopted through domestic or international private adoptions.

Families who adopted from the state or licensed Texas child-placing agency and receiving adoption subsidy. Children must be under 18. All adoptive and pre-adoptive families. Priority given to families who adopted from the state.

Funding source Title IV-B Subpart 2,† and state funds State funds only Title IV-B Subpart 2† Title IV-B Subpart 2† Title IV-B Subpart 2,† 10% match from UMFS

Number of children receiving subsidy* 7,462 children 11,758 children (including subsidized guardianship; 9,004 were adopted) 6,716 children (6,113 receiving subsidy; 603 medical assistance only) 13,000 children receive maximum subsidy of $516 (tiered rate being developed) 3,617 children

Services

Information and referral
Counseling
Crisis intervention
Respite
Case management
Parent training
Professional training
Advocacy
Support groups
Tutoring

Information and referral
Counseling
Crisis intervention
Respite
Case management
Parent training
Professional training
Advocacy
Support groups

Information and referral
Case management
Parent training
Professional training
Advocacy
Support groups

Information and referral
Counseling
Crisis intervention
Respite
Case management
Parent training
Professional training
Advocacy
Support groups
Residential treatment

Information and referral
Counseling
Crisis intervention
Respite
Case management
Parent training
Professional training
Advocacy
Support groups

Evaluation Each program required to have evaluation component collecting data on service provision and use. State staff conducted quarterly site visits. Salem State College conducted a multiyear evaluation on client satisfaction, service provision and use, and outcome measures. Several needs assessments conducted before creation of ORPARC and during its early development. Client tracking database used and client satisfaction survey conducted by mail.

Regional service providers developed annual client satisfaction survey. Client tracking form used by regional offices. Providers used child assessments on a pre- and post-service basis.

* Estimates provided by state adoption managers in fall 2001.
† Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program.

Exhibit 3-1.
Key Characteristics of PAS Programs in Case-Study States
Program Characteristic	Georgia	Massachusetts	Oregon	Texas	Virginia
History	A state senate study committee on adoption and foster care recommended that there be a separate Office of Adoption. Subsequently, Gov. Zell Miller created the Office of Adoption in 1997.	In mid-1990s, adoptive parents formed SE Mass. Adoption Services Coalition, which eventually became statewide Mass. Coalition for Adoption. Coalitions contacted the legislature to raise awareness, resulting in PAS funding. Program called Adoption Crossroads began in October 1997.	In late 1990s, PAS program resulted from combination of adoptive parent and professional advocacy, state executive and legislative interest, state needs assessments, and timing of federal funding. Oregon Post Adoption Resource Center (ORPARC) formed in early 1999.	In late 1980s, adoptive parents filed a class-action lawsuit against state for lack of services. The state prevailed, but publicity and increased awareness prompted the legislature to authorize PAS funding. Texas has funded PAS since early 1990s.	In late 1990s, state adoption officials collaborated with other states to discuss post-adoption supports and services. Participation led to creation and design of PAS program. Adoptive Family Preservation (AFP) Project has been operating since March 2000.
Structure for provision of PAS	State contracted directly with PAS providers that each provide one or more specific service(s) statewide. A recently awarded contract will provide families with regional adoption liaisons, who will offer information and referral services to families and develop regional support groups.	State contracted with a lead agency, Child and Family Services, Inc., which subcontracted with five affiliates to serve families in other regions of the state. Each provider is expected to serve families with the full range of PAS.	State contracted with one provider, Northwest Resource Associates, which operated ORPARC based in Portland.	State contracted with 10 child and family service agencies to cover 11 regions. Each provider is expected to serve families with the full range of PAS.	State contracted with one lead service provider, United Methodist Family Services (UMFS) based in Richmond, which subcontracted to four additional providers to serve seven regions. Each provider is expected to serve families with the full range of PAS. The state directly funds two other organizations to provide training and respite resource development services.
Program goals	To achieve permanency for children adopted from foster care system	To provide supportive services to all adoptive families in a family-centered manner To promote permanence, safety, and child well-being	To keep families together To serve as one side of a “triangle of services for adoptive families” (other sides are subsidies and an “open door” policy)	Assist with adjustment to adoption Treat effects of abuse in child’s background Help adoptive families stay together	Develop a full array of PAS (especially for priority populations) Increase community coordination and collaboration Increase adoption competency and cultural sensitivity
Eligibility	All adoptive families for most services; some services available only for children adopted from the state. In general, children adopted from the state have priority.	All adoptive families and families in legalized guardianship arrangements.	All adoptive families, with limitations for families with children adopted through domestic or international private adoptions.	Families who adopted from the state or licensed Texas child-placing agency and receiving adoption subsidy. Children must be under 18.	All adoptive and pre-adoptive families. Priority given to families who adopted from the state.
Funding source	Title IV-B Subpart 2,† and state funds	State funds only	Title IV-B Subpart 2†	Title IV-B Subpart 2†	Title IV-B Subpart 2,† 10% match from UMFS
Number of children receiving subsidy*	7,462 children	11,758 children (including subsidized guardianship; 9,004 were adopted)	6,716 children (6,113 receiving subsidy; 603 medical assistance only)	13,000 children receive maximum subsidy of $516 (tiered rate being developed)	3,617 children
Services	Information and referral Counseling Crisis intervention Respite Case management Parent training Professional training Advocacy Support groups Tutoring	Information and referral Counseling Crisis intervention Respite Case management Parent training Professional training Advocacy Support groups	Information and referral Case management Parent training Professional training Advocacy Support groups	Information and referral Counseling Crisis intervention Respite Case management Parent training Professional training Advocacy Support groups Residential treatment	Information and referral Counseling Crisis intervention Respite Case management Parent training Professional training Advocacy Support groups
Evaluation	Each program required to have evaluation component collecting data on service provision and use. State staff conducted quarterly site visits.	Salem State College conducted a multiyear evaluation on client satisfaction, service provision and use, and outcome measures.	Several needs assessments conducted before creation of ORPARC and during its early development. Client tracking database used and client satisfaction survey conducted by mail.	Regional service providers developed annual client satisfaction survey.	Client tracking form used by regional offices. Providers used child assessments on a pre- and post-service basis.
* Estimates provided by state adoption managers in fall 2001. † Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program.

Where to?

Top of Page

Main Page of Report | Contents of Report

Home Pages:
Human Services Policy (HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

Assessing the Field of Post-Adoption Services: Family Needs, Program Models, and Evaluation Issues: Case Study

3 Post-Adoption Service Program Models

Where to?

Assessing the Field of Post-Adoption Services:
Family Needs, Program Models, and Evaluation Issues: Case Study