Assessing the Field of Post-Adoption Services: Family Needs, Program Models, and Evaluation Issues. Case Study Report. 5.2.2 Funding Mechanisms


Funding mechanisms followed the program structure. Oregon funded its statewide PAS provider, and Massachusetts and Virginia funded the PAS coordinator, who in turn subcontracted to regional PAS providers. Georgia contracted directly with statewide PAS providers for each service. In Texas, the regional PAS providers were given an annual budget limit up to which they could bill the state directly for case management services and other allowable services performed by subcontractors.

PAS providers reported a degree of flexibility in transferring funds among services.

PAS providers had some flexibility in their management of state funds. In Texas, PAS providers reported being allowed to transfer up to $5,000 across service categories without contract amendment. In Massachusetts, PAS providers noted that they could transfer funds among services, although they could not pull funds out of respite. The Massachusetts adoption program manager said that the flexibility in funding was intentional.

PAS providers in all five states reported that in-house services such as information and referral, parent training, and support groups were provided at no cost to families. However, in some cases, funding did not cover the full cost of a service that families sought through other community providers (e.g., respite, camps).

Contract periods for PAS providers varied across states from three to five years. In Massachusetts, the lead PAS provider noted that having a five-year contract provided the opportunity to fully implement the program and conduct an evaluation.

View full report


"report.pdf" (pdf, 536.58Kb)

Note: Documents in PDF format require the Adobe Acrobat Reader®. If you experience problems with PDF documents, please download the latest version of the Reader®