|PAS providers noted the challenges of getting referrals from adoption workers, and of getting referrals before families were in crisis.|
Many families went to PAS programs through referrals from the child welfare agency or other service providers. However, in several states, PAS coordinators/providers and adoptive families reported that child welfare workers, including intake staff and adoption subsidy workers, did not refer families consistently to the PAS programs. The ORPARC director reported that intake workers were not very familiar with the program, even though it was intended to complement efforts by state staff to help families. The Oregon adoption program manger agreed that state intake staff were probably less familiar with or less open to referring families to ORPARC because these staff were focused on protection against abuse; she hoped that the renewed push for the open door policy on helping all families in need would assist with referrals back to ORPARC.
In spite of extensive outreach efforts, providers reported that many adoptive families first came to them time in crisis situations, having been referred to the PAS program by local professionals or child welfare staff. This included families who had adopted children through the PAS providers child-placing agency and were already known to the agency. Many service providers expressed the desire that adoptive families would access services preventively rather than in a crisis mode. Adoptive families in the focus groups confirmed that they often had heard about, or been referred to, the PAS program during a crisis situation.
(2) Virginia did contract separately with two providers for PAS in addition to funding a network of providers. One provider offered professional training, and the other was developing respite resources.
(3) In 12 states PAS were limited to children adopted from a public child welfare program; 20 states provided PAS to all adoptive families.