NURS-6050- Module 5 Assignment

Response clearly and accurately describes in detail the healthcare program or policy outcomes. Response accurately and thoroughly explains in detail how the success of the program or policy was measured. Response clearly and accurately describes in detail how many people were reached by the program or policy and fully describes the impact of the program or policy. Response clearly and accurately indicates the point at which time the program or policy evaluation was conducted.

Response accurately describes the healthcare program or policy outcomes. Response accurately explains how the success of the program or policy was measured. Response accurately describes how many people were reached by the program or policy and accurately describes the impact of the program or policy. Response accurately indicates the point at which time the program or policy evaluation was conducted.

Description of the healthcare program or policy outcomes is inaccurate or incomplete. Explanation of how the success of the program or policy was measured is inaccurate or incomplete. Description of how many people were reached by the program or policy and the impact is vague or inaccurate. Response vaguely describes the point at which the program or policy evaluation was conducted.

Description of the healthcare program or policy outcomes is inaccurate and incomplete, or is missing. Explanation of how the success of the program or policy was measured is inaccurate and incomplete, or is missing. Description of how many people were reached by the program or policy and the associated impacts is vague and inaccurate, or is missing. Response of the point at which time the program or policy was conducted is missing.

Response clearly and accurately identifies the data used to conduct the program or policy evaluation. Response clearly and thoroughly explains in detail specific information on outcomes and unintended consequences identified through the program or policy evaluation. Response clearly and accurately explains in detail the stakeholders involved in the program or policy evaluation. Response clearly and accurately explains in detail who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation. Response includes a thorough and accurate explanation of whether the program met the original intent and outcomes, including an accurate and detailed explanation of the reasons supporting why or why not. Response includes a thorough and accurate explanation of whether the program should be implemented, including an accurate and detailed explanation of the reasons supporting why or why not.

Response accurately identifies the data used to conduct the program or policy evaluation. Response explains in detail specific information on outcomes and unintended consequences identified through the program or policy evaluation. Response explains in detail the stakeholders involved in the program or policy evaluation. Response explains who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation. Response includes an accurate explanation of whether the program met the original intent and outcomes, including an accurate explanation of the reasons supporting why or why not. Response includes an accurate explanation of whether the program should be implemented, including an accurate explanation of the reasons supporting why or why not.

Response vaguely or inaccurately identifies the data used to conduct the program or policy evaluation. Explanation of specific information on outcomes and unintended consequences identified through the program or policy evaluation is vague or incomplete. Explanation of the stakeholders involved in the program or policy evaluation is vague or inaccurate. Explanation of who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation is vague or inaccurate. Explanation of whether the program/policy met the original intent and outcomes and the reasons why or why not is incomplete or inaccurate. Explanation of whether the program or policy should be implemented, and the reasons why or why not, is incomplete or inaccurate.

Identification of the data used to conduct the program or policy evaluation is vague and inaccurate, or is missing. Explanation of specific information on outcomes and unitended consequences identified through the program or policy evaluation is vague and incomplete, or is missing. Explanation of the stakeholders involved in the program or policy evaluation is vague and inaccurate, or is missing. Explanation of who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation is vague and inaccurate, or is missing. Explanation of whether the program or policy met the original intent and outcomes and the reasons why or why not is incomplete and inaccurate, or is missing. Explanation of whether the program or policy should be implemented, and the reasons why or why not, is incomplete and inaccurate, or is missing.

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria.

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated, yet is brief and not descriptive.

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%- 79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided.

Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.

Contains a few (1-2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

Contains several (3-4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.

Uses correct APA format with no errors.

Contains a few (1-2) APA format errors.

Contains several (3-4) APA format errors.

Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.

Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF)

The Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) program, which is more formally known as Title IV-B subpart 2 of the Social Security Act, aims to avoid unnecessary separations between caregivers and their children, protect permanency for children by taking the necessary steps to reunite them with their parents, when possible, or another permanent living situation, and to improve the quality of care and programming services being offered to children and their families to achieve maximum chance for stable families (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services: Children’s Bureau, 2012).

The PSSF program has recently had two additional programs added, the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) and abstinence education. The goal of the PREP program is to provide state funding aimed at teen pregnancy prevention, addressing prevalence of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the adolescent population, as well as teaching teens skills to prepare them for adulthood (ie financial responsibility and organization skills). The abstinence education portion provides grants to individual states to promote education to adolescents regarding delaying sexual activity in an effort to further reduce teen pregnancy rates, but also to promote development of healthy relationships and establishment of healthy boundaries in at-risk populations such as homeless teens or those in foster care (United States Department of Health & Human Services, 2018). NURS-6050- Module 5 Assignment

Success of the PSSF program has been measured by the fact that funding for this program became a mandatory component of the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The PSSF program has been reauthorized multiple times over the past 25 years and continues to be nationally implemented. Congress realized the success of this program, and ultimately the impact it has had on children, adolescents, and their respective families. Congress then began to require a budgetary commitment of mandatory funds toward this program to be awarded at the state level and to Native American tribes within the states who meet minimum requirements for award. To illustrate the success of the program in funding it is important to recognize that in 1994, $60 million was allocated in mandatory financial funding (Casey Family Programs, 2011), and in 2019, $345 million has been allocated (United States Department of Health & Human Services: Administration for Children and Families, 2019).

In the state of Colorado, in fiscal year 2016, the following data applied to the measurement of success of PSSF:

· 3,315 individuals were served by family preservation funds

· 3,023 individuals were served by family support funds

· 1,401 individuals were served by time-limited reunification funds

(Colorado Office of Children, Youth, & Families: Division of Child Welfare, 2018, p. 53)

Funding for PSSF is based on a formula that considers the population of children who receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) aka “food stamps” in each state and respective Native American tribe. In order to remain eligible for PSSF funding each state must match 25% of the PSSF award amount in a Maintenance of Effort (MOE) account (State of California Health and Human Services Agency, 2014). NURS-6050- Module 5 Assignment

While the formula for determination of PSSF funding was not available, nationally one in four children receive SNAP benefits in a given month. This translates into between 20 and 22 million children receiving SNAP benefits in a given year. While not all of these children will need PSSF funding dollars these are the figures for which the state funding is determined (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2017).

PSSF funding is determined based on 5-year plans within each state and Native American tribe. Analysis of program outcome data is conducted annually at the individual state level in alignment with the PSSF assurances, which include spending in in alignment with state and federal statutes.

Each state and tribe must submit their intended goals with PSSF funding. Each of the submitted plans must take into account collaborative efforts with key stakeholders. Title IV-B requires that PSSF plans be integrated into the state and/or tribal agency’s 5-year Child and Family Services Plan (CFSP) and provide annual updates by June 30th each year. The regional Children’s Bureau offices are responsible for communication and feedback to the respective states or tribes related to the annual reports.

Unintended consequences that have been identified since this program began in 1993 is that the program which began as a response to the growing number of children in foster care placement has expanded over the last 25 years and has been reauthorized under different legislative acts, most recently the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act of 2011. At current this program addresses permanency of children, Personal Responsibility Education Program and abstinence education (United States Health & Human Services: Administration for Children and Families, 2015).

Stakeholders identified in the evaluation of the PSSF program include

· Department of Human Services in each state and each county

· Native American tribes

· Vulnerable families with children at risk for abuse and/or neglect

· Families with open child protection cases; either court involved or non-court involved

· Foster parents

· Adoptive parents

· Hospitals and clinics

· Physicians and other healthcare providers

· Schools

· Teachers

· Law Enforcement

· Courts

· Community members

All of the stakeholders listed above will benefit from the results of PSSF program evaluation because the results will impact the direction for future grant funding for children and adolescents with regard to foster care, permanency, PREP, and abstinence education. NURS-6050- Module 5 Assignment

The PSSF program has met it’s intended objectives over multiple years. However, the population it serves is constantly changing and the objectives are fluid based on the legislative source of funding, so the measure of success is a target that is constantly moving and difficult to assess.

This program is already implemented in the state of Colorado and provides funding for valuable resources for children and adolescents within our state.

I would recommend implementation of this program because it aims to preserve the structure of families, provide family support to vulnerable families, provide time-limited reunification support, provide skills, guidance, and education for adulthood. Dividing families and removing children from their biological parents changes the heritage of a family forever. The PSSF program provides tools to prevent the division of families whenever possible.

In the role of a nurse advocate we can become involved in evaluation of a program via multiple different avenues. For example, nurses can volunteer to participate in the program planning committee that focuses on evaluation of the program one year after implementation. By becoming involved at this level nurses can help to influence discussions regarding needs for modification to the program in order to help make it more successful. Nurses can also participate in program evaluation by contacting legislators who support the program in order to provide a nursing perspective relative to the program.