Family First law shifts federal child-welfare funding toward prevention, national experts say

Christine Kalpin, a national child‑welfare policy director with KC Family Programs (Casey), told the Joint Committee on Child Welfare System Oversight that the Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA) represents a deliberate federal shift away from financing removal and foster care as the primary response to family challenges. "The idea was, could we identify resources for what we would call a candidate for foster care?" she said, explaining FFPSA’s intent to allow federal Title IV‑E funds to be drawn down to support evidence‑based prevention services for parents and caregivers.

Kalpin said three findings drove the federal change: intervene early on behalf of children, show that many children can be kept safely at home with the right services for parents, and acknowledge that removal itself is traumatic. Under FFPSA, jurisdictions can seek reimbursement for time‑limited (up to 12 months) evidence‑based mental‑health, substance‑use and parenting services for children identified as “candidates for foster care,” defined by imminent risk rather than family income.

Kalpin described how the federal law also tightens requirements for residential treatment, saying jurisdictions must use accredited, evidence‑based programs and judicial review for residential placements. She noted the law’s emphasis on community pathways — encouraging states to partner with trusted community providers as the “front door” that families trust, rather than depending solely on child‑protection agencies.

Why it matters: Kalpin and other witnesses framed FFPSA as a mindset and financing change — federal dollars are now available earlier, to support parents and communities, not only to subsidize foster placements after removal. Kansas staff and providers told the committee they are using the law’s prevention funding to stand up family resource centers, home‑visiting and other community supports, and to pilot community referral pathways that do not require a DCF investigation in every instance.

What the law pays for: Kalpin said the statute’s prevention reimbursements concentrate on three parent‑focused service types: mental‑health treatment, substance‑use disorder treatment, and in‑home parenting programs. States may draw federal matching funds (Title IV‑E) for approved evidence‑based programs and for limited timeframes.

Next steps in Kansas: Committee members and state officials discussed how to align Kansas planning with the federal guidance on community pathways and eligibility for “candidates for foster care,” and how to track outcomes. Kalpin emphasized that defining ‘‘imminent risk’’ is a state judgment tied to local data and practice; she urged frequent data review and local tailoring.