Report

States and the New Federal Home Visiting Initiative

An Assessment from the Starting Line

Downloads

Quick Summary

In 2010, the Pew Center on the States surveyed state agency leaders in an effort to inventory state home visiting programs in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.


The resulting report, States and the New Federal Home Visiting Initiative: An Assessment from the Starting Line, along with the Pew Home Visiting Inventory, provides state leaders, agency administrators and program directors with individual state snapshots and a national overview of home visiting programs, models and funding.

With the new federal Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) program beginning to make grants to states to improve and expand home visitation, these data and Pew's findings and recommendations give policy makers—for the first time—a much-needed account of home visiting investments and programs as well as strategies to maximize federal and state resources.

Together, the report and inventory will help state and federal policy makers evaluate current home visiting approaches, compare systems across states, prepare for the upcoming infusion of MIECHV grant dollars and make informed decisions to ensure the best results for families and strongest returns to taxpayers. 

Download the report, read our our key findings or visit our state-by-state interactive map.

Resources One

National Overview

The Pew Center on the States surveyed state agency leaders in all 50 states and the District of Columbia and inventoried their state home visiting programs, models, funding and polices for fiscal year 2009-2010. The following picture of nationwide home-visiting investments emerged:

State home visiting programs

46 states and the District of Columbia have some level of fiscal year 2009-2010 investment in home visiting.

Pew found a total of 119 home visiting programs across 46 states and the District of Columbia:

  • 34 states support more than one home visiting program administered within and across their health, education and human service agencies
  • 21 states administer three or more home visiting programs
  • Four states—Alaska, Idaho, Nevada, Mississippi—do not administer home visiting programs
  • The state health department was the most common administering agency of state-administered home visiting programs.
  • State agencies administering home visiting programs: health department, children family services, education/early learning, children's trust fund, workforce/welfare, children's cabinet/council and other.

Funding strategies

In fiscal year 2009-2010, states made $1.4 billion available to home visiting programs via two primary funding strategies: categorical funding and broad-based prevention funding

  • Categorical funding: 43 states and the District of Columbia directed $462 million through dedicated, categorical funding streams narrowly defined by the state for the exclusive purpose of home visiting.
  • Broad-based funding: 22 states made available $912 million in block grant-style funding through 29 programs to meet a range of objectives including child abuse prevention, parent education, school readiness and early childhood systems development.  Under this strategy, communities may elect to use home visiting as a method of service delivery, but they are not required to do so by the states.
  • Nineteen of the 29 broad-based programs were able to account for $52 million used by communities for home visiting; 10 programs were unable to identify their broad-based initiatives' home visiting expenditures.

State funding strategy:

Home Visiting Inventory Funding Strategies

Sources of state support:

State general funds were the largest source of support for home visiting programs in fiscal year 2009-2010

Home visiting dollars are drawn from a variety of state sources—including general revenues, tobacco settlement funds and taxes—and federal streams, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the Maternal Child Health Block Grant and Medicaid.

  • 98 state-administered programs (83 percent) reported funding sources
  • State general funds—$182 million—were the most common funding source among categorically funded programs
  • California's tobacco tax-funded “First Five” initiative was the single largest source of the broad-based funding

State investments in evidence-based home visiting models:

A total of 39 programs reported investments of $266 million in fiscal year 2009-2010 in the three most widely used of the federally approved, evidence-based models: Healthy Families America, Nurse-Family Partnership and Parents as Teachers.

In contrast to “programs,” home visiting “models” refer to the specific curricula and content used by certain state or local programs. Federally approved, evidence-based models have evaluations using a high-quality, rigorous design. The three listed above not only meet this criterion but also have national organizations and require accreditation. In addition, many states have developed their own models, which may be adapted versions of the evidenced-based models or entirely original curricula created by a state or community. Get more information on each of the models.

Evidence-based Models Used:

 

Home Visiting Inventory Evidence-Based Models

Home Visiting Inventory blue Healthy Families America

Home Visiting Inventory green Nurse-Family Partnership

Home Visiting Inventory colors Parents as Teachers

  

Key Findings

Pew's analysis of the survey data revealed five top-level findings that state leaders should consider when deciding how to improve the efficacy and efficiency of home visiting investments and in preparing to deploy new federal grant dollars.

Most home visiting funding was not adequately tracked at the state level. 

In FY2010, states made almost $1.4 billion available for home visiting programs. Of these dollars, states could not document the use of $575 million, or more than 40 percent of available funds. States that dedicated funds exclusively for home visiting (categorical funding) effectively tracked spending of $462 million. States that provided broad-based funding to local communities to support a variety of child and family services could document only the allocation of $337 million—$52 million to home visiting and $285 million to other services. Collection of spending data was likely more robust at the local level, but states too infrequently required reporting and tracking of statewide expenditures. To ensure the most effective investments, states must more efficiently track taxpayer money supporting specific programs.

States frequently provided funding with few, if any, requirements that programs invest in models with a proven record of success.

Leading home visiting models have been subjected to rigorous testing with scientifically validated control groups. Evidence-based models do not come with guarantees, but when well implemented they have a proven record of effectiveness and return on public investments. Yet, 58 percent of FY2010 state funding (48 programs in 32 states) was provided with minimal guidance regarding selection of models, quality standards or expected outcomes. In these instances, service-delivery decisions such as curricula, training and caseloads were left to local discretion, and states could not ensure program quality or cost effectiveness.

States did not adequately monitor publicly funded programs to ensure effectiveness.

States generally did not provide enough oversight of programs to guarantee that services are of high quality, reach targeted populations and deliver desired results. Most states did not provide even basic data on program performance, such as the cost of the program, the number of visits per family and, most important, if parents and families who received services did better. Programs should be required to track both program performance and child and family outcomes, and states need to use those data to inform funding and policy decisions.

States did not consistently target at-risk families, where the return on investment is highest.

While states can choose to serve more families, prioritizing high-risk populations yields the best return on public investments. Yet, more than half of available home visiting funding—nearly $727 million—was allocated to programs without state-designated eligibility requirements. States can do more to provide clear guidelines about who is eligible for services and to ensure that state dollars are directed as intended.

In every state, far too few at-risk families got home visiting services.

No state had either sufficient funding or the infrastructure to reach all of its highest-risk families. To reap meaningful savings from home visiting investments, state funding must be sufficient to significantly lower the rates of costly problems.

Policy Recommendations

In light of the survey findings, Pew offers five recommendations to help states prepare to deploy new federal resources and get the highest returns on their investments in home visiting.

Require the tracking of all home visiting funds. 

Policy makers should require home visiting programs to track and document the use of funds, whether broad-based or categorical, to guide allocation decisions and help both local- and state-level agencies manage resources efficiently, avoid duplication, ensure quality and deliver services effectively.

Insist on—and invest in—programs with a foundation in research. 

Policy makers should look to the federal guidance on the appropriate use of evidence to ensure that models and standards are data-driven and rigorously evaluated, and should require that at least 75 percent of public home visiting funding supports evidence-based delivery models. Mandates for use of evidence must be accompanied by sufficient resources to ensure that models are implemented with fidelity.

Support and require programs to monitor performance and evaluate key outcomes. 

Policy makers should both mandate and provide necessary resources and training to enable local and state programs to coordinate services, monitor performance measures and track participant outcomes using criteria aligned with federal benchmarks.

Set clear, evidence-based eligibility guidelines and develop systems to ensure compliance. 

Policy makers should identify target populations using risk factors outlined in the federal initiative; require and fund administering agencies to ensure that programs adhere to established eligibility standards, especially in states with limited guidance, for use of state early childhood funds; and ensure the continuity of services as family circumstances change.

Use the best available data about families to determine appropriate home visiting allocations and to establish a realistic plan for expansion. 

As they prepare for the new federal dollars, state policy makers should look to cost-benefit, demographic and other data to determine the number of eligible families, existing program capacity and potential long-term savings; identify available funding streams, including Medicaid, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, public health and early childhood resources; ensure that allocations are sufficient to serve the entire target population; and allow time for agencies to build capacity and conduct outreach to targeted families.

Definitions

For the purposes of creating an inventory of comparable programs, Pew defined “home visiting” as a voluntary, sustained effort that:

  1. Pairs new and expectant families with home visitors who provide parenting information and connections to community-based services and support during pregnancy and throughout early childhood; 
  2. Delivers services primarily in the family's home, although programs may complement home visits with socialization activities such as group classes and parent outings; and 
  3. Is supported through state allocations (using either state or federal dollars). 

Excluded from the survey were programs that employ home visiting as a strategy but do not fully satisfy the definition above, such as:

  • Involuntary visits resulting from a child protective services investigation or a court order;
  • Programs targeting children four or older, unless they are enrolled before the age of two;
  • Programs that use home visiting as a component of a broader family support strategy but do not identify the home as the primary location for service delivery (such as Family Resource Centers or other primarily center-based initiatives;
  • Home-based services delivered as required by the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA);
  • Federal funding allocated directly to localities and not state-administered, such as Healthy Start and Early Head Start; and
  • Funding from private organizations and communities.

State Home Visiting Programs

For the purposes of this inventory, a state home visiting “program” is defined as an initiative that:

  1. Is administered through state agencies—such as health and human services—that direct funding to local communities to support service delivery, articulate standards and regulations, set performance measures and provide oversight and infrastructure;  
  2. Delivers services mainly in families' homes, though visits may be complemented with socialization activities such as group classes and parent outings;
  3. Receives support through state allocations, using either state or federal dollars.

 Federally Approved, Evidence-based Home Visiting Models 

Healthy Families America

Healthy Families America (HFA) is designed to serve families at-risk for child abuse and neglect. The home visitor provides parent education and support, linkages to community resources and child development screenings. [1]

Nurse-Family Partnership

The Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP) provides home visitation services to low-income, first-time mothers by registered nurses beginning early in pregnancy and continuing through the child's second year of life. The program targets a wide range of outcomes, with a focus on maternal and child health and family self-sufficiency. [2]

Parents as Teachers

Parents as Teachers (PAT) focuses on supporting a parent's role in promoting school readiness and healthy development.  PAT visitors provide information on children's development, teach parents to encourage their child's learning, provide referrals to community resources when needed and conduct screenings of children's development, health, hearing and vision. [3]

Spending Per Low-Income Child

The estimated number of children age 0-3 whose families live at or below 125 percent of poverty line. These estimates are derived from the Current Population Survey Table Creator and represent a three-year average between 2007 and 2009.

Resources Two

Methodology

The Pew Center on the States surveyed all 50 states and the District of Columbia about home visiting funding and polices as of fiscal year 2009-2010.

The survey asked three critical policy questions:

  • Investment: How much are states investing in home visiting?  What are the scale, breadth and range of state-directed funds?  What strategies are states using to fund programs?
  • Evidence base: Does the state use empirical standards or evidence of program effectiveness to drive funding allocation decisions and to what extent?
  • Evaluation: How do states hold local programs accountable for meeting performance measures?

Because many states do not track outcomes, this study did not consider or evaluate the merit of individual programs, models or services. Forthcoming, independent, Pew-funded research will explore some of these topics and seek to answer critical questions of quality and effectiveness that can guide state efforts to maximize investments. Additionally, the standards that will accompany new federal funding will outline specific criteria for selecting models and delivering services.

Data Sources

As a first point of contact in the state, Pew interviewed the State Maternal and Child Health Early Childhood Comprehensive Systems (ECCS) Coordinator, who represents the federal designee to coordinate states' early childhood systems. In some cases, the ECCS coordinator served as an informant about a specific program, and referred the data collector to other agencies that may oversee home visiting programs.  

Because home visiting programs are often administered across different agencies in the state, Pew also contacted multiple state agencies to gather information about programs that may not be housed in the Maternal Child Health office, including Departments of Early Learning, Children's Trusts, the lead Child Abuse Prevention Agencies and any Children's Cabinets or Children's Bureaus.

Data collectors conducted phone interviews with staff at these agencies and used information from interviews to complete surveys.  A draft of each completed survey was returned to agency staff to verify data and fill in any gaps. After data collection was finished, data were summarized and returned to program staff to verify. 

Data collection period:

Data were collected between December 2009 and May 2010, and focused on funding for FY2009-2010.   Some programs may have experienced agency cuts during the course of the year, which are reflected in the final data when possible. Unless noted, service population data is from FY2009, which often was the most recent data available during the data collection period. 

Per capita spending:

To assess the size and scale (geographic breadth) of state investments, Pew examined state funding in proportion to the number of low-income children. The per capita expenditure was calculated by dividing a state's home visiting investment by the number of estimated low-income infants and toddlers who live at or below 125 percent of poverty, based on the U.S. Census's Current Population Survey.

Accuracy and Comprehensiveness

To ensure the accuracy of the data presented in this report, Pew staff implemented numerous quality control measures. First, Pew identified multiple informants to verify data.  When possible, all data were compared with publicly available documents, such as legislative reports, agency budget documents and evaluation reports. Second, all agency staff were given the opportunity to review the final survey and a fact sheet summarizing the data. In August 2010, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released a list of the new governor-appointed designees to lead states' efforts on home visiting.  As a final data check, Pew sent summaries of all of a state's programs to the state home visiting lead for verification. Download a list of the lead agency in each state and the status of their data confirmation.

Inventory Data

 

Program

FY10 Program Funding

Administering Agency

Source of Funds

Models Used

Alabama (FY10 Total State Funding: $803,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $13) 

Child Abuse Prevention































Grants

$803,000

Department of Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention; Department of Children's Affairs

Tobacco settlement funds (Children's First Trust Fund); Education Trust Fund; CBCAP; TANF; Mentoring Children of Promise; State general funds

Broad early childhood funds; specific to program selected by community

Alaska (FY10 Total State Funding: $0 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $0) 

Arizona (FY10 Total State Funding: $27,476,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $222)

Early Childhood Development Initiative

$19,176,000

First Things First

Tobacco Tax

Multiple national models, with some locally developed

Healthy Families Arizona

$6,200,000

Department of Economic Security

State lottery

Healthy Families America

Health Start Program

$2,100,000

Department of Health Services

State lottery

State-developed program

Arkansas (FY10 Total State Funding: $1,186,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $20)

Arkansas Better Chance for School Success Fund

$732,000

Division of Child Care and Early Childhood Education

State general funds; TANF

Parents as Teachers

Child Abuse Prevention Grants

$454,000

Children's Trust Fund

CBCAP; surcharge on marriage license fees

Specific to home visiting model program selected by community

California (FY10 Total State Funding: Unavailable — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: Unable to calculate) 

First 5 California County Commissions

Unavailable

First 5 California

Tobacco tax

Multiple national models, with some locally developed

Colorado (FY10 Total State Funding: $14,848,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $270) 

Nurse Home Visitor Program

$14,037,000

Department of Public Health and Environment

Tobacco settlement funds; Medicaid

Nurse-Family Partnership

Tony Grampsas Youth Services Program

$811,000

Department of Public Health and Environment

Tobacco settlement funds

Broad early childhood funds; specific to program selected by community

Connecticut (FY10 Total State Funding: $14,848,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $270) 

Nurturing Families Network

$9,000,000

Children's Trust Fund

State general funds

Parents as Teachers

Case Management for Pregnant Women

$349,000

Department of Public Health

MCH Block Grant

Case management

Child First

$292,000

Department of Children and Families

State general funds

State-developed program

Healthy Choices for Women & Children

$180,000

Department of Public Health

State general funds; Children's Health Initiative

Case management

Delaware (FY10 Total State Funding: $3,809,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $290)

Smart Start

$2,156,000

Department of Health & Social Services, Division of Public Health

State general funds; MCH Block Grant

State-developed program

Parents as Teachers

$1,122,000

Department of Education

State general funds

Parents as Teachers

Nurse-Family Partnership

$531,000

Department of Health & Social Services, Division of Public Health

EBHV Grant; State general funds

Nurse-Family Partnership

District of Columbia (FY10 Total State Funding: $750,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $75) 

Children and Family Services Agency

$750,000

Department of Health

General funds

Specific to program selected by community

Florida (FY10 Total State Funding: $18,114,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $77) 

Healthy Families Florida

$18,114,000

Department of Children and Families

State general funds; TANF; CBCAP

Healthy Families America

Georgia (FY10 Total State Funding: $2,294,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $12) 

System of Care Grant Program

$1,310,000

Governor's Office for Children & Families

CBCAP; State general funds

Broad early childhood funds; home visiting programs must meet state-developed standards

SafeCare

$984,000

Department of Human Services

TANF

SafeCare

Hawaii (FY10 Total State Funding: $1,320,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $120) 

Healthy Families

$1,320,000

Department of Health

TANF

Healthy Families America

Idaho (FY10 Total State Funding: $0 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $0) 

Illinois (FY10 Total State Funding: $21,870,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $124)

Healthy Families Illinois

$10,123,000

Department of Human Services

State general funds

Healthy Families America

Parents Too Soon

$6,940,000

Department of Human Services

State general funds

Healthy Families, Nurse-Family Partnership, Parents as Teachers

Targeted Intensive Case Management

$4,807,000

Department of Human Services

State general funds

Case management

Indiana (FY10 Total State Funding: $50,999,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $520)

Early Childhood Block Grant/Infant & Toddler































Set Aside

Unavailable

State Board of Education

State general funds

Multiple national models, with some state developed

Healthy Families Indiana

$35,346,000

Department of Children and Families

TANF

Healthy Families America

Community Partners for Child Safety

$15,653,000

Department of Child Services/Kids First Trust































Fund

Kids First Trust Fund; CBCAP; PSSF/Title IV- B; Special fees

State-developed program

Iowa (FY10 Total State Funding: $15,879,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $441)

Community Empowerment: Family Support

$10,194,000

Department of Management

State general funds

Multiple national, state, and locally-developed models

Family Development and Self-Sufficiency Program

$4,947,000

Department of Management

TANF; State general funds

Localities select program

Healthy Opportunities for Parents to Experience Success/Healthy Families Iowa

$738,000

Department of Public Health

State general funds

Healthy Families America

Iowa Child Abuse Prevention Program

Unavailable

Department of Human Services

PSSF/Title IV-B; TANF; State general funds; Birth certificate fees

Multiple national, state, and locally-developed models

Community Partnerships for Protecting Children

Unavailable

Department of Human Services

State general funds

Multiple national, state, and locally-developed models

Kansas (FY10 Total State Funding: $11,331,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $202)

Parents as Teachers

$7,567,000

Department of Education

Tobacco settlement funds/Children's Initiative Fund; State general funds

Parents as Teachers

Early Childhood Block Grant

$1,950,000

Children's Cabinet and Trust Fund

Tobacco settlement funds/Children's Initiative Fund

Multiple national models

Healthy Start Home Visitor

$1,151,000

Department of Health and Environment

Tobacco settlement funds/Children's Initiative Fund; State general funds; MCH Block Grant

State-developed program

Smart Start

$629,000

Children's Cabinet and Trust Fund

Tobacco settlement funds/Children's Initiative Fund

Multiple national models

Child Abuse Prevention Grants

$34,000

Children's Cabinet and Trust Fund

CBCAP; License fees

Multiple national models

Kentucky (FY10 Total State Funding: $31,685,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $391) 

Health Access Nurturing Development Services (HANDS)

$31,685,000

Department for Public Health

State general funds (tobacco settlement); Medicaid

State-developed program

Louisiana (FY10 Total State Funding: $12,363,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $167) 

Nurse-Family Partnership

$12,300,000

Department of Health and Hospitals

TANF; MCH block grant; Medicaid; State general funds

Nurse-Family Partnership

Children's Trust Fund

$63,000

Children's Trust Fund

CBCAP; duplicate birth certificate fees

Broad early childhood funds; specific to program selected by community

Maine (FY10 Total State Funding: $9,740,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $400) 

Maine Families

$5,200,000

Department of Health and Human Services

Tobacco settlement funds

Parents as Teachers; Healthy Families America

Maine Public Health Nursing

$4,540,000

Department of Health and Human Services

State general funds; MCH Block Grant

State-developed program

Maryland (FY10 Total State Funding: $4,590,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $92) 

Healthy Families

$4,590,000

Department of Education

TANF

Healthy Families America

Massachusetts (FY10 Total State Funding: $13,584,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $234) 

Healthy Families

$10,538,000

Department of Early Education and Care/Children's Trust Fund

State general funds; TANF

Healthy Families America

Parent-Child Home Program

$1,800,000

Department of Early Education and Care

TANF; CCDF Grant

Parent-Child Home Program

Early Intervention Partnership Program

$715,000

Department of Public Health

MCH Block Grant; Medicaid

State-developed program

Fresh Start

$531,000

Department of Public Health

State general funds; EBHV Grant

State-developed program

Michigan (FY10 Total State Funding: $21,458,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $234) 

Maternal Infant Health Program

$16,000,000

Department of Community Health

Medicaid

State-developed program

Zero to Three Secondary Prevention

$4,000,000

Department of Human Services

TANF

Specific to program selected by community

Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program

$1,358,000

Department of Community Health

State general funds; MCH Block Grant; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

State-developed program

Children's Trust Fund

$100,000

Department of Human Services

CBCAP

Broad early childhood funds; specific to program selected by community

Great Parents, Great Start

Unavailable

Department of Education

State general funds

Broad early childhood funds; specific to program selected by community

Minnesota (FY10 Total State Funding: $7,785,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $124) 

Family Home Visiting

$7,785,000

Department of Health

TANF; State general funds

Localities select program

Early Childhood Family Education

Unavailable

Department of Education

State general funds

State-developed program

Missouri (FY10 Total State Funding: $28,095,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $316) 

Parents as Teachers

$23,918,000

Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

State general funds

Parents as Teachers

Stay at Home Parent Program

$2,884,000

Department of Social Services

Gaming fees

Localities select program

Building Blocks of Missouri

$1,043,000

Department of Health and Senior Services

MCH block grant

Nurse-Family Partnership

Missouri Community-based Home Visiting Program

$250,000

Department of Health and Senior Services

MCH block grant

State-developed program

Mississippi (FY10 Total State Funding: $0 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $0) 

Montana (FY10 Total State Funding: $591,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $42) 

Public Health Home Visiting Program

$591,000

Department of Public Health and Human Services

State general funds; Special state funds

State-developed program

Family Resource Centers

Unavailable

Children's Trust Fund

CBCAP; Interest earnings from state child endowment; Divorce filing fees

Broad early childhood funds; specific to program selected by community

Nebraska (FY10 Total State Funding: $1,792,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $69) 

Sixpence Early Learning Fund

$1,051,000

Children and Families Foundation

Earnings from Educational Lands and Trust Funds endowment

Broad early childhood funds; home visiting programs must meet state-developed standards

Home Visitation Program

$600,000

Department of Health & Human Services

State general funds

Healthy Families America; Hawaii Healthy Start; Nurse-Family Partnership; Intensive Home Visiting for At-Risk Parents

Child Abuse Prevention Grants

$141,000

Children and Families Foundation

CBCAP; PSSF/Title IV-B

Broad early childhood funds; specific to program selected by community

New Hampshire (FY10 Total State Funding: $1,598,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $228) 

Home Visiting New Hampshire

$1,582,000

Department of Health and Human Services

TANF; Medicaid ; MCH Block Grant

State-developed program

Family Centers

$16,000

Children's Trust Fund

Children's Trust Fund endowment; CBCAP

Broad early childhood funds; specific to program selected by community

New Jersey (FY10 Total State Funding: $11,100,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $161) 

Comprehensive Home Visiting Initiative

$11,100,000

Department of Children and Families

TANF; PSSF/Title IV-B; State general funds; EBHV Grant

Healthy Families America; Nurse-Family Partnership; Parents as Teachers

New Mexico (FY10 Total State Funding: $2,572,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $64) 

New Mexico Home Visiting Services

$2,572,000

Children, Youth and Families Department

State general funds; ARRA

State-developed program; specific to program selected by community

New York (FY10 Total State Funding: $40,142,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $171) 

Healthy Families New York

$21,742,000

Office of Children and Family Services

TANF; State general funds

Healthy Families America

Nurse-Family Partnership

$11,600,000

Department of Health

TANF (one-time only); Medicaid

Nurse-Family Partnership

Community Health Worker

$4,800,000

Department of Health

MCH Block Grant; State general funds; Medicaid

State-developed program

Healthy Mom, Healthy Baby

$2,000,000

Department of Health

State general funds

Discretion given to home visitor

Nevada (FY10 Total State Funding: $0 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $0)

North Carolina (FY10 Total State Funding: $9,033,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $61) 

Smart Start: Family Support Initiatives

$8,033,000

Department of Health and Human Services

State general funds

Multiple national models

Nurse-Family Partnership

$1,000,000

Department of Health and Human Services

MCH block grant

Nurse-Family Partnership

North Dakota (FY10 Total State Funding: $250,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $50)  

Healthy Families America

$250,000

Department of Human Services

State general funds

Healthy Families America

Ohio (FY10 Total State Funding: $26,569,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $134) 

Help Me Grow

$24,841,000

Department of Health

State general funds

Multiple national models, with some locally developed; programs must meet state- developed standards

Infant Mortality Reduction Initiative

$1,728,000

Department of Health

State general funds; MCH block grant

State-developed program

Oklahoma (FY10 Total State Funding: $19,046,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $307) 

Children First (Nurse-Family Partnership)

$12,680,000

Department of Health

State general funds; Medicaid

Nurse-Family Partnership

Start Right

$3,915,000

Department of Health

State general funds; CBCAP

State-developed program

Oklahoma Parents as Teachers

$2,451,000

Department of Education

State general funds

Parents as Teachers

Oregon (FY10 Total State Funding: $13,356,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $334) 

Healthy Start/Healthy Families

$9,121,000

Oregon Commission for Children and Families

State general funds; Medicaid

Healthy Families America

Family Support and Connections

$2,152,000

Department of Human Services

State general funds; CBCAP; TANF

State-developed program

Maternity Case Management

$1,402,000

Department of Human Services

Medicaid

Case management

Babies First!

$681,000

Department of Human Services

State general funds

State-developed program

Pennsylvania (FY10 Total State Funding: $21,321,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $106) 

Nurse-Family Partnership

$11,178,000

Office of Child Development and Early Learning, Department of Public Welfare

State general funds

Nurse-Family Partnership

Family Centers

$6,741,000

Office of Children, Youth and Families, Department of Public Welfare

State general funds; CBCAP; PSSF/Title IV-B

Parents as Teachers

Parent-Child Home Program

$3,402,000

Office of Child Development and Early Learning, Department of Public Welfare

PSSF/Title IV-B; State general funds

Parent-Child Home Program

Rhode Island (FY10 Total State Funding: $1,407,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $100) 

Rhode Island Nurse-Family Partnership Initiative

$650,000

Department of Health; Department of Children, Youth and Families; Department of Human Services

EBHV; Family Care Community Partnerships; WIC; TANF

Nurse-Family Partnership

The First Connections Program

$643,000

Department of Health

State general funds; IDEA Part C; Medicaid

Broad discretion given to home visitor using state-developed standards

Children's Trusts Fund Grants

$100,000

Department of Children, Youth and Families

CBCAP

Specific to program selected by community

Child Opportunity Zones

$14,000

Department of Education

State general funds

Discretion given to home visitor

South Carolina (FY10 Total State Funding: $6,905,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $102) 

First Steps

$6,232,000

Department of Education

State general funds

Multiple national models, with some locally developed; programs must meet state-developed standards

Nurse-Family Partnership

$673,000

Children's Trust Fund

EBHV Grant

Nurse-Family Partnership

Family Literacy

Unavailable

Department of Education

State general funds

Multiple national models, with some locally developed

South Dakota (FY10 Total State Funding: Unavailable — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: Unable to calculate) 

Bright Start

Unavailable

Department of Health

TANF; Medicaid

Nurse-Family Partnership

Tennessee (FY10 Total State Funding: $12,113,000 — Spending Per Low-Income Child: $114) 

Help Us Grow Successfully (HUGS)

$6,500,000

Department of Health

TennCare/Medicaid

State-developed program

Healthy Start/Hawaii Healthy Families America

$3,000,000

Department of Health

PSSF/Title IV-B

Healthy Families America

Nurse-Family Partnership

$1,625,000

Department of Health

State general funds; EBHV Grant

Nurse-Family Partnership

Child Health and Development Projects (CHAD)

$538,000

Department of Health

SSBG

State-developed program

Child Abuse Prevention Services

$450,000

Department of Children's Services

CBCAP; State general funds; License fees

Localities select program

Texas  (FY10 Total State Funding: $8,900,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $15) 

Texas Nurse-Family Partnership

$8,900,000

Health and Human Services Commission

State general funds; TANF

Nurse-Family Partnership

Prevention and Early Intervention Division

Unavailable

Department of Family and Protective Services

State general funds; PSSF/Title IV-B; CBCAP; Children's Trust Fund

Broad early childhood funds; specific to program selected by community

Utah (FY10 Total State Funding: $1,469,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $37) 

Office Home Visiting

$614,000

Department of Health

EBHV Grant

Multiple national models

Child Abuse Prevention Funds

$591,000

Department of Human Services

CBCAP; PSSF/Title IV-B

Multiple national models, with some state developed

P-5 Home Visiting

$264,000

Department of Health

MCH block grant

Localities select program

Children's Trust Fund

Unavailable

Department of Human Services

Birth certificate fees

Broad early childhood funds; specific to program selected by community

Vermont (FY10 Total State Funding: $5,209,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $1,042) 

Healthy Babies Kids & Families

$2,645,000

Agency for Human Services

Medicaid; State general funds

Discretion given to home visitor

Early Childhood and Family Mental Health

$2,564,000

Agency for Human Services

Medicaid; State general funds

Discretion given to home visitor

Children's Trust Fund Foundation

Unavailable

Agency for Human Services

State general funds

Broad early childhood funds; specific to program selected by community

Virginia (FY10 Total State Funding: $10,451,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $100) 

Healthy Families Virginia

$5,400,000

Department of Social Services

TANF; State general funds

Healthy Families America

CHIP of Virginia

$2,550,000

Department of Health

State general funds

Parents as Teachers; Bright Futures

Resource Mothers

$2,501,000

Department of Health

MCH block grant; Medicaid; State general funds

Resource Mothers

Washington (FY10 Total State Funding: $1,180,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $18) 

Evidence-Based Home Visiting

$1,180,000

Council for Children and Families

State general funds

Nurse-Family Partnership; Parents as Teachers; Parent-Child Home Program; Parenting Partnership

West Virginia (FY10 Total State Funding: $2,755,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $106) 

Right from the Start

$2,005,000

Department of Health and Human Resources

Medicaid; MCH block grant

State-developed program with discretion given to the home visitor

In-Home Family Education Program

$750,000

Department of Health and Human Resources

CBCAP; State general funds

Healthy Families America; Maternal Infant Health Outreach Workers; Parents as Teachers

Wisconsin (FY10 Total State Funding: $2,910,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $106) 

Empowering Families of Milwaukee

$1,424,000

Department of Children and Families

TANF; Project LAUNCH grant

Locally-developed program

Family Foundations

$986,000

Department of Children and Families

State general funds

Specific to program selected by community

Racine Home Visiting Program

$250,000

Department of Health Services

State general funds

Specific to program selected by community

Milwaukee Nurse-Family Partnership

$250,000

Department of Health Services

MCH block grant

Nurse-Family Partnership

Wyoming (FY10 Total State Funding: $3,252,000 — State Spending Per Low-Income Child: $650) 

Public Health Nurses Infant Home Visitation Services

$3,252,000

Department of Health

TANF; MCH block grant

Nurse-Family Partnership

 

Media Contact

Jennifer Stapleton

Officer, Communications

202.540.6466