skip to main content
Washington State Institute for Public Policy
Back Button

Flexible funding (Title IV-E waivers)

Child Welfare
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2024.  Literature review updated April 2012.
This program was archived December 2024.
The flexible funding allowed by states obtaining Title IV-E waivers is designed to allow states to reallocate federal dollars normally used for foster care to other types of child welfare services, such as prevention or treatment.

Federal funds for foster care are "categorical." That is, as foster care caseloads rise or fall, the federal funds change in proportion. Thus, if states reduce the number of children in foster care, the federal support is reduced. With Title IV-E waivers, if states reduce foster care caseloads they may reallocate saved foster care dollars to other types of child welfare services, such as prevention or treatment services.
 
ALL
BENEFIT-COST
META-ANALYSIS
CITATIONS
For an overview of WSIPP's Benefit-Cost Model, please see this guide. The estimates shown are present value, life cycle benefits and costs. All dollars are expressed in the base year chosen for this analysis (2022).  The chance the benefits exceed the costs are derived from a Monte Carlo risk analysis. The details on this, as well as the economic discount rates and other relevant parameters are described in our 2023 Technical Documentation.
Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant
Benefits to:
Taxpayers $574 Benefits minus costs $1,821
Participants $1,058 Benefit to cost ratio n/a
Others $86 Chance the program will produce
Indirect $103 benefits greater than the costs 90%
Total benefits $1,821
Net program cost $0
Benefits minus cost $1,821

Meta-analysis is a statistical method to combine the results from separate studies on a program, policy, or topic to estimate its effect on an outcome. WSIPP systematically evaluates all credible evaluations we can locate on each topic. The outcomes measured are the program impacts measured in the research literature (for example, impacts on crime or educational attainment). Treatment N represents the total number of individuals or units in the treatment group across the included studies.

An effect size (ES) is a standard metric that summarizes the degree to which a program or policy affects a measured outcome. If the effect size is positive, the outcome increases. If the effect size is negative, the outcome decreases. See Estimating Program Effects Using Effect Sizes for additional information on how we estimate effect sizes.

The effect size may be adjusted from the unadjusted effect size estimated in the meta-analysis. Historically, WSIPP adjusted effect sizes to some programs based on the methodological characteristics of the study. For programs reviewed in 2024 or later, we do not make additional adjustments, and we use the unadjusted effect size whenever we run a benefit-cost analysis.

Research shows the magnitude of effects may change over time. For those effect sizes, we estimate outcome-based adjustments, which we apply between the first time ES is estimated and the second time ES is estimated. More details about these adjustments can be found in our 2023 Technical Documentation.

Meta-Analysis of Program Effects
Outcomes measured Treatment age No. of effect sizes Treatment N Effect sizes (ES) and standard errors (SE) used in the benefit-cost analysis Unadjusted effect size (random effects model)
First time ES is estimated Second time ES is estimated
ES SE Age ES SE Age ES p-value
Child abuse and neglect
Substantiated or founded reports to child protective services.
 8 3 29252 -0.040 0.032 8 -0.040 0.032 17 -0.040 0.221
Out-of-home placement
The removal of a child from parental care, most often to foster care.
 8 5 99344 -0.090 0.045 8 -0.090 0.045 17 -0.090 0.045
1In addition to the outcomes measured in the meta-analysis table, WSIPP measures benefits and costs estimated from other outcomes associated with those reported in the evaluation literature. For example, empirical research demonstrates that high school graduation leads to reduced crime. These associated measures provide a more complete picture of the detailed costs and benefits of the program.

2“Others” includes benefits to people other than taxpayers and participants. Depending on the program, it could include reductions in crime victimization, the economic benefits from a more educated workforce, and the benefits from employer-paid health insurance.

3“Indirect benefits” includes estimates of the net changes in the value of a statistical life and net changes in the deadweight costs of taxation.
Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant
Affected outcome: Resulting benefits:1 Benefits accrue to:
Taxpayers Participants Others2 Indirect3 Total
Child abuse and neglect Criminal justice system $29 $0 $62 $14 $105
Child abuse and neglect $18 $181 $0 $9 $208
K-12 grade repetition $5 $0 $0 $2 $7
K-12 special education $62 $0 $0 $31 $93
Property loss associated with alcohol abuse or dependence $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Health care associated with PTSD $24 $7 $24 $12 $66
Labor market earnings associated with child abuse & neglect $369 $870 $0 $0 $1,240
Mortality associated with child abuse and neglect $0 $0 $0 $0 $1
Out-of-home placement Out-of-home placement $68 $0 $0 $34 $101
Totals $574 $1,058 $86 $103 $1,821
Click here to see populations selected
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $0 2011 Present value of net program costs (in 2022 dollars) $0
Comparison costs $0 2011 Cost range (+ or -) 10%
This waiver strategy allows states to reallocate funds from foster care to other kinds of services. One state evaluation reported that children on the waiver cost more than comparison children, one evaluation reported waiver children cost less than comparison children. In nearly all evaluations, the waiver was reported as "cost-neutral", which was the aim of the waiver: to be able to re-allocate dollars normally spent on foster care to other services. Therefore, we have taken a cautious approach and estimated that the cost of this program is zero relative to business-as-usual.
The figures shown are estimates of the costs to implement programs in Washington. The comparison group costs reflect either no treatment or treatment as usual, depending on how effect sizes were calculated in the meta-analysis. The cost range reported above reflects potential variation or uncertainty in the cost estimate; more detail can be found in our 2023 Technical Documentation.
Benefits Minus Costs
Benefits by Perspective
Taxpayer Benefits by Source of Value
Benefits Minus Costs Over Time (Cumulative Discounted Dollars)
The graph above illustrates the estimated cumulative net benefits per-participant for the first fifty years beyond the initial investment in the program. We present these cash flows in discounted dollars. If the dollars are negative (bars below $0 line), the cumulative benefits do not outweigh the cost of the program up to that point in time. The program breaks even when the dollars reach $0. At this point, the total benefits to participants, taxpayers, and others, are equal to the cost of the program. If the dollars are above $0, the benefits of the program exceed the initial investment.

Citations Used in the Meta-Analysis

Lehman, C.M., Liang, S., & O Dell, K. (2005). Impact of flexible funds on placement and permanency outcomes for children in child welfare. Research on Social Work Practice 1(5), 381-388.

Loman, L.A., Filonow, C.S., & Siegel, G.L. (2011). Indiana IV-E child welfare waiver demonstration extensions: final evaluation report. St. Lous, MO: Institute of Applied Research.

Human Services Research Institute (2010). Comprehensive final evaluation report: Ohio's Title IV-E eaiver demonstration project "ProtectOhio." Tualatin, OR: Author.

Institute of Applied Research. (2003). Indiana Title IV-E child welfare waiver demonstration project: final evaluation report. St. Louis: Institute of Applied Research.

Usher, C.L., Wildfire, J.B., Duncan, D.F., Meier, A., Brown, E.L., Salmon, M.A. (2002). Evaluation of North Carolina's Title IV-E waiver demonstration. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, School of Social Work, Jordan Institute for Families.