Prevention - We Solved for Funding. Have We Solved for Outcomes?
I recently attended a panel hosted by American Enterprise Institute that asked a simple but important question: Is the Prevention Services Clearinghouse actually working?
The conversation surfaced something our field needs to grapple with more directly. Eight years after FFPSA, we have shifted funding toward prevention. That was necessary. But we are still asking whether it is producing meaningful impact.
What stood out most was the challenge raised by Emily Putnam-Hornstein. She pushed on a core assumption behind FFPSA - that programs showing promise in research settings can be scaled across complex families and systems AND still produce results. In practice, that rarely holds.
We continue to elevate models based on limited or narrow evidence and expect them to perform in real world conditions where families have multiple, overlapping needs. The result is a system that funds programs, but struggles to deliver outcomes at scale.
That is the tension we cannot ignore.
What now?
FFPSA moved the field forward. But we are past the point of debating intent.
How do we move beyond a model of approving programs to one that supports real world impact?
How do we ensure the Clearinghouse does not become a constraint on innovation?
What does it look like to build systems, not just services, that actually work for families?
Prevention is not just about what we fund. It is about whether our systems are designed to make those interventions effective. Right now, too many jurisdictions are trying to scale impact without the conditions needed to support it. That is where the next phase of this work has to focus.
What are you seeing in your state or community when it comes to scaling prevention? And what would it take to move from funding programs to achieving outcomes?
Appreciation to American Enterprise Institute, Emily Putnam-Hornstein, and the panel for pushing this conversation forward.
Comments