What Program Improvement Can Look Like

In December, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) launched a significant shift in federal child welfare oversight: a pilot redesign of the Program Improvement Plan (PIP). For decades, PIPs have served as the primary mechanism for states to respond to findings from the Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSR). 

Now, under Technical Bulletin #14, ACF is testing a fundamentally different approach—one that prioritizes clarity, near-real-time data, and rapid-cycle innovation over complexity and compliance.

Just a few months in, bipartisan momentum is building. As of late March, seven states have formally opted into the pilot, with many more close behind. On April 1, 2026, the effort reached a major milestone: the first new-style PIP went live in Oklahoma.

These early signals suggest something meaningful is underway. The question now is whether this pilot can deliver on its promise—and whether more states will step forward to help shape what comes next.

Why Rethink the PIP?

To understand the importance of this shift, consider a striking reality: every state has operated under a PIP almost continuously over the past 25 years — and none has fully met all federal review standards in subsequent federal reviews..

That record raises an uncomfortable question: is the system designed for improvement, or for documentation?

Traditional PIPs are often sprawling, highly technical documents — frequently exceeding 60 pages — developed through months of negotiation between federal and state officials. States must demonstrate progress across up to 14 complex measures, with the risk of financial penalties if they fall short.

While collaborative in theory, many states experience the process as both prescriptive and precarious: a jointly designed plan where the state alone bears the consequences if outcomes don’t improve.

The pilot under Technical Bulletin #14 doesn’t eliminate PIPs or statutory requirements. Instead, it reorients them around a single, unifying goal: ensuring every child has access to a safe, stable home. In other words, the goal is to ensure A Home for Every Child.

At the center is a simple but powerful metric: the ratio of available foster homes to children in care. This shifts focus to both sides of the equation — expanding placement capacity (numerator) while safely reducing entries into care and shortening lengths of stay (denominator).

A Simpler, State-Driven Model

The contrast between traditional and pilot PIPs is striking.

Under the pilot, plans are shorter, more focused, and driven by states themselves. Oklahoma’s plan, for example, spans just three pages and was developed in four weeks—a dramatic departure from the traditional model.

Measurement has also been streamlined. Instead of relying on retrospective case reviews and complex federal indicators, states now report:

• A core foster home-to-child ratio 
• Four standardized “chaser” measures (e.g., placement stability, kinship care) 
• State-selected “lead” measures tied to their specific strategies 

Just as importantly, this data will be publicly available through a national dashboard. For the first time, stakeholders will be able to use the standardized “chaser” measures to track state performance month by month—and compare across states and across time.

This transparency reflects a broader theory of change: that timely, comparable data—paired with flexibility in strategy—can drive faster, more meaningful improvement than compliance-driven oversight alone.

Oklahoma as an Early Example

Oklahoma offers an early look at how the model works in practice.

Rather than organizing around federal findings, the state built its plan around four pillars:

• Preventing unnecessary entries into care 
• Reducing adverse placements, meaning placements policies align with kin-first, siblings are placed together, and the child is kept close to home 
• Strengthening safety within placements 
• Supporting foster families 

Each pillar connects directly to improving system performance, both by reducing demand for placements and increasing the availability and quality of homes when placements are indeed necessary.

For instance, Oklahoma is strengthening front-end decision-making to keep families safely together, including enhanced safety assessments and senior-level reviews before court involvement. At the same time, tools like an “Adverse Placement Chart” help ensure that when children do enter care, placements are appropriate and stable.

The state is also expanding its recruitment methods while prioritizing foster parent experience by tracking satisfaction and incorporating caregiver feedback into system design.

Together, these strategies reflect a broader shift: treating placement capacity not as a downstream constraint, but as a central driver of outcomes.

Early Signals and Emerging Themes

Although still in its early stages, the pilot is already revealing key trends: 

• Faster action: What once took months in PIP negotiation and development now takes weeks, allowing states to implement improvements sooner. 
• Healthy competition: Leaders are increasingly interested in comparing performance across states through the monthly reports, fueling “friendly competition.” 
• Room for innovation: States are selecting measures that reflect their unique priorities, while still aligning with shared goals. 
• Focus on capacity and safety: The conversation is shifting from compliance to whether systems have—and effectively use—enough homes. The chaser and lead measures also continue to highlight safety, a core responsibility of the child protection system.

What Comes Next

The months ahead will be critical. More states are expected to join. All participating states will publish their PIPs, and the national dashboard will begin to fill with near real-time data.

Over time, this will create a clearer, more dynamic picture of system performance—one that can inform both policy and practice.

There’s also a new opportunity for public engagement. ACF is inviting stakeholders to review and provide input on state-selected lead measures, opening the door to a more iterative, evidence-informed approach to federal standards.

The PIP pilot is, at its core, an experiment. It doesn’t yet replace the traditional system, and its future will depend on results.

But early signs are promising. States are moving faster, focusing more clearly, and building the kind of real-time feedback loops that drive improvement.

After 25 years of business as usual, the field has a chance to try something different.

The question is: can we build a system that has homes waiting on kids, rather than kids waiting on homes?