[Federal Register: November 7, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 214)]
[Notices]
[Page 67479-67489]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07no05-90]
[[Page 67479]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families
Invitation To Comment on Proposed Data Composites and Potential
Performance Areas and Measures for the Child and Family Services Review
AGENCY: Children's Bureau (CB), Administration on Children, Youth and
Families (ACYF), Administration for Children and Families (ACF),
Department of Health and Human Services.
ACTION: Invitation to comment on proposed data composites and potential
performance areas and measures for the Federal Child and Family
Services Review (CFSR).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice is to advise the public of ACF's plan to replace
the six national data measures used for the CFSR with six data
composites addressing the child welfare domains of maltreatment
recurrence, maltreatment in foster care, timeliness of adoptions,
timeliness of reunifications, placement stability, and permanency for
children. The plan to develop data composites is a response to a
recommendation made by a consultant under contract with ACF to study
the CFSR process. The recommendation is based on input from a CFSR
workgroup convened by the consultant at the end of the first round of
CFSRs to assist in identifying areas needing improvement.
ACF expects that each data composite will incorporate multiple
performance areas and measures relevant to a specific domain. ACF plans
to use State performance on the data composites as part of its
evaluation of a State's substantial conformity with specific outcomes
assessed through the CFSR. National standards will be developed for
each of the domains represented by the six data composites.
ACF's plan to replace existing measures with data composites is
consistent with the final CFSR regulation at 45 CFR 1355.34(b)(4) and
(5), which authorizes the Secretary of HHS to add, amend, or suspend
any of the statewide data indicators when appropriate, and to adjust
the national standards when appropriate. The proposed plan also
complies with the requirements of section 1123A of the Social Security
Act (the Act) for ACF to assess State child welfare agencies'
compliance with titles IV-B and IV-E of the Act as implemented in 45
CFR 1355.31 through 1355.37.
We invite the public to comment on the data composites, performance
areas, and measures proposed in this announcement.
DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
address section below either by mail or e-mail on or before (30 days).
ADDRESSES: Mail Address: Children's Bureau, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW.,
Washington, DC 20447. E-mail address: cfsrmeasures@acf.hhs.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Hargrove, 202-205-8634.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
CFSR and Existing Outcome Measures
The CFSR is ACF's results-oriented comprehensive monitoring system
designed to promote continuous improvement in the outcomes experienced
by children and families who come into contact with State public child
welfare agencies. ACF developed the CFSR in response to a mandate in
the Social Security Amendments of 1994 (see section 1123A of the Social
Security Act) for the Department of Health and Human Services to
promulgate regulations for reviews of State child and family services
programs under titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act. ACF's
final regulations on the CFSR process, issued in 2000, can be found at
45 CFR 1355.31 through 1355.37. Between fiscal years (FY) 2001 and
2004, ACF conducted a CFSR of every State, the District of Columbia,
and Puerto Rico.
The CFSR assesses State performance on seven outcomes, seven
systemic factors, and six national data measures that ACF adapted from
measures originally developed for the Report to Congress on Child
Welfare Outcomes (see attachment A for the report to Congress measures
and the CFSR Outcomes). Data for the six national data measures come
from the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System
(AFCARS) and the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS).
AFCARS is a federally mandated data system established for the
collection of foster care and adoption data. NCANDS is a voluntary data
collection system that is the primary source of national information on
abused and neglected children who are known to State agencies providing
child protective services.
ACF established national standards for each of the six data
measures and used the standards as part of the assessment of a State's
substantial conformity with particular outcomes. ACF described these
six data measures in the preamble to the final CFSR regulation,
published in the Federal Register (65 FR 4024-4025). This same citation
provides information on how ACF calculated the national standards
associated with each of the six data measures. Subsequently, ACF issued
information memoranda on the specific national standards that would be
used in the initial CFSR implementation (see ACYF-CB-IM-00-11 and ACYF-
CB-IM-01-07).
The following performance measures and national standards were used
during the first round of CFSRs as part of the assessment of a State's
substantial conformity with CFSR Safety Outcome 1--Children are, first
and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect:
Repeat maltreatment--Of all children who were victims of
substantiated or indicated child abuse and/or neglect during the first
6 months of the reporting period, 6.1 percent or less had another
substantiated or indicated report within a 6-month period.
Maltreatment of children in foster care--Of all children
who were in foster care during the reporting period, 0.57 percent or
less were the subject of substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a
foster parent or facility staff member.
The following performance measures and national standards were used
as part of the assessment of a State's substantial conformity with CFSR
Permanency Outcome 1--Children will have permanency and stability in
their living situations:
Timeliness of reunification--Of all children who were
reunified with their parents or caretakers at the time of discharge
from foster care, 76.2 percent or more were reunified in less than 12
months from the time of the latest removal from home.
Re-entry into foster care--Of all children who entered
foster care during the reporting period, 8.6 percent or less were re-
entering foster care within 12 months of a prior foster care episode.
Timeliness to adoption--Of all children who exited foster
care to a finalized adoption, 32 percent or more exited foster care in
less than 24 months from the time of the latest removal from home.
Placement stability--Of all children who have been in
foster care for less than 12 months from the time of the latest removal
from home, 86.7 percent or more have had no more than 2 placement
settings.
Recommendation To Develop Data Composites
ACF views the CFSR as a dynamic process and has made ongoing
improvements in the process in response to lessons learned in the field
[[Page 67480]]
and to recommendations from State child welfare agency administrators.
After completion of the first round of CFSRs in FY 2004, ACF contracted
with a consultant to study the CFSR and make further recommendations
regarding strategies for improvement. To assist them in this task, the
consultant convened a CFSR workgroup of State child welfare agency
administrators and child welfare researchers and, based on input from
this workgroup, produced a set of recommendations for ACF. One
recommendation was to replace the existing CFSR single data measures
for which national standards were established with data composites that
incorporate a wider range of performance areas relevant to a particular
child welfare domain. ACF proposes to implement this recommendation for
the following reasons:
The recommendation is consistent with our observations
during the first round of the CFSR that expanding the scope of data
pertaining to a particular child welfare domain will provide a more
effective assessment of State performance. For example, expanding the
scope of data pertaining to the timeliness of reunification will
address various performance areas relevant to this domain, including
the permanency of the reunification.
Data composites will provide a more holistic view of State
performance in a particular domain than a single data measure can
achieve. For example, the current CFSR measure of timeliness of
adoption considers the percentage of children adopted within 24 months
of entering foster care, but not children's experiences with regard to
the timeframes between key points in the adoption process, such as the
time from termination of parental rights (TPR) to a finalized adoption.
Data composites will ensure that the data component of a
State's performance with regard to a particular domain will not depend
on one measure. For example, a State's performance regarding the data
composite for the domain of timeliness to adoption may be uneven, with
performance higher in one area than in another. However, overall
performance on the composite may be high relative to other States.
Thus, the data composite will account for both the strengths and
weaknesses that a State exhibits within a particular domain.
Data composites will allow the development of national
standards that account for variation in State practices and policies.
For example, there are differences in State policies and practices
regarding reunification. In some States, children are physically
reunified with families several months before legal custody is
transferred to parents or guardians. States indicate that this practice
allows them to ensure that the families receive the services and
monitoring necessary to support the reunification process. In contrast,
in other States, legal custody and physical custody are transferred
simultaneously. Using data composites for the domain of timeliness of
reunification will enhance ACF's ability to account for these
variations in practice.
Data composites are being successfully used by the Federal
government to assess other programs. For example, composite measures
are being developed and used for the No Child Left Behind initiative.
In addition, composite measures have been used to evaluate the
performance of hospitals in various health-related domains.
Although the methodology for calculating the scores for the data
composites has not been finalized, the following describes the approach
that is under consideration:
Possible composite methodology: Six data composites are under
consideration (these are described in the section below), with each
composite pertaining to a different domain of child welfare practice
(i.e., recurrence of maltreatment, maltreatment of children in foster
care, timeliness of reunifications, timeliness of adoptions, placement
stability, and achieving permanency). It is expected that each
composite will incorporate two or more performance areas, with a
specific measure developed for each performance area. The final
performance areas to be included in each data composite will depend
upon the following: (1) Input from the field in response to this
announcement, and (2) the results of principle components analyses
regarding the viability of inclusion of specific performance areas in a
particular domain. The principle components analyses also will permit a
determination of the relative contribution of each performance area to
the overall domain represented by the data composite. Once the
performance areas and measures are identified, a score will be
calculated for each State for each data composite based on the
appropriate weighting (as determined from the analyses) of a State's
performance in each of the performance areas.
For each data composite, ACF is considering using the distribution
of scores across States to establish a national standard (the
methodology to be used to set the standard has not yet been
determined). This will result in six separate standards, one for each
domain. Because the primary purpose of a data composite is to capture
overall performance in a particular domain, ACF will not establish a
national standard for the individual performance areas incorporated in
the composites. Therefore, States will not be expected to meet a
standard for any individual performance area but to achieve an overall
performance level in a particular domain related to safety or
permanency. However, ACF will provide States with information regarding
each performance area with regard to the mean, median, and range of
scores across States to enable a State to identify the performance
areas within a composite where improvements may be needed.
ACF proposes to use the national standards developed for the data
composites as part of the assessment of State performance in the second
round of CFSRs. These will be used in conjunction with findings from
the CFSR onsite case reviews in the overall determination of a State's
substantial conformity with specific outcomes.
Proposed Data Composites and Performance Areas
A table providing a comparison of the existing CFSR data measures
and the proposed data composites and performance areas is provided in
attachment B. Additional information regarding the data composites and
performance areas is presented below. The criteria for selection of
measures for each performance area are the following: (1) They must be
measurable using data available from AFCARS and NCANDS, and (2) they
must be measurable within the CFSR timeframes for assessing State
improvement in performance.
CFSR Safety Outcome 1: Children are First and Foremost Protected From
Abuse and Neglect
Safety Composite 1: Recurrence of Maltreatment
Performance on Safety Composite 1--Recurrence of maltreatment--will
be part of the assessment of a State's substantial conformity with CFSR
Safety Outcome 1--Children are, first and foremost, protected from
abuse and neglect. Safety Composite 1 reflects the responsibility of a
State child welfare system to ensure the ongoing safety of children who
come into contact with the system through a maltreatment allegation.
The following performance areas are under consideration for this
data composite:
Recurrence of substantiated or indicated maltreatment
reports.
[[Page 67481]]
Multiple unsubstantiated maltreatment reports.
Timeliness of initiating investigations of child
maltreatment reports.
Timeliness of dispositions of maltreatment reports.
Safety Composite 1--Performance Area 1: Recurrence of Substantiated or
Indicated Maltreatment Reports
Justification for inclusion: This performance area provides an
assessment of a child welfare agency's effectiveness in responding to
the safety of children who are found to be victims of abuse or
neglect.\1\ It addresses the question of whether the agency took the
necessary actions to ensure that the children do not experience abuse
or neglect again.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ InChild Maltreatment 2003, a child victim is defined as a
child for whom an incident of abuse or neglect has been
substantiated or indicated by an investigation or assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possible measure: Of all children who were victims of substantiated
or indicated child abuse and/or neglect during the first 6 months of
the reporting period, what percentage had another substantiated or
indicated report within a 6-month period? This is the measure that was
used during the first round of CFSRs to assess maltreatment recurrence.
Relevant issues: This measure focuses on recurrence within a 6-
month period because it is not possible to link children reported to
the NCANDS Child File across years. In support of the measure, research
findings suggest that the incidence of occurrence of a substantiated
maltreatment report within 12 months of a prior substantiated report is
not significantly greater than the incidence of recurrence within 6
months.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Fluke, J. et al. (1999). Recurrence of maltreatment: An
application of the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System.
Child Abuse and Neglect, 23 (7), 633-650. DePanfilis, D., and
Zuravin, S. (1998). Rates, patterns, and frequency of child
maltreatment recurrences among families known to CPS. Child
Maltreatment, 3 (1), 27-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some CFSR workgroup participants recommended that the CFSR include
measures designed to identify the types of maltreatment that recur and
the characteristics (such as age and race/ethnicity) of children who
are the victims of maltreatment recurrence. ACF determined that,
although these measures address important research questions about
maltreatment recurrence and are appropriate for a research initiative,
they are beyond the scope of the CFSR, which is intended to provide a
general assessment of State performance in particular domains. However,
ACF encourages States to examine their own data to identify the factors
associated with maltreatment recurrence.
Safety Composite 1--Performance Area 2: Multiple Unsubstantiated
Maltreatment Reports
Justification for inclusion: ACF is seeking input from the field
regarding the feasibility of capturing as part of Safety Composite 1
the child safety issues relevant to multiple ``unsubstantiated''
maltreatment reports. (The term ``unsubstantiated report'' does not
include maltreatment allegations that are not accepted for
investigation [i.e., are ``screened out], those that are investigated
and found to be ``intentionally false,'' or those that are ``closed
without a finding.\3\'') Research findings indicate the following: (1)
Children who are the subject of unsubstantiated maltreatment reports
are highly likely to have experienced abuse or neglect, (2) there is
extensive variation across States regarding the criteria used to make a
substantiation determination, and (3) the decision as to whether a
maltreatment report is substantiated or unsubstantiated often is not
based on consistent criteria even within a State.\4\ In addition, a
recent finding of the federally funded study entitled Longitudinal
Studies of Child Abuse and Neglect, found no differences in the
behavioral and developmental outcomes of 8-year-old children with
unsubstantiated and substantiated maltreatment reports filed when the
children were between the ages of 4 and 8.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The major NCANDS disposition categories are defined in Child
Maltreatment, 2002, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration on Children, Youth and Families.
\4\ Drake, B. (1996). Unraveling ``unsubstantiated.'' Child
Maltreatment, 1 (3), 261-271. English et al. (2002). Causes and
consequences of the substantiation decision in Washington State
Child Protective Services. Children and Youth Services Review, 24
(11), 817-851. Leiter et al. (1994). Substantiated and
unsubstantiated cases of child maltreatment: Do their consequences
differ? Social Work Research, 18 (2), 67-82.
\5\ Hussey, J. et al. (2005). Defining maltreatment according to
substantiation: Distinction without a difference? Presentation at
the 15th National Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect, Boston, MA:
April, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possible measure: ACF welcomes comments from the field regarding
possible measures for this performance area. Although research findings
suggest that a child who is the subject of multiple unsubstantiated
maltreatment reports is likely to be experiencing maltreatment
recurrence, ACF is concerned that a measure developed for this
performance area may result in unintended consequences. For example,
States that have a practice of monitoring families in which a child is
the subject of an unsubstantiated report or of providing services to
these families may be discouraged from implementing these practices if
the ongoing surveillance of the family increases the likelihood that a
subsequent maltreatment allegation (either substantiated or
unsubstantiated) may occur. ACF also wants to ensure that the measure
will, for the most part, exclude maltreatment allegations that are
without merit.
Relevant issues: Although several participants in the CFSR
workgroup recommended that a measure of recurrence of unsubstantiated
reports should be incorporated into the CFSR safety assessment, a few
were not in accord with this recommendation. Those that were opposed to
the recommendation expressed the concerns identified above.
Safety Outcome 1--Performance Area 3: Timeliness of Initiating
Investigations of Child Maltreatment Reports
Justification for inclusion: NCANDS defines the initial
investigation as beginning when the child protective services (CPS)
agency has face-to-face contact with, or attempts to have face-to-face
contact with, the alleged victim. If face-to-face contact with the
alleged victim is not possible, the initial investigation is considered
as beginning when CPS first contacts any party who can provide
information essential to the investigation or assessment. ACF's
proposal to include timeliness of initiating investigations as a
performance area for Safety Composite 1 is based on the following
assumptions:
The continued risk of harm to a child who is the subject
of a maltreatment report is best assessed through face-to-face contact
with the child, and
Protection of the child is enhanced when this face-to-face
contact occurs quickly after a maltreatment report is received by the
agency.
Possible measures: Two measures of this performance area are under
consideration and are provided for review and comment.
During the reporting year, of all children who were the
subject of an investigation conducted in response to a report alleging
maltreatment, what was the mean (or median) length of time between
receipt of the report and the initiation of the investigation?
During the reporting year, of all children who were the
subject of an investigation conducted in response to a report alleging
maltreatment, what percent had investigations that were initiated in
the following timeframes:
[[Page 67482]]
Within 1 day (24 hours)?--This timeframe is conceptualized as a
``timely response.''
After 7 days?--This timeframe is conceptualized as one that did not
adequately address the safety of the child.
Relevant issues: Because ACF believes that the ongoing risk of harm
to a child is most effectively assessed through face-to-face contact
with the child and family, and that this contact should take place
quickly after a report is received, the proposed measures do not
address variation across States with regard to required timeframes for
responding to a maltreatment report, which range from a few hours to a
few weeks (with a few States having no time requirements). The measures
also do not take into account the ``priority'' systems established by
many States that result in assigning different timeframes to different
reports based on perceived risk of harm to the child. These timeframes
also range from a few hours to a few weeks.
Some States have established an ``alternative response'' (also
called a differential response) to maltreatment reports. Under this
approach, a maltreatment report may be referred for an assessment of
the family rather than for an investigation to determine whether child
maltreatment did or did not occur. Usually, reports are referred for an
assessment when a CPS agency determines that the risk of harm to the
child is low. ACF has not yet decided whether the timeliness of
initiating alternative response assessments will be included in the
proposed measure. A concern is that not all States that implement an
alternative response approach report these activities to the NCANDS
Child File. ACF welcomes comment and suggestions from the field
regarding this issue.
Safety Composite 1--Performance Area 4: Timeliness of Dispositions of
Child Maltreatment Reports
Justification for inclusion: This performance area is included in
Safety Composite 1 for the following reasons.
Until an investigation is completed and the risk of harm
to a child is fully assessed, States may not be in a position to
identify the needs of the child and family accurately and to match
services to the needs. This could affect the possibility of future
maltreatment.
When a disposition is not made in a timely manner and the
agency receives a subsequent report of alleged maltreatment of the
child, the lack of a disposition may affect the agency's ability to
accurately evaluate the subsequent report since it may not have full
information pertaining to the earlier investigation.
It is not until the disposition that an agency's plan is
sanctioned by the court. The court sanctioning ensures that the agency
and the parents are aware that they are required to carry out the
actions detailed in the plan.
Possible measures: The following two measures are under
consideration.
During the reporting year, of all children who were the
subject of investigations conducted in response to reports alleging
maltreatment, what was the mean (or median) length of time between
receipt of the report and the disposition?
During the reporting year, of all children who were the
subject of investigations conducted in response to maltreatment
reports, what percent had investigations that reached a disposition in
various timeframes (e.g., 60 days from the time of receipt of the
report, between 60 and 90 days, longer than 90 days).
ACF welcomes comments on the decision to begin the ``disposition
timeframe'' with the receipt of the maltreatment report rather than
with the initiation of the investigation.
Relevant issues: The proposed measures do not include information
pertaining to assessments made as a result of an alternative response.
Many States that implement an alternative response do not reach a
disposition in these situations, even when the decision is made to open
a case for services. Although the NCANDS Child File includes
disposition categories of ``Alternative Response Victim'' and
``Alternative Response Nonvictim,'' only three States report
Alternative Response Victims, and only nine report Alternative Response
Nonvictims.
CFSR Safety Outcome 2: Children Are Safely Maintained in Their Homes
Whenever Possible and Approrpriate
Safety Composite 2: Maltreatment of Children in Foster Care
Performance on Safety Composite 2 will be part of the assessment of
a State's substantial conformity with CFSR Safety Outcome 2--Children
are safely maintained in their own homes whenever possible and
appropriate. Although the wording of CFSR Safety Outcome 2 specifies
the safety of children maintained in their own homes, the outcome also
applies to maintaining children safely while they are in the ``homes''
in which they are placed by the child welfare agency, including
licensed foster family homes, relative homes, group homes, or
institutions. The composite reflects the primary responsibility of a
child welfare system to ensure that children are not victims of
maltreatment while they are under the care and placement responsibility
of the State.
The following two performance areas are under consideration for
this composite:
Maltreatment of children in foster care by a foster parent
or facility staff member.
Maltreatment of children in foster care by their parents.
Safety Composite 2--Performance Area 1: Maltreatment of Children in
Foster Care by a Foster Parent or Facility Staff Member
Justification for inclusion: ACF, and the public in general, expect
State child welfare agencies to ensure that State-appointed caregivers
of children in foster care do not abuse or neglect the children placed
in their care.
Possible measure: Of all children who were in foster care during
the reporting period, what percent was the subject of substantiated or
indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff member?
Relevant issues: This measure was used to assess maltreatment of
children in foster care during the first round of CFSRs. Some concern
was expressed by the field that the measure inadvertently includes
children who were maltreated by foster care providers or facility staff
members but who were not in foster care with the State child welfare
system at the time of the maltreatment (i.e., the children were in
another system or they were in private foster or facility care). A
recent requirement that all children in an NCANDS Child File have an
AFCARS identification number will permit an identification of these
children so that they can be excluded from the measure.
Some CFSR workgroup participants recommended that there be separate
measures for maltreatment of children in foster care by a foster
parents and maltreatment by a facility staff member. However, a review
of the data found that the incidence of maltreatment by these
``perpetrator types'' taken separately is too small to constitute
meaningful measures.
Some CFSR workgroup participants also recommended that ACF develop
a measure that identifies the extent of maltreatment of children who
are placed by the State with relatives as foster caregivers, including
relatives who are licensed foster parents and relatives who are not
licensed foster parents. At present, the NCANDS Child File does not
allow for this level of detail regarding relative perpetrators.
[[Page 67483]]
Although a relative may be identified in NCANDS as a perpetrator, it is
not possible to determine whether the relative also was the child's
State-appointed caretaker. Similarly, a licensed foster parent may be
identified as the perpetrator, but it is not possible to determine
whether the licensed foster parent also is a relative.
Safety Outcome 2--Performance Area 2: Maltreatment of Children in
Foster Care by Their Parents
Justification for inclusion: State child welfare agencies are
responsible for ensuring that any safety concerns regarding parental
contacts with a child in foster care are appropriately addressed. An
analysis of NCANDS Child File data using matching AFCARS identification
numbers found that in FY 2003, a substantial number of children who
were the victims of maltreatment by a parent were in foster care for at
least 30 days before the date of the maltreatment report. In most
States, the number of these children was considerably larger than the
number of children who were victims of maltreatment by foster parents
or facility staff.
Possible measure: Of all children who were in foster care for
longer than 30 days during the reporting year, what percent were the
subject of a substantiated or indicated maltreatment report in which
the perpetrator was the parent and the report was received after the
child had been in foster care for at least 30 days?
Relevant issues: The proposed measure uses the maltreatment report
date as a ``proxy'' for the date of the maltreatment itself. Because
children entering foster care sometimes report maltreatment events that
occurred prior to entry, the measure excludes maltreatment reports
involving parent perpetrators that were received during the first 30
days that the child was in foster care. The 30-day ``exclusion'' is
based on analysis of NCANDS data demonstrating a substantial decline in
the number of children in foster care reported as being maltreated by a
parent after the first 7 days the child is in foster care, a more
moderate decline in this number from 8 to 30 days after entry into
foster care, and then a leveling off after 30 days.
Although the most recent version of the NCANDS Child File includes
a data element pertaining to the date of the maltreatment incident,
States are not yet consistently reporting this new data element. When
States report information pertaining to the maltreatment incident date
in a consistent manner, the measure of maltreatment of children in
foster care by their parents can be revised to incorporate the incident
date and it will no longer be necessary to incorporate a 30-day
exclusion.
CFSR Permanency Outcome 1: Children Have Permanency and Stability in
Their Living Situations
Permanency Composite 1: Timeliness and Permanency of Reunifications
Performance on Permanency Composite 1 will be part of the
determination of a State's substantial conformity with CFSR Permanency
Outcome 1--Children will have permanency and stability in their living
situations. The composite addresses State child welfare system's
performance with regard to promoting a safe, timely, and permanent
family reunification by assisting families to resolve the problems that
resulted in the children being removed from the home. The performance
areas under consideration for the composite are the following:
Timeliness of reunifications of children exiting foster
care in a given fiscal year.
Timeliness of reunifications of children entering foster
care in a given fiscal year.
Permanency of reunifications.
Permanency Composite 1--Performance Area 1: Timeliness of
Reunifications of Children Exiting Foster Care
Justification for inclusion: Exits from foster care represent the
outcomes experienced by children in foster care, and exits to
reunification reflect an agency's success with regard to its function
of promoting the reintegration of the family. A primary goal of ACF and
the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA) is to ensure that
children do not remain in foster care any longer than is necessary to
achieve permanency. Information about the timeliness of children
exiting foster care to reunification provides a basis for assessing
State performance in achieving this goal.
Possible measures: A number of measures are under consideration for
this performance area, with each addressing a particular variation in
State practices and policies pertaining to reunification. For each
measure, we are proposing two possible approaches to assessing
timeliness to reunification. One approach that was used in the first
round of the CFSR reflects an expectation that 12 months is a
sufficient amount of time to bring about a reunification for most
children. The second approach examines timeliness to reunification as a
function of a State's median length of stay in foster care for all
children exiting foster care to reunification, with the expectation
that the distribution of these median across States would be used to
set a performance expectation. Both approaches are included in each of
the following measures and ACF welcomes input from the field regarding
these approaches.
During the reporting year, of all children reunified with
their parents or caretakers at the time of discharge from foster care,
(1) what percent were reunified in less than 12 months from the time of
the latest removal from home? OR, (2) what was the median length of
stay in foster care (in months) of all children exiting to
reunification? A frequent criticism of this measure is that it does not
account for variations in State practices and policies that impact the
time between entry into foster care and exit to reunification. The
following measures are designed to address these concerns.
During the reporting year, of all children reunified with
their parents or caretakers at the time of discharge from foster care
who were in foster care for more than 7 days (at least 8 days), (1)
what percent were reunified in less than 12 months from the time of the
latest removal from home? OR, (2) what was the median length of stay in
foster care (in months) for these children? This measure is intended to
address variations among States with regard to the practice of removing
a child from his or her home at the onset of a maltreatment
investigation until an initial court hearing is held to determine
whether the child should be returned home or remain in foster care.
During the reporting year, of all children reunified with
their parents or caretakers at the time of discharge from foster care
who were in foster care for more than 30 days (at least 31 days), (1)
what percent were reunified in less than 12 months from the time of the
latest removal from home? OR (2) what was the median length of stay in
foster care (in months) for these children? This measure addresses
another type of variation among States. Some States tend to remove a
child from his or her home while providing very short-term services to
the family in response to a family crisis. In contrast, other States,
in a similar situation, tend to provide services to resolve the crisis
while the child remains in the home, if it is safe to do so. This
measure is designed to assess timeliness of reunifications for children
and families who may need more than very short-term services to resolve
the issues leading to removal.
[[Page 67484]]
An analyses of the data found that when performance on this measure is
compared to performance on the existing CFSR measure of reunification,
five States drop out of the top quartile with regard to the percent of
reunifications occurring within 12 months of a child's entry into
foster care.
During the reporting year, of all children reunified with
their parents or caretakers at the time of discharge from foster care,
(1) what percent either were reunified in less than 12 months from the
time of the latest removal from home or were placed in a trial home
visit within 11 months of removal and whose last placement setting
prior to discharge was a Trial Home Visit, OR (2) what was the median
length of stay in foster care (in months) of children exiting to
reunification or of children whose placement was a Trial Home Visit at
least 30 days prior to reunification. Under the AFCARS definitions, a
child can be reported as discharged from foster care to reunification
only after the court discharges the agency's responsibility for the
child (or 6 months after the child's return in certain circumstances).
However, some States maintain placement and care responsibility of
children for a period of time after physical reunification, usually
ranging from 3 to 6 months, in order to provide services and ongoing
monitoring. ACF has instructed States to report these children to
AFCARS as being in a Trial Home Visit placement setting. This measure
is designed to assess timeliness to reunification in a manner that
accounts for this difference in State practice. An analysis of the data
found that when this measure was used to assess timeliness to
reunifications, 13 States exhibited substantial improvements in
performance, while no State exhibited a decline in performance.
Relevant issues: Although the measures are presented separately for
review and comment, ACF is considering the possibility of combining
some of the variables of concern into one measure. For example, the
measure incorporating children in a trial home visit also could include
a requirement that the child be in foster care for more than 30 days.
Permanency Composite 1--Performance Area 2: Timeliness of
Reunifications for Children Entering Foster Care in a Given Fiscal Year
Justification for inclusion: Assessment of the timeliness of
reunifications of children who enter foster care in a given timeframe
(i.e., an entry cohort) will allow ACF to capture the success of
recently implemented State efforts to reunify children in a timely
manner.
Possible measures: Two measures are under consideration. Neither
one include an approach involving the assessment of median length of
stay in foster care because it may be several years before all, or even
a substantial percentage, of the children in a particular cohort will
have exited foster care.
Of all children entering foster care for the first time in
the first 6 months of the reporting year, what percent exited foster
care to reunification within 12 months of entry into foster care?
Of all children entering foster care for the first time in
the first 6 months of the reporting year, what percent exited foster
care to reunification after having been in foster care for at least 30
days but less than 12 months?
Relevant issues: ACF believes that the assessment of timeliness to
reunification of children entering foster care in a given year is an
important component of assessing State performance in this domain.
However, because not all children in a given entry cohort are destined
to be reunified with their families, the denominator for the entry
cohort measure often includes children for whom reunification is not
the outcome. Because the percentage of those children will vary across
States and over time, the measure must be interpreted with caution and
should be used in conjunction with an assessment of timeliness to
reunification of an exit cohort.
Permanency Composite 1--Performance Area 3: Permanency of
Reunifications
Justification for inclusion: The permanency of reunifications may
be assessed by the extent of a State's re-entries into foster care. A
reunification, even if it occurs in a timely manner, cannot be
considered as ``permanent'' if the child re-enters foster care within a
12-month period after the reunification. A consistent finding over the
years, as reported in the Report to Congress on Child Welfare Outcomes,
is that States with a relatively high percentage of children reunified
within 12 months also tend to have a relatively high percentage of
children re-entering foster care within 12 months of a prior episode,
although this is not the case for all States.
Possible measure: Of all children who exit foster care to
reunification (including living with a relative) in a fiscal year, what
percent re-enter foster care within 12 months of the time of exit?
Relevant issues: This measure is a revision of the one used to
assess foster care re-entry during the first round of the CFSR. At the
time the original measure was developed, it was not feasible through
AFCARS to consistently and reliably link children across years for
every State. Consequently the existing re-entry measure focused on the
percentage of children entering foster care who were reported to be re-
entering foster care and whose re-entry occurred within 12 months of a
prior episode. Because it is now possible to link children across years
in AFCARS and to capture children re-entering foster care by an AFCARS
identification number, the measure has been changed to one that is
conceptually more meaningful.
Permanency Composite 2: Timeliness of Adoptions
Performance on Permanency Composite 2 will be a part of the
determination of a State's substantial conformity with CFSR Permanency
Outcome 1--Children will have permanency and stability in their living
situations. The composite reflects ACF's emphasis on promoting timely
adoptions for those children in foster care who cannot be reunified
with their families. The composite also reflects the requirement of
ASFA that States pursue TPR for children who have been in foster care
for 15 of the most recent 22 months, unless the child is placed with
relatives, the State agency has not provided necessary services, or
there are documented compelling reasons for not seeking TPR.
The following performance areas are under consideration for
Permanency Composite 2:
Timeliness of finalized adoptions of children discharged
from foster care.
Timeliness of finalized adoptions of children who are in
foster care for 17 months or more at the start of a fiscal year.
Timeliness of finalized adoptions of children for whom a
TPR has been granted.
Timeliness of achieving TPR for children who have been in
foster care for 17 months or more at the start of a fiscal year.
Although CFSR workgroup participants recommended that ACF assess
timeliness to adoption using an entry cohort (i.e., children who enter
foster care in a particular time period), the results of our analyses
indicated that an entry cohort approach to assessing the timeliness of
adoptions is not feasible for the CFSR. The key results were the
following:
An extensive timeframe was required to a cohort of
children from entry into foster care to a finalized
[[Page 67485]]
adoption and the timeframe is not consistent with the CFSR timeframes.
For example, in following a cohort of children entering foster care in
FY 2001, meaningful data pertaining to adoptions did not emerge until 3
years after the entry year.
Because not all children entering foster care will be
adopted, and because the number of children waiting to be adopted
changes each year, it is not possible to establish a stable denominator
for a cohort measure. In following the FY 2001 cohort, we found that
the denominator for the measure of timeliness to adoption kept changing
on an ongoing basis as children in the original cohort were reunified
or exited foster care for other reasons.
Some researchers in the field using an entry cohort to assess a
State's performance with regard to the timeliness of adoptions have
addressed the problems noted above by employing statistical methods to
estimate the ``likelihood'' of children who enter foster care in a
given year being adopted within particular timeframes. ACF determined
that because the CFSR is a monitoring system and not a research
initiative, the use of estimates is not appropriate. A monitoring
system, particularly one that has financial penalties associated with
it, should be based on actual performance rather than on estimates of
the likelihood of particular events occurring within a particular
timeframe.
Although we have decided that an entry cohort analysis is not
appropriate for Permanency Composite 2, some of the performance areas
proposed for this composite involve longitudinal assessments of
progress toward adoption of a group of children that may be considered
a cohort (i.e., all children who have been in foster care for 17 months
or longer at the end of a fiscal year; or all children whose TPR occurs
during a given fiscal year).
Permanency Composite 2--Performance Area 1: Timeliness of Adoptions of
Children Discharged From Foster Care to a Finalized Adoption
Justification for inclusion: Exits to adoption reflect the success
of a child welfare agency in achieving permanency for those children
who cannot be returned to their families. A primary goal of ACF is to
ensure that children who are adopted do not remain in foster care any
longer than is necessary to achieve a finalized adoption. Information
about the percentage of children exiting foster care to a finalized
adoption who exit in a timely manner as well as about the percentage of
children who are adopted, but not in a timely manner, provides a means
of assessing State performance with regard to achieving this goal.
Possible measures: The following three measures are under
consideration for this performance area:
Of all children who exited foster care to a finalized
adoption during the reporting period, what percent exited foster care
in less than 24 months from the time of the latest removal from home?
This measure was used to assess timeliness of adoption during the first
CFSR round.
Of all children who exited foster care to a finalized
adoption during the reporting period, what percent was in foster care
for 48 months or more before exiting to adoption?
Of all children who exited foster care to a finalized
adoption during the reporting period, what was the median length of
stay in foster care (in months)?
Relevant issues: Some CFSR workgroup participants recommended that
the CFSR assessment include measures that examine timeliness of
adoptions for children of different age groups and different races/
ethnicities. Although ACF has determined that this level of analysis is
beyond the scope of the CFSR, States are encouraged to examine their
own adoption data in order to understand the relationships between
these factors and adoption timeliness. States vary considerably with
regard to the distribution of ages and races/ethnicity among their
foster care populations, and therefore the relationships between these
factors and adoption timeliness also may vary.
Permanency Composite 2--Performance Area 2: Timeliness of Adoptions of
Children Who Are in Foster Care for 17 Months or Longer at the Start of
a Fiscal Year
Justification for inclusion: This performance area assesses
progress toward adoption of a cohort of children who have been in
foster care for 17 months or longer. ASFA requires State child welfare
agencies to pursue adoption as a permanency goal for a child who has
been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months, except in
limited circumstances. A 17-month rather than a 15-month timeframe was
chosen for the performance area because, in accordance with ASFA, a
child is considered to have ``entered foster care'' (for purposes of
starting the clock for 15 of 22 months) on the earlier of:
(1) The first judicial finding that the child has been subjected to
abuse and neglect, or
(2) The date that is 60 days after the date on which the child is
removed from home.
The 17 months in the performance area reflects the latter timeframe
for defining entry into foster care because AFCARS does not collect
information pertaining to the date of the first judicial finding.
Possible measure: Of all children in foster care on the first day
of a given fiscal year who were in foster care for 17 continuous months
or longer, what percent were adopted before the end of the fiscal year.
Relevant issues: The proposed measure is based on the assumption
that children who have been in foster care for 17 months or longer
represent a somewhat stable denominator. (However, even after 17 months
in foster care the denominator is not entirely stable because many
children in the cohort will exit to reunification.) Although it would
be preferable to include in the measure only those children in foster
care for 17 months or longer who have a case goal of adoption, States
do not consistently report case goal information to AFCARS and AFCARS
does not have a data element pertaining to the date that a case goal is
established. Also, in some States, the goal of adoption is not formally
established until TPR has been achieved although adoption may be the
goal that the agency is working toward.
Permanency Composite 1--Performance Area 3: Timeliness of Adoptions of
Children for Whom Parental Rights Have Been Terminated
Justification for inclusion: The two timeframes that are critical
to the timeliness of adoptions are (1) the timeframe between entry into
foster care and TPR, and (2) the timeframe between TPR and adoption
finalization. This performance area addresses the latter timeframe and
reflects ACF's expectation that a finalized adoption should occur
quickly after TPR is granted. An analysis of AFCARS data indicated
that, nationally, from FY 1998 to FY 2003, the average time from TPR to
adoption has remained consistent at about 16 months.
Possible measure: Of all children for whom a TPR was granted during
a given fiscal year, what percent were adopted within 12 months of the
TPR?
Relevant issues: An analysis of existing data relevant to this
measure resulted in the identification of the following data issues:
(1) In their submissions to the AFCARS Foster Care File, some States
are reporting a substantial number of TPR dates after the reporting
period in which they
[[Page 67486]]
actually occurred, and (2) in FY 2003, States did not provide TPR dates
in their AFCARS Foster Care File submissions for over one-fifth of the
children whose discharge reason was adoption. Although these data
problems do not appear in the data submitted to the AFCARS Adoption
File, because the AFCARS Foster Care File will be used to calculate the
measure for this performance area, it is important that States are more
diligent, timely, and consistent in their reporting of the AFCARS
Foster Care File data elements pertaining to TPR.
Permanency Composite 2--Performance Area 4: Timeliness of TPR for
Children Who Have Been in Foster Care for 17 Months or Longer at the
Start of a Fiscal Year
Justification for inclusion: This performance area pertains to the
timeframe required to achieve a TPR for children in foster care for 17
months or longer. The performance area is consistent with the ASFA
requirement that TPR should be sought for children who have been in
foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months, except in limited
circumstances.
Possible measure: Of all children in foster care for 17 months or
longer on the first day of the fiscal year who did not have a TPR, what
percentage of those who remained in foster care for the next 6 months
had a TPR within that timeframe?
Relevant issues: National data regarding time to adoption indicates
that the time span between the time of entry into foster care and the
finalization of a TPR petition has decreased from FY 1998 to FY 2003 by
an average of 10 months. Inclusion of this performance area in
Permanency Composite 2 will permit an assessment of an individual
State's performance with regard to this timeframe.
Permanency Composite 3: Placement Stability
Performance on Permanency Composite 3 will be one component of the
determination of a State's substantial conformity with CFSR Permanency
Outcome 1--Children will have permanency and stability in their living
situations. The composite reflects the obligation of a State child
welfare system to ensure that children who are removed from their homes
by the State experience stable placements during their time in foster
care. The following performance areas are under consideration for
Permanency Composite 3:
Stability of children's placement experience during the
first year in foster care
Stability of children's placement experience for children
in care for longer than 12 months
Proposed Stability Performance Area 1: Stability of Children's
Placement Experience During the First Year in Foster Care
Justification for inclusion: This performance area addresses the
issue of achieving placement stability for children as quickly as
possible after entry into foster care.
Possible measure: During the reporting period, of all children who
have been in foster care for less than 12 months from the time of the
latest removal from home, what percent have had no more than 2
placement settings?
Relevant issues: Some CFSR workgroup participants suggested that
this measure does not take into account variations in time in care
within the 12-month period or consider some States' practices of
routinely placing children in foster care for short periods of time. To
address this concern, ACF examined the data for this measure in the
following ways: (1) Excluding children who had been in foster care for
only 1 month, and (2) excluding children who had been in care for only
3 months. The correlations between State performance on the measure of
placement stability within 12 months, and performance on this measure
using the 1-month and 3-month exclusion exceeded +0.95, indicating
little variation among the measures. As a result, ACF decided that the
existing measure was adequate to reflect variation in State performance
regarding placement stability during the first 12 months in foster
care.
Permanency Composite 3--Performance Area 2: Stability of Children's
Placement Experience for Children in Care for Longer Than 12 Months
Justification for inclusion: ACF believes that children should
experience placement stability throughout their stay in foster care.
However, analyses of the AFCARS data indicated that in most States, the
percentage of children who experience no more than 2 placement settings
declines considerably (in some States by half) when children have been
in foster care for at least 12 months but less than 24 months, and
continues to exhibit a substantial decline for those children in foster
care for 24 months or longer.
Possible measure: Two measures are under consideration for this
performance area.
During the reporting period, of all children who have been
in foster care for at least 12 months but less than 24 months, what
percent have had no more than 2 placement settings?
During the reporting period, of all children who have been
in foster care for 24 months or longer, what percent have had no more
than 2 placement settings?
Permanency Composite 4: Achieving Permanency for Children
Performance on Permanency Composite 4 will be part of the
determination of a State's substantial conformity with CFSR Permanency
Outcome 1--Children will have permanency and stability in their living
situations. The composite reflects the responsibility of the State
child welfare systems to engage in concerted efforts to find permanent
homes for children so that extended stays in foster care are avoided
and children do not ``age out'' of the system. The following
performance areas are under consideration for Permanency Composite 4:
The extent to which children are ``growing up'' in foster
care.
Timeliness of establishing permanency goals.
The extent to which children with TPR exit foster care to
a permanent family.
Permanency Composite 4--Performance Area 1: Children Growing Up in
Foster Care
Justification for inclusion: This performance area addresses the
question of State effectiveness with regard to ensuring that children
do not ``languish'' in foster care--i.e., entering foster care at a
relatively young age and exiting foster care only when they have
reached the age at which the State will not longer provide for their
care.
Possible measure: Of all children who were emancipated from foster
care prior to age 18 or who reached their 18th birthday while in foster
care, what percent entered foster care when they were age 12 or younger
and remained in foster care continuously since that entry?
Relevant issues: This measure is a modification of a measure that
is part of the Report to Congress on Child Welfare Outcomes. The
modification adds to the measure children who reached their 18th
birthday while in foster care. The modification was established because
Several States currently allow children to remain in foster care beyond
age 18, often to complete school or college. The modification will
ensure that these children are included in the measure if
[[Page 67487]]
they entered foster care when they were age 12 or younger even if they
have not yet exited foster care.
Permanency Composite 4--Performance Area 2: Timeliness of Establishing
Permanency Goals
Justification for inclusion: A key factor in moving a child toward
permanency is the establishment of a permanency goal. The permanency
goal is the basis for developing a case plan delineating the services
to be provided and the objectives to be achieved to reach the goal. A
Federal requirement is that a case plan be established for every child
who is in foster care for longer than 60 days and that the case plan
includes the agency's plan for achieving permanency for the child.
Possible measure: Of all children in foster care for longer than 12
months, what percentage is reported to AFCARS as ``Not Yet Determined''
with regard to the case goal?
Relevant issues: An analysis of data relevant to this measure
indicated that there are a number of States that have a relatively high
percentage of children for whom the data element regarding case goal is
reported as ``not yet determined.''
Permanency Composite 4--Permanency Area 3: Exits to Families of
Children With TPR
Justification for inclusion: This performance area is an important
component of Permanency Composite 4 because it addresses the issue of
whether seeking TPR for children results in children becoming ``legal
orphans'' (i.e., children with TPR who are not placed for adoption or
guardianship or placed with relatives and eventually emancipate from
foster care). TPR is a costly process, both financially and, for the
child, emotionally. To engage in that process with the end result that
a child does not exit foster care to a family would be contrary to the
best interests of the child in most situations.
Possible measure: Of all children exiting foster care with a TPR,
what percentage exited to a permanent family? (A permanent family
includes living with a parent, relative, guardian, or adoptive
parents.)
Relevant issues: Although in most States, the vast majority of
children with TPR exit foster care to a permanent family, there are
several States in which 15 to 20 percent of these children do not exit
to a family. This suggests that the child welfare agency in those
States may not be making sufficient efforts to ensure that children
with TPR achieve permanency.
Dated: October 31, 2005.
Joan E. Ohl,
Commissioner, Administration on Children, Youth and Families.
Attachment A: Outcomes and Measures Developed for the Annual Report to
Congress on Child Welfare Outcomes and the Outcomes and Items Assessed
by the Child and Family Services Review
The outcomes and measures presented in the report to Congress are
the following:
Child Welfare Outcome 1
Reduce Recurrence of Child Abuse and/or Neglect
Measure 1.1: Of all children who were victims of substantiated or
indicated child abuse and/or neglect during the first 6 months of the
reporting period, what percentage had another substantiated or
indicated report within a 6-month period?
Child Welfare Outcome 2
Reduce the Incidence of Child Abuse and/or Neglect in Foster Care
Measure 2.1: Of all children who were in foster care during the
reporting period, what percentage was the subject of substantiated or
indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff?
Child Welfare Outcome 3
Increase Permanency for Children in Foster Care
Measure 3.1: For all children who exited foster care, what
percentage left either to reunification, adoption, or legal
guardianship?
Measure 3.2: For children who exited foster care and were
identified as having a diagnosed disability, what percentage left
either to reunification, adoption, or legal guardianship?
Measure 3.3: For children who exited foster care and were older
than age 12 at the time of their most recent entry into care, what
percentage left either to reunification, adoption, or legal
guardianship?
Measure 3.4: Of all children exiting foster care to emancipation,
what percentage was age 12 or younger at the time of entry into care?
Measure 3.5: For all children who exited foster care, what
percentage by racial/ethnic category left either to reunification,
adoption, or legal guardianship?
Child Welfare Outcome 4
Reduce Time in Foster Care to Reunification Without Increasing Re-entry
Measure 4.1: Of all children who were reunified with their parents
or caretakers at the time of discharge from foster care, what
percentage was reunified in the following time periods?
(1) Less than 12 months from the time of latest removal from home
(2) At least 12 months, but less than 24 months
(3) At least 24 months, but less than 36 months
(4) At least 36 months, but less than 48 months
(5) 48 or more months
Measure 4.2: Of all children who entered foster care during the
reporting period, what percentage re-entered care:
(1) Within 12 months of a prior foster care episode?
(2) More than 12 months after a prior foster care episode?
Child Welfare Outcome 5
Reduce Time in Foster Care to Adoption
Measure 5.1: Of all children who exited foster care to a finalized
adoption, what percentage exited care in the following time periods?
(1) Less than 12 months from the time of latest removal from home
(2) At least 12 months, but less than 24 months
(3) At least 24 months, but less than 36 months
(4) At least 36 months, but less than 48 months
(5) 48 or more months
Child Welfare Outcome 6
Increase Placement Stability
Measure 6.1: Of all children served who had been in foster care for
the time periods listed below, what percentage had no more than two
placement settings during that time period?
(1) Less than 12 months from the time of latest removal from home
(2) At least 12 months, but less than 24 months
(3) At least 24 months, but less than 36 months
(4) At least 36 months, but less than 48 months
(5) 48 or more months
Child Welfare Outcome 7
Reduce Placements of Young Children in Group Homes or Institutions
Measure 7.1: For all children who entered foster care during the
reporting period and were age 12 or younger at the time of their most
recent placement, what percentage was placed in a group home or an
institution?
[[Page 67488]]
The outcomes and systemic factors assessed through the Child and
Family Services Review are the following:
Child and Family Outcomes
Safety Outcome 1: Children are, first and foremost, protected from
abuse and neglect.
Safety Outcome 2: Children are safely maintained in their homes
whenever possible and appropriate.
Permanency Outcome 1: Children have permanency and stability in
their living situations.
Permanency Outcome 2: The continuity of family relationships and
connections is preserved for children.
Child and Family Well-being Outcome 1: Families have enhanced
capacity to provide for their children's needs.
Child and Family Well-being Outcome 2: Children receive appropriate
services to meet their educational needs.
Child and Family Well-being Outcome 3: Children receive adequate
services to meet their physical and mental health needs.
Systemic Factors
Statewide Information System
Case Review System
Quality Assurance System
Training (for child welfare agency staff and foster and adoptive
parents)
Service Array
Agency Responsiveness to the Community
Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment, and Retention
Attachment B: Comparison of CFSR Measures Used in Round 1, and Proposed
CFSR Data Composites for the Next Round
CFSR Safety Outcome 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed composite to be
Current CFSR data measures and standard associated with CFSR Safety
associated with CFSR Safety Outcome 1 Outcome 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recurrence of maltreatment: Measure and Safety Composite 1: Recurrence
national standard: Of all children who of maltreatment. A national
were victims of a substantiated or standard will be established
indicated child maltreatment report from the data composite scores
during the first 6 months, 6.1 percent resulting from States'
of fewer were victims of another performance on the areas
substantiated or indicated report incorporated in the composite.
within a 6-month period. Some possible performance
areas to be included in the
composite are:
Performance area 1:
Recurrence of substantiated or
indicated maltreatment
reports.
Performance area 2:
Multiple unsubstantiated
maltreatment reports.
Performance area 3:
Timeliness of initiating
investigations of child
maltreatment reports.
Performance area 4:
Timeliness of disposition of
child maltreatment reports.
----------------------------------------
Maltreatment of children in foster See safety composite 2. (No
care: Measure and national standard-- data composite for
Of all children in foster care during maltreatment in foster care is
the reporting year, 0.57 percent or proposed for Safety Outcome 1.
less were the subject of a Instead, for the next CFSR
substantiated or indicated round, State data pertaining
maltreatment by a foster parent or to maltreatment of children in
facility staff member. foster care will be addressed
under CFSR Safety Outcome 2.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFSR Safety Outcome 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed composite to be
Current CFSR data measures and standard associated with CFSR Safety
associated with CFSR Safety Outcome 2 Outcome 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No data measure or national standard Safety Composite 2:
was associated with this Safety Maltreatment of children in
Outcome in the first CFSR round. foster care. The national
standard will be established
from the composite scores
derived from States'
performance on the areas
included in the composite.
Some possible performance
areas for inclusion are the
following:
Performance area 1:
Maltreatment of children in
foster care by a foster parent
or facility staff member.
Performance area 2:
Maltreatment of children in
foster care by their parents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFSR Permanency Outcome 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current CFSR data measures and Proposed composites to be
standards associated with CFSR associated with Permanency
Permanency Outcome 1 Outcome 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timeliness of reunification measure and Permanency Composite 1:
national standard: of all children Timeliness and permanency of
exiting foster care to reunification, reunification. A national
76.2 percent or more exited within 12 standard will be established
months of entry into foster care. from the data composite scores
Re-entry into foster care measure and resulting from States'
national standard: of all children performance on the areas
entering foster care, 8.6 percent or incorporated in the composite.
less were re-entering within 12 months Some possible performance
of a prior episode. areas to be included in the
composite are:
Performance area 1:
Timeliness of reunifications
of children exiting foster
care in a given fiscal year.
Performance area 2:
Timeliness of reunifications
of children entering foster
care in a given fiscal year.
Performance area 3:
Permanency of reunifications.
----------------------------------------
[[Page 67489]]
Timeliness of adoption measure and Permanency Composite 2:
national standard: of all children Timeliness of adoption. A
exiting foster care to a finalized national standard will be
adoption, 32.0 percent or more established from the data
achieved a finalized adoption within composite scores resulting
24 months of the time of entry into from States' performance on
foster care. the areas incorporated in the
composite. Some possible
performance areas to be
included in the composite are:
Performance area 1:
Timeliness of adoptions of
children discharged from
foster care to a finalized
adoption.
Performance area 2:
Timeliness of adoptions of
children who are in foster
care for 17 months or longer
at the start of a fiscal year.
Performance area 3:
Timeliness of adoptions of
children for whom parental
rights had been terminated.
Performance area 4:
Timeliness of achieving
termination of parental rights
for children who have been in
foster care for 17 months or
more at the start of a fiscal
year.
----------------------------------------
Placement stability measure and Permanency Composite 3:
national standard: of all children in Placement stability. A
foster care who have been in care for national standard will be
less than 12 months, 86.7 percent or established from the data
more had no more than 2 placement composite scores resulting
settings. from States' performance on
the area incorporated in the
composite. Some possible
performance areas to be
included in the composite are:
Performance area 1:
Stability of children's
placement experience during
the first year in foster care.
Performance area 2:
Stability of children's
placement experience for
children in foster care for
longer than 12 months.
----------------------------------------
No national standard measure. Permanency Composite 4:
Information captured in the case Achieving Permanency for
review instrument. Children in Foster Care. A
national standard will be
established from the data
composite scores resulting
from States' performance on
the areas incorporated in the
composite. Some possible
performance areas to be
included in the composite are:
Performance area 1:
The extent to which children
are growing up in foster care.
Performance area 2:
Timeliness of establishing
permanency goals.
Performance area 3:
The extent to which children
with TPR exit foster care to a
permanent family.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 05-22095 Filed 11-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P