[Federal Register: July 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 135)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 40345-40382]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14jy06-23]
[[Page 40345]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part VII
Department of Health and Human Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Administration for Children and Families
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
45 CFR Part 1356
Chafee National Youth in Transition Database; Proposed Rule
[[Page 40346]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families
45 CFR Part 1356
RIN 0970-AC21
Chafee National Youth in Transition Database
AGENCY: Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF),
Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health
and Human Services (DHHS).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is
proposing to add regulations at 45 CFR part 1356 to require States to
collect and report data to ACF on youth who are receiving independent
living services and the outcomes of certain youth who are in foster
care or who age out of foster care. This proposed rule implements the
data collection requirements of the Foster Care Independence Act of
1999 (Public Law 106-169) as incorporated into the Social Security Act
at section 477.
DATES: In order to be considered, we must receive written comments on
this notice of proposed rulemaking on or before September 12, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding
this proposed rule to Kathleen McHugh, Director, Division of Policy,
Children's Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families,
Administration for Children and Families, 1250 Maryland Avenue, SW.,
8th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. You may also transmit comments via e-
mail to CBcomments@acf.hhs.gov or electronically via the Internet at
http://www.regulations.acf.hhs.gov. We urge you to submit comments
electronically to ensure that we receive them in a timely manner. To
download an electronic version of the rule, you should access http://www.regulations.gov/.
Comments will be available for public inspection
Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the above address by
contacting Miranda Lynch at (202) 205-8138.
Comments that concern information collection requirements must be
sent to the Office of Management and Budget at the address listed in
the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this preamble. A copy of these
comments also may be sent to the Department representative listed
above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen McHugh, Director of Policy,
Children's Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, 202/
401-5789 or by e-mail at kmchugh@acf.hhs.gov. Do not e-mail comments on
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to this address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The preamble to this notice of proposed
rulemaking is organized as follows:
I. Background
A. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program Legislative History
B. Statutory Requirement for a Data Collection System
II. Consultation Process
A. Development of Outcomes
B. Identification of Youth Characteristics and Services
C. Data Reporting Methods and Procedures
D. Comments on Alternative or Future Approaches
III. Overview of Proposed National Youth in Transition Database
(NYTD)
A. Summary of the NYTD
B. The NYTD as a Separate Collection and Reporting Activity
IV. Section-by-Section Discussion of NPRM
V. Charts and Tables
A. Chart 1: Outcomes and Relevant Data Elements
B. Table 1: Example of State Sample Sizes
C. Chart 2: Overview of Proposed NYTD
VI. Impact Analysis
I. Background
A. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program Legislative History
Each year thousands of young people are discharged from State
foster care systems because they reach the age at which they are no
longer eligible for out-of-home placement services. During the early
1980s, research and anecdotal evidence indicated that many young people
who emancipated from foster care experienced numerous difficulties in
their attempts to achieve self-sufficiency. Rather than making a
successful transition to living on their own, a significant percentage
of these youth experienced homelessness, unemployment, victimization,
and dependence on various types of public assistance.
In response to this problem, President Reagan signed into law the
Title IV-E Independent Living Initiative (Public Law 99-272) in 1986.
The law provided States with funding to make available independent
living services to youth in foster care between the ages of 16 and 21.
Although Public Law 99-272 increased the availability of independent
living services for some youth in foster care, many child welfare
researchers, practitioners, youth advocates, and policy makers at the
Federal and State levels believed that more was necessary for youth to
make a successful transition from foster care to self-sufficiency. To
address these concerns, President Clinton signed the Foster Care
Independence Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106-169) into law on December 14,
1999, which established the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence
Program (CFCIP) at section 477 of the Social Security Act (the Act).
Compared to Public Law 99-272, the Foster Care Independence Act
provides States with greater funding and flexibility to carry out
programs to assist youth in making the transition from foster care to
self-sufficiency. The legislation provides States with funding to
identify and provide independent living services to youth who are
likely to remain in foster care until at least age 18--thus removing
the minimum age requirements for the receipt of independent living
services. Public Law 106-169 also requires States to provide assistance
and services to youth who age out of foster care, until age 21, and
allows States to use part of their funding to provide room and board
assistance to these youth.
President Bush later signed the Promoting Safe and Stable Families
Amendments of 2001 (Pub. L. 107-133) into law on January 17, 2002,
which provides States with funding specifically for education and
training vouchers for youth who are eligible for CFCIP services.
Although the budget for the education and training vouchers is
authorized and appropriated separately from the general CFCIP grants
for independent living services, the education and training vouchers
are integrated into the overall CFCIP program under section 477 of the
Act.
B. Statutory Requirement for a Data Collection System
The Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 requires ACF to develop a
data collection system, in consultation with various stakeholders, to
perform two functions: (1) track the independent living services States
provide to youth; and, (2) develop outcome measures that may be used to
assess State performance in operating their independent living
programs. With regard to services, the Act requires us to identify data
elements to track the number and characteristics of children receiving
services under section 477 of the Act and the type and quantity of
services States provide. With regard to outcomes, section 477(f)(1) of
the Act requires that we develop outcome measures, including measures
of educational attainment, receipt of a high school diploma,
employment, avoidance of dependency, homelessness, non-marital
childbirth,
[[Page 40347]]
incarceration, and high-risk behaviors, and the data elements to track
States' performance on the outcome measures.
The law also requires that ACF impose a penalty of between one and
five percent of the State's annual allotment on any State that fails to
comply with the reporting requirements. ACF must base a State's penalty
amount on the degree of noncompliance (section 477(e)(2) and (3) of the
Act).
II. Consultation Process
To meet the statutory mandate, we consulted with a variety of
stakeholders over several years and gathered useful information, helped
frame this proposed rule for a data system which we are calling the
National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD). ACF's consultation on the
proposed NYTD had the following objectives: (1) To identify a range or
variety of outcomes that demonstrate that youth are making a successful
transition from foster care to living on their own; (2) to identify
youth characteristics and the independent living services provided to
youth; and (3) to identify data reporting methods and procedures. In
addition, we invited several States to conduct a pilot test of draft
data definitions and collection procedures suggested by the
consultation groups.
A. Development of Outcomes
The outcomes consultation process included national discussion
groups on generally expected outcomes for youth leaving foster care and
involved such participants as child welfare agency administrators and
independent living coordinators at the State, Tribal, and local levels;
public and private agency youth service providers; technical assistance
providers; child welfare advocates; group home staff and
administrators; and current and former foster youth and foster parents.
The discussion groups took place in a variety of venues, mostly led by
ACF, our contractors and resource centers, as well as the National
Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators. We also sought
information from a variety of stakeholders on specific outcomes and
measures that could become a part of the NYTD.
B. Identification of Youth Characteristics and Services
Independent of our outcomes consultation, we consulted widely to
identify the characteristics of youth necessary to provide a clear
picture of who is receiving independent living services from States,
and the type and quantity of services they receive. We held conference
calls with independent living coordinators and information technology
managers from several States to determine the types of data related to
independent living services and characteristics of youth that States
currently collect. We also requested information on what data State
staff considered necessary to describe accurately the youth served and
the services received, and the data that could most easily be obtained
or reported by States.
In addition, we formed a data work group to analyze the results of
a pilot test of the draft proposed data elements. The data work group
consisted of child welfare directors, independent living coordinators,
and information systems managers from seven States and one Tribe.
Representatives of the American Public Human Services Association
(APHSA) and three of the Children's Bureau's National Resource Centers
for child welfare also participated in this data work group.
The pilot test, which was conducted in August 2001, served as a
field test of the draft data elements, definitions, and procedures and
provided valuable information for assessment of the data collection
burden on the States. In each of the seven pilot States, caseworkers
collected data about several older youth, identified any unclear
definitions, and described any difficulties encountered while
collecting data. Each pilot State also was asked to report the amount
of effort required to collect the information. We used these responses
to assess the burden for workers, and to learn if the capacity to
report data varied significantly across agencies or States.
C. Data Reporting Methods and Procedures
As a final step we consulted with various stakeholders on how to
develop reporting methods and procedures for the proposed NYTD. We
interviewed more than 25 system developers, managers, and users of the
Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS), the
National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS), and the Runaway
and Homeless Youth Management Information System (RHYMIS). This
consultation focused on the reporting population, and how and when data
should be collected at the State level and reported to ACF. These
comments were important considerations in our proposals for reporting
population, reporting frequency, and data content.
D. Comments on Alternative or Future Approaches
As with all proposed rules, we are seeking to extend our
consultation by requesting specific comments on what is proposed
herein. However, throughout the preamble we have indicated some areas
where we are interested in receiving comments on approaches that we
have not proposed officially. We want to highlight those areas here to
ensure that we receive sufficient comment on these issues:
Conducting outcome data collection activities on young
people ages 17, 19 and 21 years old (sections 1356.82 and 1356.83)
Exploring how States can use Extensible Mark-Up Language
(XML) to transmit data files to the NYTD (section 1356.83(h));
Providing States with incentives to meet file submission
and data standards in the form of a prospective penalty reduction for
meeting certain data standards;
Increasing the data standards for the State to obtain
outcome information on youth over time (section 1356.85(b)(3)); and,
Using `cross-file checks' as a factor of compliance in the
NYTD (section 1356.85(c)).
III. Overview of the Proposed NYTD
A. Summary of the NYTD
Please refer to the end of the preamble for a Chart 2 on the
proposed NYTD that accompanies this section.
As discussed in the section-by-section analysis later in the
preamble, we are proposing that States report to NYTD four types of
information about youth: their services, characteristics, outcomes, and
basic demographics. In terms of services, we are proposing that States
identify the type of independent living services or financial
assistance that the State provides to youth. The State also will
identify the characteristics of each youth receiving independent living
services, such as their education level and tribal membership.
In terms of outcomes, we are proposing that States gather and
report information on youth who are or were in foster care that we can
use to measure the collective outcomes of these youth and potentially
assess the State's performance in this area. In particular, we are
proposing that States survey young people for outcomes information who
are or were previously in foster care, regardless of the independent
living services they are receiving or received. States will collect
information on these youth at three specific intervals: on or about the
youth's 17th
[[Page 40348]]
birthday while the youth is in foster care; two years later on or about
the youth's 19th birthday; and again on or about the youth's 21st
birthday. States must report on 19- and 21-year-olds who participated
in data collection at age 17 while in foster care, even if they are no
longer in the State's foster care system or receiving independent
living services at ages 19 and 21. States will collect outcome
information on a new cohort of youth (17-year-olds in foster care)
every three years.
We are proposing that the State survey youth regarding six outcomes
that came out of our consultation and are consistent with the law's
mandate. Those six outcomes focus on the youth's financial self-
sufficiency, experience with homelessness, educational attainment,
positive connections with adults, high-risk behavior, and access to
health insurance. States will gather information on young people such
as: whether the youth is employed; whether the youth is receiving
public and/or other types of assistance; a youth's educational
achievement levels; whether a youth has been incarcerated; and a
youth's marital and parenting status. We will not use the data to
assess the progress of individual youth; rather, we propose to use the
information to assess the collective outcomes of youth and potentially
evaluate State performance with regard to those outcomes.
Finally, we also are proposing that States identify basic
demographic information, such as sex and race of each youth in the
reporting population.
States will report all four types of information (services,
characteristics, outcomes, and basic demographics) to the NYTD semi-
annually, on a Federal fiscal year basis. ACF will evaluate a State's
data file against file submission and data compliance standards
designed to ensure that we have quality data on our target reporting
populations. States that fail to achieve any of the compliance
standards for a reporting period will be given an opportunity to submit
corrected data to us. If a State's corrected data does not comply with
the data standards, the State will be subject to a penalty of between
one and five percent of the State's annual CFCIP funding, depending on
the level of noncompliance.
Implementation of NYTD will be dependent on the issuance of a final
rule. We anticipate giving States approximately one year from the
publication of the final rule before we will require them to collect
and report data. States may use their CFCIP funds to develop and
support any changes to their information systems to collect and report
information to NYTD. States with a Statewide Automated Child Welfare
Information System (SACWIS) may claim appropriate costs under title IV-
E, if the changes to their SACWIS to meet NYTD requirements are
consistent with an approved advanced planning document (APD) and cost
allocation plan.
Finally, we would like to note that we are not proposing
performance standards for States in this NPRM. Rather we are proposing
outcome measures and the data elements that will track those outcomes.
While we have not decided definitively to develop standards, we believe
that we can only develop standards once States begin to report data to
the NYTD, thus giving us a basis for establishing standards.
B. The NYTD as a Separate Data Collection and Reporting Activity
With this NPRM we are proposing a new Federal database of
information on youth who are receiving independent living services and
the outcomes of older youth who are in foster care and those that leave
foster care. Although we considered the requests of some consultation
participants to fold the data requirements for the CFCIP into one of
ACF's existing child welfare national databases, we decided against
doing so because: (1) The proposed NYTD reporting population is
significantly different than the reporting populations of other
databases; (2) we can link a youth's foster care experience with their
independent living information between data systems without combining
databases; (3) combining databases does not reduce the cost or burden
on States or the Federal government; and (4) the different authorizing
statutes and penalty structures do not lend themselves to combining the
databases.
States currently send data to two central, child welfare databases
that are maintained by the Children's Bureau: the National Child Abuse
and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) and the Adoption and Foster Care
Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS). States report information
voluntarily to NCANDS about reports of child abuse and neglect and the
child protective services agency response to these allegations (see
sections 103(c) and 106(d) of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment
Act, as amended). A vast majority of children whom States report to
NCANDS never enter foster care, or return home from foster care long
before they are likely to age out of the foster care system. Because of
the voluntary nature of NCANDS and the broader scope of the reporting
population, we do not believe it is an appropriate mechanism to capture
information on youth receiving independent living services or their
outcomes.
States are required by law and regulation to submit data to AFCARS
on all children in foster care or adopted with the involvement of the
State child welfare agency (see section 479 of the Act and 45 CFR
1355.40). Nearly all youth who will receive independent living services
are or once were in a State's foster care system (with the exception of
some youth who may be served through an Indian tribe or privately
operated foster care program), so the AFCARS population more closely
tracks that of the proposed NYTD than does the NCANDS population.
However, the population of older youth ages 19 and 21 on whom we are
seeking independent living outcome information are not often reported
in AFCARS, because States are required to report on only children in
foster care who are typically youth under 18. Further, while States do
provide ACF with information about these youths' foster care
experiences and demographic information as part of their AFCARS
submissions, AFCARS currently does not collect any information on
independent living services or outcomes specific to these youth.
Despite the disparate reporting populations, we considered whether
adding an independent living component to AFCARS would prove beneficial
to States and ACF. One purported benefit of a combined submission is
that States would combine information on a youth's foster care
experience, services and outcomes into a single report. However, we can
achieve this goal with the separate database we propose here. This is
because we are proposing that States identify youth reported to NYTD in
the same way they do for AFCARS, so that we can associate information
between the two databases. We expect, therefore, to lay the groundwork
for analysis of a broader picture of the experiences that youth have in
and after leaving foster care.
Another potential benefit of a combined submission pointed out
during consultation is that States would not have to repeat some of the
basic demographic information for youth who are or were previously in
their foster care system. Some believed that avoiding this kind of
duplication would reduce the cost for States of this new data
collection effort. However, although some of the proposed NYTD elements
at first glance may appear to be identical to AFCARS elements, they are
[[Page 40349]]
in fact defined differently so that we can achieve the law's purpose of
understanding a youth's services and independent living outcomes versus
their foster care experience. Therefore, only three demographic
elements (race, sex and date of birth) are duplicates. Since we
understand that States store this demographic information in their
information systems, the only duplicated effort is in the State
compiling it into another report to ACF.
Moreover, combining the reporting files does not substantially
lower the amount of effort a State will expend to change its practices
to gather the information we are proposing they collect. For example,
requiring the State to send an additional file with information
specific to independent living to AFCARS will not decrease the State's
burden in changing its information systems to collect services
information, training and requiring caseworkers or service providers to
record information on youth services, and implementing a strategy to
collect outcome information from older youth. Similarly, we do not
believe that combining the databases saves the Federal government any
costs to store or analyze the data, or conduct technical assistance and
oversight activities.
Finally, the authorizing statutes for AFCARS and the proposed NYTD
are very different, requiring different approaches to compliance and
penalties. Section 474(f) of the Act mandates that we penalize States a
portion of their title IV-E administrative funds spent on foster care
for not complying with AFCARS requirements, and requires us to continue
to penalize a State for the period of the noncompliance. Section 477 of
the Act requires us to penalize States that do not comply with the data
collection effort in the amount of one and five percent of their annual
Chafee funds, depending on the extent of noncompliance. Therefore, to
meet these separate requirements and penalty schemes, AFCARS
information would have to remain distinguishable from the independent
living information to an extent that renders combining the two
databases meaningless.
We believe that keeping the information collected separate from
AFCARS will help us highlight the experiences of youth transitioning
into independent living and will not disrupt State and Federal efforts
to improve the quality of AFCARS data. Furthermore, many State managers
of the Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System, those
individuals who would be tasked with developing a system that adheres
to NYTD and AFCARS requirements in the State, preferred to send a
separate data submission to ACF.
IV. Section-by-Section Discussion of NPRM
We propose to add new sections 1356.80 to 1356.86 as follows:
Section 1356.80 Scope of the National Youth in Transition Database
Under proposed section 1356.80, any State, the District of
Columbia, or Territory that administers a Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program (CFCIP) under section 477 of the Social Security
Act must comply with the requirements for data collection and reporting
as described in this proposed rule. Currently, all States, the District
of Columbia and Puerto Rico operate CFCIP programs.
Section 1356.81 Reporting Population
The NYTD reporting population is comprised of three groups of
youth: the served, baseline and follow-up populations. They are defined
further below.
In paragraph (a), we identify the served population as those youth
who have received any independent living services paid for or provided
by the CFCIP agency during the reporting period. The CFCIP agency is
the same agency as the title IV-B/IV-E agency in the State.
We have chosen to include in the served population youth who
receive services that the CFCIP agency makes available, rather than
just those that are paid for with CFCIP funds specifically. Also
included in this definition are youth who may obtain an independent
living service from a source other than the CFCIP agency directly, if
that service was paid for by the CFCIP agency. For example, the served
population includes tribal youth who receive services through a tribal
child welfare agency under a contract or agreement with the State CFCIP
agency to provide independent living services. We realize that this
definition is more expansive than that suggested by the statute (see
section 477(f)(1)(B) of the Act). However, we believe that capturing
information about all independent living services offered by the
State's CFCIP agency gives a more complete picture of how each State
supports youth transitioning into independent living. Moreover, we
learned through consultations that while States may keep track of
independent living services that are provided by the agency, many do
not have systems in place to track a service back to a particular
Federal funding source.
We considered proposing that the served population include only
those youth who are in the State's foster care system, or who have
previously been in foster care, and are currently receiving independent
living services from that same State. While most youth who receive
independent living services from a State have been in foster care in
that State, some have not. We originally believed that the advantage of
including only youth who had been in the State's foster care system is
that the State already would have a case record on these youth that
included demographic and perhaps, service information. Upon further
review, however, we grew concerned that we would exclude information
about the independent living services of youth who were not in this
limited population. In particular, this definition would not include an
Indian tribal youth who was never in a State's foster care system, but
who was receiving independent living services provided by the State's
CFCIP agency through a contract or agreement with his or her Tribe.
Since section 477(b)(3)(G) of the Act requires States to serve Indian
children on the same basis as other youth in the State, we believe it
is important to include them in the served population. Additionally, a
limited definition of the served population would exclude youth who may
move to another State after their tenure in foster care. Therefore, we
kept the definition broad to better reflect the characteristics and
number of youth receiving independent living services.
We also considered requiring States to collect and report services
information on any youth who is currently in a State's foster care
system, regardless of whether he or she receives independent living
services. In other words, States would report information that told us
which youth are receiving services and what those services are as well
as which youth are not receiving any services. We considered this
option originally because it would give us information about the
characteristics of those youth who were in foster care but were not
receiving independent living services. Ultimately, we rejected this
approach because the statute's mandates regarding service information
are that States provide the number and characteristics of children
receiving services only (section 477(f)(1)(B)(i) of the Act). As we
refined the definition of the served population, we came to believe
that requiring States to report services information on each youth in
foster care went well beyond the statutory requirements and would pose
an unnecessary burden on States.
[[Page 40350]]
We also considered establishing a minimum age of 14 for the served
population. This option was particularly applicable when we considered
having a served population that included all youth currently in the
State's foster care system, regardless of whether the youth received
independent living services. Without a minimum age, this broad
definition would have encompassed all youth who were in foster care,
including very young children. Therefore, establishing this minimum
would help keep State's data collection burden down. Once we revised
the definition of the served population to include only those youth who
receive independent living services, a minimum age was not necessary.
We also did not see a justification to regulate beyond the requirements
of the statute, which does not include a minimum age for receipt of
CFCIP services.
In paragraph (b), we identify the baseline population as all 17-
year-old youth in foster care during a Federal fiscal year for the
purpose of collecting outcome information. We are referring to these
youth as the baseline population because we intend to look at cohorts
of older youth over time, beginning at the point that a cohort turns
age 17 while in foster care. As such, the 17-year-olds represent the
starting point or ``baseline'' of our information on youth's
independent living outcomes and experiences. When we collect additional
information on these youth as they age (at 19 and 21), we refer to them
as the follow-up population, which we will describe further below. We
are requiring that States collect outcome information on the baseline
population, along with the follow-up population in response to the
statutory requirement that we develop data elements that are needed to
track State performance on youth outcomes. The statute's provisions on
outcomes are quite broad, leaving the decisions on how and on which
youth we collect outcomes information up to ACF in consultation with
stakeholders. After our consultation, we believed that surveying the
same youth over time would best meet our needs of understanding trends
in youth outcomes and potentially assessing the effect that a State's
independent living services have on those youth outcomes.
We settled on proposing 17-year-olds in foster care for whom we
would initially collect outcome information as the baseline population
after considering a number of other proposals. We considered defining
the initial outcome collection or baseline population as all youth who
were discharged from foster care at age 16 or older. The primary reason
for considering 16-year-olds or older youth at the point of discharge
as the baseline population was so we could have information on how
prepared youth are for independent living at the time they leave foster
care. However, participants in the consultation process noted several
difficulties with using the point of discharge. First, States
emancipate youth at varying ages, ranging from 18 to 23 depending on
State policy and the circumstances of the youth. Consequently, using
the point of discharge for youth age 16 and older as a basis for
defining our baseline population would result in a group of youth who
ranged in age from 16 to 23 across the States. We determined that
because some of the outcomes, such as educational attainment, are
strongly influenced by age and developmental status, it was important
to establish consistency by defining a baseline population that
included youth of the same age. An additional difficulty with defining
the baseline population in terms of the point of discharge is that
``discharge'' is defined differently across States and it would be
difficult to develop a single definition that would accommodate this
variation. Also, some youth leave their placements before formal
discharge, sometimes because they run away or are detained on
delinquency charges, and thus are not available for discharge
interviews. For these reasons, we decided to define the baseline
population, in part, on a fixed age rather than a fluid measure such as
the youth's exit from foster care.
We also considered a baseline population that would be fixed at the
youth's 17th birthday but required that the youth have been in foster
care for a specific length of time, such as six months or 12 months. We
thought that establishing a minimum time in foster care would ensure
that youth were in foster care long enough to receive independent
living services. However, we decided not to require a minimum length of
time in foster care because that approach overly complicated the data
collection without a measurable benefit or clear basis of the
appropriate minimum length of time.
Ultimately, we chose to look at the outcomes of all 17-year-old
youth in foster care. We chose 17 as the age for our baseline
population because it was close to the age when most youth leave foster
care for independent living (between ages 17 and 19). We also chose to
look at all 17-year-olds in foster care, as opposed to youth who
actually had received independent living services. We are able to look
at all 17-year-olds because the statute's provisions regarding outcome
information do not limit us to those youth who are receiving
independent living services. Moreover, we believe it is important to
capture information on both youth who receive services and those who do
not in determining youth outcomes and assessing State performance.
In paragraph (c), we identify the follow-up population as young
people who turn age 19 or 21 in a fiscal year and who participated in
the State's data collection as part of the baseline population (i.e.,
at age 17). A youth is considered to have participated as part of the
baseline population if the State collected and reported a valid
response (i.e., a response other than ``declined'' and ``not
applicable'') to any of the outcome-related elements (described later
in 45 CFR 1356.83(g)(38) through (g)(60)). The follow-up population is
not limited to youth who are still in foster care, or who are receiving
independent living services in the State at those later ages.
In establishing a follow-up population in order to look at
outcomes, we first wanted to ensure that the follow-up population would
include at least some young people who are no longer in foster care.
Including young people who have been discharged from foster care is
important because we must look at some outcomes required by the law,
such as homelessness, that cannot be assessed until after youth have
been discharged. We learned through the consultation process that
stakeholders are interested in whether youth who remain in foster care
fare better than their counterparts who have left foster care. We
considered restricting the follow-up population for outcome information
to youth who had been discharged from foster care and who were
continuing to receive independent living services. Based on information
from participants in the consultation process, however, we determined
that this restriction was not appropriate because it was too limited to
assess adequately the performance of the States in operating
independent living programs.
We then considered what would be reasonable points at which to
evaluate how youth were progressing on the outcome measures that were
most critical to a youth's successful transition to independent living,
and also feasible for States to follow.
We chose age 21 as the upper boundary for outcomes collection
primarily because the Chafee law requires that States provide
independent living services up to that age. Even though we also are
capturing information on youth who may not necessarily benefit from
Federal Chafee
[[Page 40351]]
funds, we expect that the Chafee funding will guide many of the
services that States provide. Also, although age 18 is considered the
age of majority in most States, many stakeholders pointed out that
mainstream society often does not expect youth to be fully self-
sufficient until age 21 or later. We thought, therefore, that looking
at youth at age 21 was a reasonable point to focus on final outcomes
for our purposes, although we acknowledge that reaching adulthood is a
process rather than an event that we expect to occur by a specific age.
We considered an even later age such as age 23, since the education and
training vouchers authorized under section 477 of the Act allow a State
to continue to provide vouchers to that age in certain circumstances.
However, we believe that for those young people who are not receiving
vouchers, it is even more likely that at age 23, they will decline to
participate in data collection than youth at age 19 or 21 who are not
receiving services. Furthermore, with the passage of time the State
agency will have lost contact with the youth after the youth's
emancipation or last receipt of independent living services.
After determining this upper boundary, we considered whether we
needed another point in time to assess youth for outcomes. We believe
that having an interim age for follow-up would allow States to preserve
the sample by keeping in contact with youth who have aged out of foster
care. More importantly, looking at outcomes at an interim age can give
us further insight into youth's developmental pathways. In looking at
youth outcomes at a variety of ages, we can better observe how youth
are making the transition to adulthood and self-sufficiency. We chose
age 19 in particular because it was halfway between the initial
outcomes collection and the upper boundary, but also because it is an
age when there are still some youth who are in foster care (there are
over 10,000 youth age 19 and older according to AFCARS) or receiving
independent living services from the State.
Section 1356.82 Data Collection Requirements
In this section, we detail the proposed data collection
requirements. As used here, data collection refers to the State's
process for obtaining information that meets the data requirements for
each youth in the reporting population.
In paragraph (a)(1), we propose that a State collect information
for the applicable data elements on each youth for each reporting
period in which the youth receives independent living services. In
other words, we are requiring that States collect detailed, client-
level data for as long as the youth receives independent living
services.
We chose to propose that States collect client-level data on
services, rather than aggregate data because of the utility of client-
level data. Client-level data supports more sophisticated analysis of
the services provided to youth and the characteristics of the youth who
receive them. For example, with the client-level data proposed here we
can analyze youth receiving employment services by age, gender and
location. Aggregate- or program-level data provides only general totals
of services and characteristics and descriptions of the States overall
independent living program. While aggregate data often is less
burdensome for States to collect, we do not believe that aggregate data
will adequately assist us in meeting the law's objectives to develop
outcome measures.
Unlike data collection for a youth in the State's baseline or
follow-up population, which is conducted at specific times according to
a youth's age, we propose that the State's data collection for a youth
in the served population will continue for as long as the youth
receives services. We are mindful that each State must coordinate with
service providers in order to track and collect information about youth
receiving independent living services accurately. During consultation
we heard from State participants that they had anticipated tracking
independent living services on an ongoing basis in response to the law
and their own State needs, and that this approach would not pose a
significant additional burden.
In paragraph (a)(2), we propose that the State collect outcomes
information on the baseline population (17-year-olds in foster care) by
surveying the youth. Again, we chose case-level data rather than
aggregate data because case-level data better lends itself to analysis.
We will require States to collect information on a new baseline
population every three years. We chose this schedule, rather than
annually in order to avoid imposing an unnecessary burden on States.
Participants in the consultation process pointed out that youth
outcomes generally do not change substantially from year to year, and
collecting outcome data every three years should be sufficient to
document trends and address the legislative requirements. We propose
that States begin to collect outcomes data on the baseline population
in the first fiscal year of implementation of the NYTD system in
paragraph (a)(2)(i). As stated in paragraph (a)(2)(ii), States will
then collect outcomes on a new baseline population every three years
thereafter.
We also are proposing that the State collect outcome information
within 45 days following the youth's 17th birthday, but not before that
birthday. We allow 45 days to collect the data, rather than requiring
data collection on each youth's birthday, to reflect real-life tracking
and scheduling constraints. We also want to impose this time frame to
ensure that the youth are as close as possible to the same age--i.e.,
all have recently attained their 17th birthdays--to make them
comparable on that characteristic. This is particularly important in
understanding certain outcomes, such as the youth's highest educational
certification level received which is age-sensitive. Finally, we want
to make sure that States obtain outcome information on the greatest
number of 17-year-olds in foster care possible, rather than leaving it
until later in the year when the youth may leave foster care
voluntarily or otherwise be engaged in a number of activities in
preparation for discharge.
We want to note that by giving States 45 days to collect
information on 17-year-olds, we realize that States may not collect
information on youth whose birthdays fall at the end of any given
fiscal year (i.e., in September) at the same rates as youth with other
birth dates. We acknowledge that this is not an ideal situation, but we
believe that giving States a sufficient window of opportunity to
collect information on youth is preferable to ensure that all 17-year-
old youth are captured.
In paragraph (a)(2)(iii), we direct States to the survey in
Appendix B of the proposed regulation that States are to administer to
youth in the baseline population. We chose to regulate this survey to
ensure that each youth is provided with standard questions and response
options, which will improve the consistency of the information
collected nationwide. We are not, however, regulating the manner in
which States administer the survey. Therefore, States are free to
administer the survey questions to youth in person or over the phone,
through the mail or email, using automated-surveys over the internet,
or via any other suitable method.
In paragraph (a)(3), we propose that States collect information on
each youth in the follow-up population during the reporting period that
the youth turns ages 19 and 21. We chose the six-month reporting period
time frame because we are interested in getting timely information on
the older youth. We originally considered a 45-day time
[[Page 40352]]
frame for States to collect outcomes information on these older youth
as well, but do not believe that education information collected on
older youth is as time-sensitive as it is for 17-year-olds. Moreover,
we believe that for those 19- and 21-year-olds who are no longer in
foster care, we are likely to get more complete outcome information if
we allow States adequate time to locate these youth. States will need
to institute appropriate procedures to contact youth who may turn 19
and 21 near the end of a reporting period early enough to ensure that
the State is able to collect the outcomes information in the required
time frame.
Since the State collects information on a new baseline population
every three years rather than every year, data collection on follow-up
populations will occur only in years with no data collection on
baseline populations. That is, in any given year, data collection for
outcomes will occur on only one group of youth, as shown in the table
below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporting population
-----------------------------------------------------
Implementation year Baseline Follow-up
-----------------------------------------------------
17-year-olds 19-year-olds 21-year-olds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................................... [bcheck] ................ ................
2......................................................... ................ ................ ................
3......................................................... ................ [bcheck] ................
4......................................................... [bcheck] ................ ................
5......................................................... ................ ................ [bcheck]
6......................................................... ................ [bcheck] ................
7......................................................... [bcheck] ................ ................
8......................................................... ................ ................ [bcheck]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated earlier, we considered a number of different options for
collecting information on outcomes for older youth before proposing
here that States gather outcome information on a wide range of youth,
some of whom may no longer be in foster care or even receiving
independent living services. We understand that this approach requires
States to keep contact information on a youth before leaving foster
care and develop various systems to track a youth's whereabouts once
the youth no longer has regular contact with the child welfare/CFCIP
agency. We expect that for many States this type of follow-up with
youth who have left the system will be new and challenging. We are,
therefore, publishing a draft technical assistance document on the
Children's Bureau's Web site (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb). We
hope that this document will provide commenters with an understanding
of the various methods that States can use to track youth and a sense
of the effort that doing so entails. Further, we anticipate providing
States with technical assistance to help them develop their tracking
methods during implementation of the proposed NYTD.
In paragraph (b), we propose to allow the State to select a sample
of youth from the baseline population of 17-year-olds who participated
in outcome data collection to track over time. The youth selected for
the sample will then comprise the follow-up population of 19- and 21-
year-olds. The sampling procedures are discussed in section 1356.84.
This proposal is in direct response to feedback during the consultation
process that requested that any survey of outcomes for youth who had
left foster care utilize sampling to mitigate the burden of tracking
youth for most States.
We welcome comments on the feasibility of collecting data on 17-,
19- and 21-year old young people as outlined in this section.
Section 1356.83 Reporting Requirements and Data Elements
Reporting periods and deadlines. In paragraph (a), we propose that
each State must submit a data file containing a record for each youth
in the reporting population on a semi-annual basis. The term ``data
file'' refers to the entire package of information that a State reports
to ACF each reporting period.
We had considered a 12-month reporting period, but felt that a
longer period may increase the risk of inaccurate or missing data.
Further, since we want to preserve our ability to analyze NYTD data
along with AFCARS data, we wanted comparable reporting periods.
Finally, during consultation, States informed us that semi-annual
reporting does not impose an undue burden on their resources, since the
majority of the burden is in collecting services and outcomes
information which remains an ongoing activity regardless of the length
of the reporting period.
In paragraph (a) we also propose that the NYTD reporting periods
extend from October 1 to March 31 and from April 1 to September 30 of
each Federal fiscal year. These periods are the same as the AFCARS
reporting periods. We propose that a State must submit its NYTD file
within 45 days of the end of the reporting period. We believe that 45
days will give a State sufficient time to compile NYTD data for
submission based on our experience with AFCARS which also has a 45-day
submission period.
Data elements for all youth. In paragraph (b), we propose that a
State report 13 data elements (see paragraphs (g)(1) through (13)) for
each youth in the reporting population, regardless of their status in
the served, baseline, or follow-up subpopulations. These elements
require States to gather information that identify the State, the
youth, and provide basic youth demographics. Most of these data
elements need only be collected once from a youth or extracted from the
State's case management information system (e.g., date of birth, sex,
race), but we propose that a State report these data to us in every
reporting period during which the youth appears in the reporting
population to ensure accurate records.
Data elements for served youth. In paragraph (c), we propose that a
State report 19 elements (see paragraphs (g)(14) through (g)(33)) for
each youth in the served population. These elements are in addition to
the basic demographic elements required in paragraph (b). The majority
of these data elements relate to the actual services and assistance
that the State provides to the youth. Some of these data elements,
however, require a State to record additional characteristics of the
youth who are receiving services, including the youth's special
education status and educational level, and whether or not the youth
has been adjudicated delinquent or belongs to an Indian tribe. We
believe these additional characteristics will allow us to analyze any
service or outcome differences for particular groups of youth.
[[Page 40353]]
Data elements for baseline and follow-up youth. In paragraph (d),
we propose to require the State to report the outcome-related data
elements (see paragraphs (g)(34) through (g)(60)) on each youth in the
baseline population. These elements are in addition to the basic
demographic elements required in paragraph (b). These data elements
pertain to the six outcomes that we have made the focus of this data
collection activity. Similarly in paragraph (e), we propose these same
outcome-related elements for each youth in the follow-up population.
Single youth record. In paragraph (f), we propose that a State
report to us all applicable data elements for a youth in a single
record per reporting period. The term ``record'' is used to represent
all the data associated with a single youth that is submitted in the
State's data file. The file will contain one record for each youth who
is in at least one of the three NYTD subpopulations: served, baseline,
or follow-up population. For example, if a youth is in the served
population in a reporting period, then the State's data file would
contain a record for this youth that reports the basic demographic,
characteristics and service data elements (i.e., the record would
contain valid responses for the elements described in paragraphs (g)(1)
through (g)(33) and contain no responses for the elements described in
paragraphs (g)(34) through (60)). In the next reporting period, if the
same youth is still in the served population, but now is also in the
baseline population, the State's file would contain one record for this
youth that reports all data elements (paragraphs (g)(1) through
(g)(60)).
Data element descriptions. Paragraph (g) describes all of the data
elements. The definitions of each element include the acceptable values
or valid response options.
State. In paragraph (g)(1), we request information on the State
that is reporting the youth to the NYTD. The State must use the numeric
Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) code to identify
itself. We use the FIPS code because it is a standard issued by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to ensure uniform
identification of geographic entities through all Federal government
agencies. The State is also required to use this standard for AFCARS
reporting purposes.
Report Date. In paragraph (g)(2), we propose that a State indicate
the reporting period date. Specifically, States are to report to us the
last day of the month that corresponds with the end of the reporting
period, which will always be either March 31 or September 30 of any
given year. This information allows us to identify all youth records
for the same reporting period.
Record Number. In paragraph (g)(3), we propose that a State report
the youth's record number, which is a unique, encrypted person
identification number. The State must apply and retain the same
encryption routine or method for the person identification number
across all reporting periods. The State's encryption methodology will
need to meet any ACF specifications we prescribe through policy.
Encryption will ensure that the youth's identity is kept
confidential. Although encryption is one of a number of methodologies
that a State can use to code confidential information, we are requiring
encryption as opposed to other methods of ensuring the confidentiality
of the identity of the children, such as sequential numbering, because
it is secure and easier than other methods for States to cross-
reference records for identification at a later date. For example,
encryption protects a child's sensitive information by masking the
State or local agency's person identification number from Federal
staff, researchers or other persons who may come into contact with the
data the State submits to ACF. In practice, a State encrypts a record
number by applying a mathematical formula known as an algorithm to code
the numbers. The State reveals the original person identification
number by applying the reverse mathematical formula, a process known as
decryption. The State ensures confidentiality by keeping the
mathematical formula secure and limiting access to the formula to
authorized persons only.
Encryption also is more efficient than some other methods because
the State need only safeguard the decryption key, not a whole list of
numbers which cross walk between the masked identification number and
the real record number. In addition, the vast majority of States use
encryption methods already in reporting information to AFCARS. The few
States that do not use encryption currently have indicated to ACF that
they intend to use encryption in the near future. We believe,
therefore, that requiring an encryption method will involve a minimal
burden to States.
In subparagraph (g)(3)(i), we require States to use the same person
identification number for NYTD that they use for AFCARS when a youth
has been in the State's foster care system. As discussed earlier, we
believe that by requiring States to use the same person identification
number for youth in foster care and those receiving independent living
services, we will lay the groundwork for associating information
between AFCARS and NYTD. We believe that States share our interest in
having the capacity to analyze a youth's additional demographic
information and placement history in AFCARS, where it exists, for the
purposes of further understanding independent living services and
outcomes.
For these associations to be made, however, States must also use
the same person identification number for youth regardless of whether
or where the child is in foster care or receiving independent living
services in the State and use the same number for every episode of
foster care or service receipt. The consistency in assigning person
identification numbers and the encryption method will allow States and
ACF to make associations between a youth's experiences over time and
will allow us to develop annual files from the two six-month reporting
periods and perform case-level longitudinal cohort analyses.
Although we are not requiring so here, we strongly encourage States
to also use the same person identification number in the NYTD (and
AFCARS) that they may use for NCANDS reporting purposes. Again, we
believe that States will find that making associations across the
various child welfare databases will increase their ability to analyze
the data for program and policy purposes.
In subparagraph (g)(3)(ii), we specify that for youth who were
never in the State's foster care system, the State must assign a person
identification number for the youth and use it consistently for as long
as the youth receives independent living services. This would be the
case for a youth who is in the served population currently, but who is
(or was previously) in tribal or private foster care, or for a youth
who moves across State lines after leaving foster care. We are not
requiring States to seek out the original record number of a youth who
was in foster care or received independent living services in another
State or who was in the placement and care responsibility of a private
or tribal foster care system. We believe that the burden and cost to
States of finding this information and working through the
inconsistencies between States' number assignment, confidentiality
policies and encryption methods is prohibitive and outweighs the
usefulness of the data. As a result, States and the Department will be
unable to associate information on youth's entire foster care and
independent living experience when the child is served by more than one
State or tribal child welfare agency.
[[Page 40354]]
Date of birth. In paragraph (g)(4), we ask the State to report the
youth's date of birth. This information will allow us to capture the
youth's age and also determine whether the State collects outcome
information for a youth within the required time frame (see section
1356.85 on compliance for more information).
Sex. In paragraph (g)(5), we ask States to report the gender of the
youth. This information will help us analyze the services and outcomes
for youth by gender.
Race. Paragraphs (g)(6) through (g)(12) request information on the
youth's race. The racial categories of American Indian or Alaska
Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other
Pacific Islander, and White listed in paragraphs (g)(6) through (g)(10)
are consistent with the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB)
standards for collecting information on race (see OMB's Provisional
Guidance on the Implementation of the 1997 Standards for Federal Data
on Race and Ethnicity, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/re_guidance2000update.pdf
for more information). Each racial category is a
separate data element to represent the fact that the State is required
to allow the youth to identify with more than one race. Consistent with
the OMB standards, self-reporting or self-identification is the
preferred method for collecting data on race and ethnicity. This means
that States are to allow a youth or his/her parent(s) to determine the
youth's race.
If the youth's race is unknown, the State is to indicate so as
outlined in paragraph (g)(11). It is acceptable for the youth or parent
to indicate that the youth identifies with more than one race, but does
not know one of those races. In such cases, the State must indicate the
racial categories that apply and also indicate that a race is unknown.
Finally, if the youth or parent declines to identify the youth's race,
the State must indicate that this information was declined as outlined
in paragraph (g)(12).
Ethnicity. In paragraph (g)(13), we propose that a State report the
Hispanic or Latino ethnicity of the youth. Similar to race, these
definitions are consistent with the OMB race and ethnicity standards.
Also, the State may report whether the youth's ethnicity is unknown or
whether the youth has declined to provide this information.
In the group of data elements in paragraphs (g)(14) through
(g)(33), we propose that a State report information on the
characteristics of youth and services provided by the State for the
served subpopulation (as defined in section 1356.81).
Foster care status--services. In paragraph (g)(14) we propose that
a State indicate whether a youth receiving services was in foster care
at any point during the reporting period, consistent with our
programmatic definition of foster care in the regulations at 45 CFR
1355.20. For the purposes of this element, a youth is in foster care if
the State title IV-B/IV-E agency had placement and care responsibility
for the youth and the youth was in 24-hour substitute care away from
his or her parents or guardians at any point during the reporting
period. This element will aid our analysis of how States provide youth
in foster care with services versus those that have left foster care.
Local agency. In paragraph (g)(15), we propose that a State report
the data element local agency. For youth in foster care, States must
report the county or equivalent jurisdictional unit that has primary
responsibility for the youth's placement and care. If the youth is not
in foster care, a State must report the county with primary
responsibility for providing services to the youth. A State may report
multiple local agencies if more than one agency meets this element
description. If a centralized unit is responsible for the youth's
services rather than a local agency, then the State must report this
information. This element does not apply to youth who are being
surveyed for outcome information only.
This element is only relevant for youth who are in the served
population because our primary goal is to determine which local
jurisdiction has responsibility for providing the youth with
independent living services. We hope to be able to use this information
to analyze whether there are any particular geographical strengths or
barriers to a youth receiving independent living services in the State.
We struggled with how to describe this data element given the variety
of venues in which youth receive services. The youth's county of
residence may not correspond with the jurisdiction that is providing
services. For example, a youth may have emancipated from State A and
have an education and training voucher from State A which the youth is
using to attend college in State B. Or, a youth may have moved from one
county to another within the State during a reporting period and have
received independent living services from both counties. We determined
that for the purposes of this data collection effort, where the youth
is receiving services is secondary to the jurisdiction that is
providing the services.
Tribal membership. In paragraph (g)(16), we propose that a State
report whether a youth receiving independent living services is
enrolled in or eligible for membership in a federally recognized Tribe.
The State already may have this information if the youth was in foster
care in the State, or the State can ask the youth whether or not he/she
belongs to a federally recognized Tribe.
We consider a youth's tribal membership important because section
477(b)(3)(G) of the Act specifically requires each State to certify
that ``benefits and services under the programs will be made available
to Indian children in the State on the same basis as to other children
in the State.'' The statute's explicit inclusion of tribal youth
extends services not only to those Indian youth who are in a State's
foster care system, but to all youth who may be in tribal custody or
are otherwise eligible for services under this program.
The definition of this element uses the same definition of Indian
tribe in the Indian Self-Determination Act and regulations published by
the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) within the Department of Interior.
States may consult the BIA's list of federally recognized tribes
published in the Federal Register most recently on November 25, 2005
(70 FR 71193) or contact the BIA to determine whether a Tribe is
federally recognized.
During the consultation process, child welfare experts and
advocates for Indian children emphasized that identifying Indian youth
will help us learn about characteristics and services specific to this
subpopulation. Experts and advocates also pointed out that requiring
States to report tribal membership would help raise State agencies'
awareness about the importance of identifying tribal youth.
We considered various ways of reporting this information, including
asking States to report the name of the Indian Tribe of which the youth
is a member. During the work group discussions and pilot test, it
became clear that such detail was impractical and yielded results of
little value. We found it was difficult for respondents in our pilot
test to identify the appropriate Tribe out of the more than 560
federally recognized Tribes. Identifying the specific Indian Tribe was
further complicated because in many instances the youth must self-
identify his or her tribal affiliation. Even in the small pilot test we
conducted, some youth affirmed they were in a Tribe but were unable to
provide the name of the Tribe. Ultimately, we decided that reporting
whether a youth is enrolled in or eligible for membership in a Tribe
[[Page 40355]]
would give us critical information without introducing the
complications associated with specifying which Tribe.
Adjudicated delinquent. In paragraph (g)(17), we propose that a
State report whether a youth receiving services was ever adjudicated
delinquent, which means that a Federal or State court has adjudicated
the youth as a juvenile delinquent. During consultation, several
participants noted that identifying this population is important
because youth who have been adjudicated delinquent may receive
different services than other youth.
Although this data element is primarily intended to identify those
youth who have been involved in the juvenile justice system, during the
pilot test we asked participating States to answer a broader question
that identified the youth's point of entry into foster care. That
original data element included response options to differentiate youth
who entered foster care through (1) child protective services (CPS);
(2) State programs for children or persons in need of supervision
(typically called CHINS or PINS); (3) juvenile justice; (4) mental
health; (5) tribal agency; or (6) other arrangements. We included this
broader element in the pilot test because we believed that this
information would help us to better understand and analyze the
characteristics of youth who are served. However, we recognized later
that this broader element had several problems:
Not all youth who receive independent living services are
in foster care currently or were in foster care in the State, and so
collecting information about how a youth entered foster care would not
be relevant or readily obtainable for all youth in the NYTD reporting
population.
It is difficult to create response options that can be
applied consistently across all States because States differ in their
organizational structures and definitions of CHINS/PINS, mental health,
CPS, and juvenile justice.
The difficulty of defining precise response options is
further compounded by the fact that many of the youth may be, or have
been, involved in multiple systems. States may not be able to clearly
identify the appropriate response option for a youth with a complicated
history.
In the end, we were not sure that specific information was
essential for the NYTD. We therefore decided to simplify the proposed
data element to capture the most essential information. We consider
youth adjudicated delinquent as the most important data element to
propose for our purposes. The organization of a State's child welfare
and juvenile justice systems contributes to the proportion of that
State's juvenile justice population who are also receiving independent
living services. This data element may help to inform how we interpret
data on independent living services.
With the proposed simplified definition and response options, we
realize we may lose some precision about the extent to which the
reporting population may be involved in juvenile justice systems. We
also recognize that youth who are adjudicated delinquent are not a
homogenous group. The courts have a range of sanctions available to
them once a youth is adjudicated delinquent, which could include
ordering confinement in a wide-range of institutions or out-of-home
placements, probation, fines, or treatment. Therefore, we understand
that youth who are adjudicated delinquent may be a part of States'
foster care systems in a number of different ways, for different
reasons, and have varying outcomes. We believe, however, that
``adjudicated delinquent'' is the most specific and consistently
applied term relating to a youth's involvement in the juvenile justice
system. We further believe that any differences in services for youth
who have been involved in juvenile justice systems will be adequately
identifiable by categorizing those youth who have been adjudicated
delinquent.
Education data elements. In paragraphs (g)(18) and (g)(19), we
propose that a State report information on the youth's highest
education level and whether the youth receives or received special
education instruction during the reporting period. We propose to
collect this information to help us interpret the information on
services. We believe that gathering information on how a youth
progresses in school over time is a key piece of information in
understanding the types of services the youth receives.
In the course of developing the educational level element described
in paragraph (g)(18), we analyzed several ways of capturing information
about a youth's education. In the pilot test, we asked States to report
three data elements related to education: current school enrollment
status, educational level (last grade completed), and highest education
certificate received. As we refined the instrument, we wanted to limit
the number of data elements that would have to be updated frequently by
caseworkers. We believe the proposed element captures the fundamental
information intended by the three data elements pilot tested.
We included a special education element as an additional
educational characteristic in paragraph (g)(19), in response to
consultation participants' concern that a significant number of youth
in foster care also have special education needs. Unfortunately, youth
with special education needs may encounter more obstacles in reaching
self-sufficiency than other youth. We believe that it is important to
identify these youth in the reporting population because they may
require a different service array or intensity of services than youth
who are not receiving special education. Our definition of special
education for the purposes of this element is consistent with the
definition in 20 U.S.C. 1401(25).
Discussion on all data elements related to services. In paragraphs
(g)(19) through (g)(33), we propose to capture the range of services
and financial assistance States provide to youth through their
independent living programs.
First, we will discuss general issues relevant to all services and
assistance provided, followed by a discussion of issues germane to the
individual data elements. Four major issues dominated our consideration
of how States should report the type and quantity of services, as is
required by the law: what types of services to include; how to measure
the quantity of services; whether to reflect the manner in which States
deliver services; and, whether States should report why a youth did not
receive services. Each issue is discussed below.
The Act provides States with the flexibility to fund services for a
broad range of independent living needs. During conference calls with
State staff, we learned that in general, States are tracking the
services that they pay for in their information systems. However,
States often do not keep detailed data on the types of services
provided to youth. Many States believed that a requirement to collect
such detailed data would overburden caseworkers unnecessarily.
Therefore, we believe that for States to report the information
accurately to us, we must attempt to define the categories of services
broadly and keep them relatively few in number compared to the variety
of services States provide. We are, therefore, proposing 11
comprehensive data elements related to services and supports:
independent living needs assessment; academic support; post-secondary
educational support; career preparation; employment programs or
vocational training; budget and financial management; housing education
and home management training; health education and risk prevention;
family
[[Page 40356]]
support and healthy marriage education; mentoring; and supervised
independent living.
Because these definitions are broad, we acknowledge that a
particular service may not fit neatly into one of the 11 categories.
For example, if a youth attends a class that spends an equal time on
home management and health education then the State should report that
the youth received services under both service categories. If a youth
attends a class that primarily covers budgeting and financial
management but also briefly discusses housing education, then we expect
that the State will report this service only in the home management
category. We do not intend to regulate how much time spent on a
particular topic qualifies as a service, but expect that States will
choose the appropriate service category keeping in mind the relative
benefit to the youth.
Section 477(f)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act requires ACF to identify data
elements to track both the type and quantity of services provided by
States. We propose to measure quantity of services in its broadest
sense by keeping track of the different categories of services that
youth receive during a reporting period. For example, we will know from
the NYTD that a youth received three different independent living
services in a given reporting period, such as educational financial
aid, post-secondary educational support and mentoring. However, under
this proposal we will not know the exact quantities of each service.
For example, we are not asking States to report to us whether a youth
met with his mentor once a week or just once during the reporting
period, whether he attended one or five two-hour long SAT preparation
classes, or whether the State provided $500 or $5000 in educational
financial aid.
In developing our proposal, we considered how States could report
the quantity of services consistently, accurately and meaningfully,
given the variation in how States provide independent living services.
One of the options we considered for measuring the quantity of services
was the hours of service. In the pilot test, we asked respondents to
record the number of hours of formal services a youth received. The
caseworkers and supervisors who participated in the pilot test reported
spending enormous amounts of time trying to locate information about
hours of service, and many respondents reported estimating or guessing
the hours of service. Services provided informally were not easily
quantifiable, and even services provided formally were difficult for
pilot respondents to measure by the hour. Caseworkers reported not
being able to verify whether a youth actually received all components
of a scheduled service (e.g., whether the youth actually attended all
sessions of a budgeting class). Although we encourage workers to follow
youth closely to ensure that young people are receiving the services
necessary to prepare them for independent living, the substantial
burden on workers and questionable accuracy and validity of the
reported data on service hours defeated the purpose of trying to
achieve such a high level of precision in this data collection.
After determining how States will quantify services, we considered
whether requiring States to inform us how the services were delivered
would inform our understanding of service types or quantity. As
discussed earlier, some independent living services are delivered in
formal units or are planned and structured services, while others are
delivered on a more spontaneous basis. Both work group members and
pilot test respondents emphasized that effective services may be
delivered informally and noted that some States train and rely on
foster parents to deliver services in that manner. Also, caseworkers
who responded in the pilot test reported that they often rely on
``teachable moments'' to deliver important support and skill-building
services to youth. These respondents expressed concern that it could
appear as if they were not providing adequate services if only planned,
formal services were reported.
Based on this feedback we initially considered developing response
options of ``planned,'' ``spontaneous'' or ``both'' to indicate the
manner in which the State provides a service to the youth. However, we
chose not to propose these response options in this NPRM because we did
not believe that this information was central to the statutory
requirement to collect information on type and quantity of service. We
would like to note however, that the elements are defined broadly so
that States must send us information on services regardless of whether
they are delivered to youth formally or informally.
We also considered adding response options to the services elements
that would include reasons why a youth had not received a particular
service. This option was most relevant when we were contemplating a
reporting population that included all youth in foster care, regardless
of whether the youth were receiving services. This consideration was
based on comments we received from the pilot respondents who reported
that simply responding that a youth did not receive the service does
not tell us why it was not received. For example, we would not know
whether a youth did not receive a service because it is unavailable in
the State or locality, unallowable according to State policy or
eligibility criteria, or unsuitable given the youth's age and/or needs.
Feasibly, a State may offer a youth an appropriate service and the
youth may decline the service. We then considered expanding the
response options so that States could indicate that services were not
needed, services were not available or not offered, and services were
offered but declined.
Ultimately, we decided not to propose any expanded response options
because the statute requires data elements to track services provided
to youth, and does not require the reasons that services are not
provided. We also determined that gathering services information on
youth who were not currently receiving services went beyond the law's
mandate as discussed earlier. Moreover, this proposal required
caseworkers to make decisions about why a youth did not receive a
particular service, when the response options may not be mutually
exclusive. We concluded, therefore, that even if this information was
desirable it was likely to be inaccurate.
Independent living needs assessment. In paragraph (g)(20), we
propose that a State report information on whether a youth received an
independent living needs assessment during the reporting period. The
Act does not require that States provide independent living needs
assessments; however, we understand that most do and believe that
States can only provide youth with adequate services once they have
thoroughly assessed the youth's strengths and needs in transitioning
into self-sufficiency. During the consultation process some States and
national organizations indicated that this item was one of the most
essential services a State could provide.
Academic support. In paragraph (g)(21), we propose that a State
indicate whether the youth is receiving services that can help him/her
complete high school or obtain a general equivalency degree (GED).
Support for post-secondary schooling and employment are included in
other data elements. We included this element because we believe that
academic support, beginning several years before high school, can help
a youth obtain a high school diploma, or GED, which can lead to other
positive outcomes such as entry into post-secondary education,
vocational training, and employment. We also understand that most
States provide this type of educational
[[Page 40357]]
support. The law also requires that we track a youth's receipt of a
high school diploma as an outcome measure, so we felt it important to
capture to what extent States are providing youth with services that
support this outcome.
Post-secondary educational support. In paragraph (g)(22), we
propose that a State report the data element post-secondary educational
support, which includes those services that help a youth enter or
complete college. Section 477(a)(3) of the Act identifies a purpose of
the CFCIP as helping ``children who are likely to remain in foster care
until 18 years of age prepare for and enter postsecondary training and
educational institutions.'' Section 477(a)(5) of the Act also specifies
that funding is available to provide education services to former
foster care recipients between 18 and 21 years of age. Also, since the
law directs us to measure a youth's educational attainment as an
outcome measure, we wanted to collect information on the services that
States provide to assist youth in furthering their education.
Career preparation and employment data elements. In paragraph
(g)(23), we propose that a State report whether the youth receives
career preparation services which focus on developing a youth's
readiness to find or hold a job. In paragraph (g)(24), we propose that
a State report another data element about employment, employment
programs and vocational training, which includes those services
intended to build skills for a specific trade, vocation, or career. We
included these services because the law encourages States to use their
CFCIP funds to assist youth in obtaining employment. In particular,
section 477(a)(2) of the Act states that one purpose of the Act is ``to
help children who are likely to remain in foster care until 18 years of
age receive the education, training, and services necessary to obtain
employment.'' Section 477(a)(1) of the Act also specifies that States
may use the funding to provide services such as assistance in ``career
exploration, vocational training and job placement and retention.''
Both of these elements also help us identify the services that States
provide to youth in support of their attaining employment, which is an
outcome measure specified in the law.
The basic distinction between the two employment-related data
elements described above is that career preparation refers to general
skills that help a youth obtain and retain employment, while employment
programs or vocational training refers to programs that help a youth
gain expertise and skill in a specific field or profession. During our
consultation process, we learned that employment programs or vocational
training are usually administered as planned activities which require
that a youth enroll in a class or schedule an activity while career
preparation may be offered on a more ad-hoc basis.
Budget and financial management. In paragraph (g)(25), we propose
that a State indicate whether the youth is receiving training in budget
and financial management. We consider budget and financial management
to include education and practice in areas such as budgeting, banking,
consumer awareness, information about credit, loans, and taxes. We
included this element because budgeting is a common feature in States'
independent living services and is an essential life skill. Section
477(a)(1) of the Act highlights training in budgeting and financial
management skills as an example of assistance that helps youth make the
transition to self-sufficiency.
Housing education and home management training. In paragraph
(g)(26), we propose that States report whether the youth is receiving
housing education and home management training, which refers to
instruction and support services to locate and maintain housing,
understand tenant and landlord responsibilities, and acquire home
management skills. We believe this information is important to capture
as one of the purposes of the law is for States to provide housing and
other appropriate support to former foster care recipients between the
ages of 18 and 21 (section 477(a)(5) of the Act). Moreover, these
support services may affect a youth's experiences with homelessness,
which is an outcome measure specified in section 477(f)(1)(A) of the
Act.
Health education and risk prevention. In paragraph (g)(27) we
propose that a State report information on the health education and
risk prevention information the youth receives. This information
includes health-related educational topics such as the benefits of
preventive care, fitness, and nutrition, but does not include receipt
of direct medical and mental health services, dental services, or
substance abuse treatment services. We also have included risk
prevention topics in this element, including information on topics such
as sexually transmitted diseases, abstinence, smoking avoidance and
substance abuse prevention. This element reflects our interest in
gathering information on the services the State CFCIP agency provides
to youth to help them live healthy lives and avoid risky behaviors,
particularly since the law directs us to develop outcome measures on
youth engagement in high-risk behaviors.
Family Support and Healthy Marriage Education. In paragraph
(g)(28), we ask states to report the family support and healthy
marriage education that a youth receives, if it is paid for or provided
by the CFCIP agency. This element includes education on maintaining
healthy families such as parenting and childcare skills, spousal
communication, family violence prevention, and responsible fatherhood.
We have included this element because we believe that educating youth
about maintaining strong families and healthy marriages is an essential
element of responsible adulthood.
Mentoring. In paragraph (g)(29), we propose that a State report
whether the youth is being mentored. By mentoring, we mean programs or
services in which a youth regularly meets with a screened trained adult
on a one-on-one basis. Section 477(a)(4) of the Act specifies that one
purpose of CFCIP funding is ``to provide personal and emotional support
to children aging out of foster care, through mentors and the promotion
of interactions with dedicated adults.'' Some participants during our
consultation believed that mentoring was an essential service for youth
as they transition into independent living. We also understand from
reviewing States' CFCIP plans that many States support mentoring for
older youth, so we want to be sure to capture this service.
Because we desire to collect information on true mentoring
programs, rather than interactions with adults on an informal basis or
for non-mentoring reasons, we have limited this element to capturing
established mentoring programs which involves matching youth with
screened and trained adults. For the purposes of this data collection,
we are interested only in mentoring relationships that are established
as a result of the CFCIP agency's work with the youth, and not
relationships that may be facilitated or funded solely by other
parties.
Supervised Independent Living. In paragraph (g)(30), we propose
that a State report whether the youth is in a supervised independent
living setting. These settings are formal living arrangements under the
supervision of an agency, but where youth are not supervised 24-hours a
day. During consultation, some participants considered this one of the
more essential pieces of information to capture because it can give the
agency insight into a youth's self-sufficiency while there is still an
opportunity to provide supportive services.
[[Page 40358]]
Furthermore, the law specifically authorizes States to spend up to 30
percent of their Chafee allocation on room and board for youth between
the ages of 18 and 21. Congress authorized funds for this purpose based
on States' feedback that housing support is one of the greatest needs
of young adults (see H. Report 106-182, June 10, 1999).
Discussion related to all financial assistance elements. In the
group of data elements in paragraphs (g)(31) through (g)(33) we propose
that a State report information that addresses different types of
financial assistance provided to youth to support their transition to
independent living. We decided to include information about financial
assistance in addition to data elements about specific services to give
a more complete picture of how States are supporting youth. All three
of these data elements were included in the original pilot test in some
form. Participants of the pilot test found financial information
relatively easy to locate because those States require close tracking
and accountability of funds.
Room and Board Financial Assistance. In paragraph (g)(31), we
propose that a State report whether the CFCIP agency is providing the
youth with financial assistance for room and board. The proposed
definition for this element gives a State some flexibility in
establishing its own definition of room and board assistance with some
examples such as rent deposits and utilities, as the CFCIP legislation
provides States with this latitude. We expect that many youth will
receive this type of financial assistance, since section 477(b)(3)(B)
of the Act allows a State to spend up to 30 percent of its allotment
for room and board for youth between the ages of 18 and 21.
Furthermore, we understand from reviewing States' CFCIP plans that many
States support room and board for older youth.
Education financial assistance. In paragraph (g)(32), we propose
that a State report whether the youth received financial assistance for
education during the reporting period. This type of aid includes
financial assistance for school books and materials, tuition
assistance, examination and application fees, and educational vouchers
for college tuition or vocational education. The inclusion of vouchers
results from the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendments of 2001,
which provides education vouchers to pay for college or vocational
education. The vouchers are designed to increase the prospects of older
youth in foster care of becoming self-sufficient and living
independently.
Other financial assistance. In paragraph (g)(33), we propose that a
State report any other type of financial assistance that the CFCIP
agency provides to a youth in order to help the transition from foster
care to self sufficiency. The definition in the regulation is minimal
because we do not believe we could provide an exhaustive list of
financial assistance. Nonetheless, such assistance may include payments
for household expenses, subsidized transportation or payments for
business attire for job or college interviews.
Discussion on all elements related to youth outcomes. In the group
of data elements in paragraphs (g)(34) through (g)(60), we propose the
outcome information that States must report to us for each youth in the
baseline and follow-up populations. Some of the outcomes we are
interested in capturing are relevant for youth only once they have left
foster care (e.g., dependence on public assistance), so they will not
apply to youth in the baseline population or those in the follow-up
population still in foster care.
In general, we refined these elements after gathering information
from stakeholders about which outcomes they considered most important
to measure for youth aging out of foster care, the outcomes for which
the State CFCIP agency should be held accountable and outcomes which
could be easily measured in a data collection system. Stakeholders
suggested a number of outcomes that we rejected in the end because we
did not agree that they could meet this test. Some of the proposed
outcomes that we rejected included a youth's: access to essential
documents; ethnic, cultural, and personal identity; social isolation;
health care utilization (including mental health); leadership
qualities; and general well-being, such as hopefulness, optimism, and
resiliency. While the foregoing outcomes are important, we believe they
are best measured through program evaluation. To that end ACF has
funded a project to conduct an initial assessment and a five-year
evaluation of selected programs funded through the John Chafee Foster
Care Independence Program. The goal of the assessment is to identify
programs that can be rigorously evaluated and to develop evaluation
designs that will meet the requirements of the law. For more
information see ACF's Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation Web
site at: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/
We believe instead, that the following six outcomes are widely
accepted as the responsibility of the State's CFCIP agency and
straightforward for States to measure:
Outcome 1: Increase young people's financial self-
sufficiency.
Outcome 2: Improve young people's educational (academic or
vocational) attainment.
Outcome 3: Increase young people's positive connections
with adults.
Outcome 4: Reduce homelessness among young people.
Outcome 5: Reduce high-risk behavior among young people.
Outcome 6: Improve young people's access to health
insurance.
The data elements below all relate to these six outcomes and how
the State collects the outcome information. The data elements are
listed by outcome in Chart 1 at the end of the preamble.
Outcomes Reporting Status. In paragraph (g)(34), we propose that
the State indicate whether the State is reporting any outcome
information for the youth, and if not, the reason why the State was
unable to obtain outcome information. This element is essential to our
ability to understand why the State was unable to obtain outcome
information from a youth, either initially at age 17 or later on at
ages 19 or 21. We also expect that this information will increase our
ability to target technical assistance activities to the States that
are designed to improve either their procedures to track youth over
time or their efforts to encourage youth participation.
In addition to declined participation, we have allowed States to
indicate that the State is unable to report outcome information on the
youth because he or she was incapacitated, on runaway status,
incarcerated, died or the State is otherwise unable to invite the
youth's participation. States may use these response options when a
youth's participation clearly is not possible; for example, using the
response option of ``incapacitated'' when a youth has a significant
cognitive disability. However, we expect that States will attempt to
invite the participation of all youth's when appropriate. For instance,
a youth may be incarcerated but his incarceration alone may not prevent
him from participating in the survey. Similarly, just because a youth
may be temporarily incapacitated due to a hospitalization on the
State's desired date of outcome collection, the State could attempt to
collect outcomes information at a later time. We expect that a State's
use of the incapacitated response option to be judicious and
appropriate to the specific circumstances of the youth, particularly
since a State must still meet the youth
[[Page 40359]]
participation rates discussed in section 1356.85(b).
In defining the response options, we were careful to try and
distinguish between the various reasons why a State is unable to obtain
outcome information. Nonetheless, we realize that it may be difficult
for a State to pinpoint the exact reason for the youth's
nonparticipation. For example, we have defined ``youth declined'' as
the State inviting the youth's participation but the youth declining
and ``unable to locate/invite'' as the State being unable to contact
the youth successfully. If the State attempts to contact the youth
several times at his last known address and does not receive any reply
from the youth, it may not be clear whether the youth has chosen to
ignore the solicitation or the State had the wrong address for the
youth.
Finally, this element is meant to capture only the reason why the
State was unsuccessful in getting any outcome information from the
youth. Although we expect that a State will use all appropriate methods
to encourage a youth to complete the outcome survey, a youth may
decline to answer one or several of the individual survey questions for
whatever reason. States will be required to capture and report these
partial responses to us. We believe that even partial information will
provide us and the States with information on youth outcomes and/or
help us determine which outcomes questions are problematic for youth.
Date of outcome data collection. In paragraph (g)(35), we propose
that the State report the last date that the outcome information is
collected from the youth. If the information is collected on more than
one date, the final date must be reported here. The purpose of
requiring the State to report the date of outcome data collection is to
allow ACF to assess whether the State collected the outcomes data
within 45 days of the youth's 17th birthday and within the reporting
period of the youth's 19th and 21st birthday, as required in section
1356.82. States must report the date of data collection and not when
the information was entered into the State's information system.
Foster care status--outcomes. In paragraph (g)(36), we propose to
capture the youth's foster care status at the time of the outcomes data
collection. This element will enable us to identify whether outcome
survey questions are applicable to the youth's situation (e.g., youth
in foster care do not need food assistance because the child welfare
agency is taking care of these needs, so this question is not
applicable) and determine how a State is complying with the outcomes
participation standards discussed in further detail in section 1356.85.
We also want to note that this foster care status element uses a
different time frame than that described in paragraph (g)(14). The
foster care status-outcomes element focuses on whether the youth is in
foster care at the time of data collection versus at any point during
the six-month reporting period. This is because knowing whether a youth
was in foster care at any point in the reporting period does not help
us determine whether the outcome survey questions are applicable or
whether the State is in compliance with the participation standards.
Sampling status. In paragraph (g)(37), we propose that the State
indicate whether or not the 17-year-old youth in the baseline
population will be a part of the follow-up population at ages 19 and
21. This is especially germane for States that choose to sample. We
have included this element so that we can track whether States are
reporting information on youth in the later years (see discussion of
section 1356.85(b)(3)). We do not necessarily need the State to report
all outcome information on each youth in the follow-up population, but
we need to know whether the State is reporting the information or why
the State was unable to report the information. This element will be
applicable only every three years when the State has selected a new
baseline population of 17-year-olds for outcomes data collection.
During the years when the State is collecting information on the
follow-up populations only, the State must indicate that this element
is not applicable.
Current full-time employment. In paragraph (g)(38), we propose that
a State report whether a youth is employed full-time, using a common
definition of at least 35 hours per week. This data element is one
measure for Outcome 1, pertaining to young people's financial self-
sufficiency, which addresses the statutory requirement that ACF develop
outcome measures related to employment. Youth with full-time jobs are
more likely to be able to avoid dependency and achieve self-
sufficiency.
Full-time employment and some of the following data elements
require information on the youth's current status, which means the
youth's experience as of the date the information is collected on the
youth. Since our primary goal is to gather information that will help
us understand the experience of youth as a whole and the State's
performance, rather than assessing the outcomes for individual youth,
we believe that the current status of the youth in most cases is
sufficient.
Current part-time employment. In paragraph (g)(39), we propose that
a State report whether a youth is employed part-time. This data element
also addresses Outcome 1 pertaining to young people's financial self-
sufficiency. Youth with part-time jobs may still be in school or
training, in transition to full-time employment, or able to reduce or
avoid dependency on public assistance better than those youth who are
not employed. We also note that the elements for full-time employment
and part-time employment are not mutually exclusive. A youth may have a
full-time and part-time job concurrently.
Employment related skills. In paragraph (g)(40), we propose that a
State report whether a youth completed an apprenticeship, internship,
or other type of on-the-job training in the past year. This data
element addresses an important aspect of employability and is a measure
for Outcome 1 pertaining to financial self-sufficiency, which is
whether a youth has acquired skills necessary to enter the labor
market. Even if a youth currently is unemployed, the completion of an
apprenticeship, internship, or other type of on-the-job training is an
important achievement and an indication that the youth has some labor
market skills. This data element measures past-year completion, rather
than current participation, in order to ensure that the data collection
captures completion of these training experiences.
Social Security. In paragraph (g)(41), we propose that a State
report whether a youth is receiving Social Security Income (SSI) or
Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), either directly or as a
dependent beneficiary. Both SSI and SSDI provide financial assistance
to eligible persons who are unable to work due to a disability (see
sections 223 and 1611 of the Social Security Act). This data element
measures youth access to one type of financial resource to help meet
their living expenses and is a measure for Outcome 1 pertaining to
financial self-sufficiency.
Educational Aid. In paragraph (g)(42), we propose that a State
report whether a youth is receiving a scholarship, education or
training voucher, grant, stipend, student loan, or other type of
educational financial aid. Educational aid includes a Chafee education
and training voucher provided under section 477(i) of the Social
Security Act. The definition of a student loan is consistent with that
under the Federal Family Education Loan Program (20 U.S.C.
[[Page 40360]]
1071). Many young people who are in school receive this type of
assistance to help them gain an education. Such assistance can be an
important financial resource, and is a measure for Outcome 1 pertaining
to financial self-sufficiency.
Public Financial Assistance. In paragraph (g)(43), we propose that
a State report whether a youth is receiving cash payments as part of
the State's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program
(title IV-A of the Social Security Act). This data element addresses
the statutory requirement to develop outcome measures pertaining to
avoidance of dependency (Outcome 1 on financial self-sufficiency). This
element does not include other types of TANF assistance, such as child
care subsidies or job training, because they do not involve cash
payments or direct financial support to the youth.
Food Assistance. In paragraph (g)(44), we propose that a State
report whether a youth is receiving food assistance. We consider food
assistance to include assistance through the federally supported Food
Stamp program that provides assistance to low-income people to buy
groceries (authorized at 7 U.S.C. 2014) and the Women, Infants and
Children (WIC) program, which is nutrition assistance specifically for
pregnant women and women with young children.
Housing Assistance. In paragraph (g)(45), we propose that a State
report whether a youth is receiving government-funded housing
assistance, excluding CFCIP room and board payments.
Other Support. In paragraph (g)(46), we propose that a State report
whether a youth is receiving any other ongoing financial resources or
support not measured in the previous financial elements. For example, a
youth may include financial support through a spouse, child support
that the youth receives or funds from a legal settlement in this
element. However, this element does not include child care subsidies,
child support for a youth's child, or other financial help that does
not benefit the youth directly in supporting himself or herself.
Highest Educational Certification Received. In paragraph (g)(47),
we propose that a State report a youth's highest educational
certification. This data element addresses the statutory requirement to
develop measures related to educational attainment and is a measure of
Outcome 2, improving young people's educational attainment. Receiving a
high school diploma or GED is particularly important since the lack of
that diploma makes it extremely difficult to transition successfully
from foster care to self-sufficiency.
Current Enrollment and Attendance. In paragraph (g)(48), we propose
that a State report whether a youth is enrolled in and attending
school. A youth is still considered to be attending school if the youth
remains enrolled while the school is currently on a break, such as
Spring break, or out of session. Youth who are currently attending
school or training may not yet have an educational degree, and may not
have the time available to hold a full-time job. Some participants in
the consultation process believed that this data element would be
critical in assessing the employment and educational outcomes of youth.
Connection to Adult. In paragraph (g)(49), we propose that a State
report whether a youth has a positive connection to an adult who can
serve in a mentor or substitute parent capacity. The adult can be a
relative, former foster parent, birth parent, or other older member of
the community, but cannot be a peer such as a boyfriend, girlfriend,
best friend, partner, or spouse. This definition also excludes current
caseworkers. This data element, which relates to Outcome 3, increasing
young people's positive connection with adults is not a statutory
requirement. However, the measure is consistent with the statute's
emphasis on mentoring as an important service for older youth in foster
care. We developed this element in response to comments from many
participants in the consultation process who believed that having a
positive relationship with at least one adult was a critical component
in youths'' success in living on their own.
Homelessness. In paragraph (g)(50), we propose that a State report
whether a youth was homeless. This data element is relevant to Outcome
4 which pertains to reducing homelessness and is included in the
statutory requirements. Many participants in the consultation process
noted that it is important to measure how long youth were homeless,
since there is a significant difference between not having a home for a
few nights and being homeless for a good part of a year. However, we
decided not to include a data element about the length of a young
person's experience with homelessness in order to mitigate the data
collection burden.
The homelessness data element and several following data elements
(i.e., substance abuse referral, incarceration, and children) refer to
experiences over a long period of time rather than only the youth's
current experience. This is because these elements pertain to events
that may happen sporadically or briefly over any given period as
opposed to other experiences, such as employment or education which
often require a more long-term commitment. Also, a youth's brief
experience with substance abuse, incarceration or homelessness often
has a significant impact on his/her life and ability to be self-
sufficient in a way that other experiences do not. We want to be sure
to capture these events.
Specifically, we are proposing two different time frames for these
elements, depending on whether the youth is in the baseline or follow-
up population. For 17-year-olds in the baseline population we are
interested in the youth's lifetime experience up to that point. For 19-
and 21-year-olds in the follow-up population we are interested in the
youth's experience in the past two years. We chose this approach so
that we can capture the youths' entire experiences up to age 21, should
they choose to answer these questions. This information will aid us in
analyzing the outcomes data.
Substance Abuse Referral. In paragraph (g)(51), we propose that a
State report whether a youth was referred or self-referred for alcohol
or drug abuse assessment or counseling. This data element addresses the
statutory requirement to develop outcome measures pertaining to high-
risk behaviors, which is Outcome 5. To offset the potential limitations
of self-reported data and privacy concerns, this data element requests
information on referrals and not for the youth's actual alcohol and
drug use.
Incarceration. In paragraph (g)(52), we propose that a State report
whether a youth was arrested or incarcerated. This data element
addresses the statutory requirement to develop outcome measures
pertaining to incarceration and high-risk behaviors. The definition is
broad to capture any type of incarceration or detention episode that
the youth may experience in relation to an alleged crime.
Children. In paragraph (g)(53), we propose that a State report
whether a youth gave birth to, or fathered, any children. This data
element in combination with the subsequent element addresses the
statutory requirement to develop outcome measures pertaining to
nonmarital childbearing. We are looking at this element in relation to
Outcome 5, reducing high-risk behaviors among young people.
Marriage at Child's Birth. In paragraph (g)(54), we propose that a
State report whether a youth was married to the child's other
biological parent at the time of the birth of any children reported in
paragraph (g)(53).
[[Page 40361]]
Although ``nonmarital childbearing'' is identified in the statute,
participants in the consultation process recommended that we measure
whether a youth has any children separately from the youth's marital
status. Participants objected to the child-bearing and marriage
elements because they believed it was too intrusive to ask youth
whether they were married at the time of their children's births.
However, we decided to use the direct measure because we believe it
more clearly addresses the statutory requirement.
Medicaid. In paragraph (g)(55) we propose that a State report
whether a youth is participating in the State's Medicaid program.
Although this data element is not a statutory requirement, it is
consistent with the authority granted in the Foster Care Independence
Act for States to offer Medicaid coverage to 18-, 19-, and 20-year old
youth who age out of foster care. The element was developed in response
to comments from participants in the consultation process that ACF
should measure how many youth are able to benefit from Medicaid
coverage. We are considering this element relevant to Outcome 6,
improving young people's access to health insurance, although we
acknowledge that some may view reliance on Medicaid as a measure of a
youth's dependence on public assistance.
Other Health Insurance Coverage. In paragraph (g)(56), we propose
that a State report whether a youth has health insurance other than
Medicaid. This data element was recommended by many participants in the
consultation process and also is relevant to Outcome 6, a youth's
access to health insurance. Participants in the consultation process
believed that health insurance is a critical factor in ensuring a
youth's well-being and self-sufficiency.
Health Insurance Type. In paragraphs (g)(57) through (g)(60), we
are proposing that the State capture the type of health insurance
coverage that a youth has indicated in the previous element. Paragraph
(g)(57) will capture whether the youth has insurance coverage for
medical health only and paragraph (g)(58) will capture whether the
youth has insurance coverage for both medical health and mental health.
Paragraph (g)(59) will capture whether the youth has insurance coverage
for both medical health and prescription drugs, and paragraph (g)(60)
will capture whether the youth has insurance coverage for all three.
We are interested in determining to what extent a youth's major
health insurance coverage needs are being met in evaluating their
access to health care so we are asking that the youth distinguish
between medical, mental health and prescription drug coverage. During
the authorization of the Chafee program, Congress reviewed research and
testimony that indicated that adolescents leaving foster care have
significantly more health needs than other adolescents and that former
foster youth were in particular need of mental health services (see
House Rpt. 106-182, June 10, 1999). Given this information, we believe
it important to capture the extent of a youth's access to health
insurance. Participants in the consultation process were particularly
interested in capturing whether youth had access to ongoing medication
for maintenance of their physical or mental health, so we were mindful
to ask separately about a youth's insurance for prescription drug
coverage. We opted not to require States to report information on a
youth's coverage for dental or vision benefits because these benefits
are not typically covered in health insurance plans. We also are
limiting this element to capture true health insurance and not plans
that offer discounts on medical care or prescription drugs only, which
cannot be classified as insurance.
Electronic Reporting. Finally, in paragraph (h), we propose that a
State must submit NYTD data electronically to us in accordance with
Appendix A of the proposed regulation and any other ACF specifications.
We are not proposing to regulate the technical requirements for
formatting or transmitting the NYTD data file. Instead, we will issue
technical requirements and specifications through official ACF policy.
We have learned through our experience with AFCARS that it is more
prudent not to regulate the technical specifications for formatting and
receiving data. As technology changes, we must be able to keep pace
with the most current, practical and efficient transmission methods
that will suit State and Federal needs.
We are particularly interested in exploring new technologies due to
the enactment of the E-Government Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-347).
This law focuses the Federal government on using improved internet-
based technology to make it easier for State or local governments and
citizens to interact with the Federal government. One internet-based
technology that we are exploring for the NYTD is the use of Extensible
Mark-Up Language (XML). XML is a text-based format that allows entities
to describe, deliver and exchange data among a range of applications
provided that the sender and receiver have agreed in advance on the
data definitions. We believe that XML has several benefits to States
and ACF, including:
Enabling the integration and collation of any data and
information irrespective of storage environment or document type;
Facilitating data interchange independent of the operating
system and hardware; and,
Allowing new data elements to be added readily with
minimal changes to the data file format.
We recognize that some States have already implemented the use of
XML to transfer data, while others may have encountered some barriers
to doing so. Therefore, we welcome comments from States on the
potential use of XML for NYTD.
Section 1356.84 Sampling
This section describes the requirements and procedures for a State
that opts to select a random sample of youth from the baseline
population to follow over time.
In paragraph (a), we propose to allow States the option of taking a
sample of 17-year-old youth who participated in the outcome data
collection and following and collecting subsequent outcome information
on that sample of youth at ages 19 and 21. As stated earlier,
consultation participants requested this option to mitigate the burden
of collecting information on older youth in the follow-up population,
many of whom have left foster care.
In paragraph (b), we are proposing that States use simple random
sampling procedures that are computer-generated, unless we approve
another sampling procedure. A sample selected in a random manner,
following standard sampling procedures, will be representative of all
19- and 21-year-olds in the follow-up population and will allow us to
make inferences about that population based on the outcomes experienced
by the youth in the sample. We are proposing that States use a random
number generator to ensure that the sample is truly random and thus
representative of the follow-up population. We believe that this
provision will also help achieve uniformity in sampling procedures
across the States.
We are proposing that the sampling universe consist of the total
number of youth in the baseline population that participated in data
collection at age 17. In practice, States may need to wait until the
end of each reporting period in the fiscal year in which the State
collects the outcomes data on the baseline population before
determining the sampling universe and actually
[[Page 40362]]
selecting a sample. Once the State has chosen the youth who will
comprise the sample at age 19, the State must keep track of these youth
so that they can collect information from them at ages 19 and 21.
In paragraph (c) we outline the procedures for selecting the sample
size. The statistical formula that is referred to in paragraph (c) and
detailed in the proposed regulatory text at Appendix C of the proposed
regulation is a standard formula used for making inferences about a
population (i.e., for drawing conclusions about the State's outcomes).
In paragraph (c)(1), we require States with a sampling frame of
5,000 youth or less to use the Finite Population Correction (FPC),
because the sample size will constitute a large proportion of the
population. The FPC is used when sampling from a small population
(i.e., where the sample is five percent or more of the population), and
will reduce the sampling error at the given level of confidence from
the value calculated with the standard sampling error formula. In
paragraph (c)(2), we require States with a sampling frame of more than
5,000 youth to use the standard sample size formula without the FPC
shown, because the adjustment is unnecessary.
Regardless of the size of the State's sampling universe, the State
must increase the resulting number by 30 percent to allow for
attrition. Allowing for 30 percent attrition reflects the experience of
many studies involving hard-to-track populations. However, the sample
size must not exceed the total number of youth in the baseline
population who participated in data collection at age 17. ACF
acknowledges that, depending on the number of 17-year-olds in foster
care in the State, the resulting sample may not be lower than the
entire baseline population. Based on our example in Table 1 that
appears at the end of the preamble, the vast majority of States can
benefit from using sampling. We estimate that the sample sizes for all
States will range from approximately 79 to 341 youth.
We believe that this approach will yield a statistically valid
sample of 19 and 21 year olds that receive or have received Independent
Living Services. We would expect that at least 25 percent of the sample
either currently receives Independent Living Services or received these
services in the past. We are interested in public comments on whether
we have achieved this outcome.
Section 1356.85 Compliance
In this section we define the standards ACF will use to determine a
State's compliance with NYTD standards and our process for determining
whether the State is in compliance with the standards.
File Submission Standards. In paragraph (a) we propose a set of
file submission standards. These standards are minimal standards for
timeliness, formatting and quality information that the State must
achieve in order for us to process the State's data appropriately.
In paragraph (a)(1), we propose that the State must submit a data
file according to the reporting periods and timeline (i.e., within 45
days of the end of each six-month reporting period) as described in 45
CFR 1356.83(a) to be in compliance with the NYTD.
In paragraph (a)(2), we propose that a State send us its data file
in a format that meets our specifications. At this time we cannot
outline the exact transmission method and/or formatting requirements
for the NYTD data as explained in the discussion on 45 CFR 1356.83(h).
However, we anticipate that we will design the Federal NYTD system so
that we will be able to process files that are submitted according to
our specifications only. This is to eliminate any inefficiencies and
additional costs associated with building and maintaining a Federal
system that can read and/or process multiple file formats.
In paragraph (a)(3), we propose that the State submit 100 percent
error-free data for the basic demographic elements described in 45 CFR
1356.83(g)(1) through (g)(5), (g)(14) and (g)(36) for every youth in
the reporting population. These elements describe the State, reporting
period, youth's record number, youth's date of birth, youth's gender,
and whether the youth is in foster care. Errors are defined in
paragraph (c) of this section and in general refer to elements that
have missing or blank data, data that are outside the acceptable
response options, or illogical or inconsistent responses.
We are requiring that States have no errors at all for these seven
elements because they contain information that is readily available to
the State and are essential to our capacity to analyze the data and
determine whether the State is in compliance with the remaining data
standards. For example, the youth's date of birth and foster care
status is information that all States collect on