[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 the youth whom they
serve and would typically have in their information system. These
elements also allow us to determine whether the youth should be
surveyed for outcomes as part of the baseline population because the
youth is 17 years old and in foster care and whether the State has
achieved the foster care participation standard, which is discussed
later in paragraph (b) below. Finally, based on our experience with
AFCARS, we have found that problems in general elements such as these
are often the result of minor errors at the State level that can be
rectified easily. We therefore believe that a 100 percent compliance
standard for these elements is appropriate.
Data Standards. In paragraph (b), we propose a set of data
standards for the State to be in compliance with the NYTD requirements.
These standards focus on the quality of the data that a State provides
to us regarding a youth's demographic information, characteristics,
services and outcomes. The data standards also are designed to ensure
that a State is making significant efforts to collect and report
outcome information for older youth.
In paragraph (b)(1), we propose to set a standard of 90 percent
error-free data for the remaining data elements (45 CFR 1356.83(g)(6)
through (g)(13), (g)(15) through (g)(35), and (g)(37) through (g)(60)).
These elements are the remaining demographic, characteristics, services
and outcome elements with the exception of those elements already
described in paragraph (a). We are proposing a 90 percent error-free
standard for these elements to ensure that we have an acceptable
confidence level in the quality of information States submit to us.
We chose the 90 percent level for these remaining elements because
it is consistent with the quality standard we have established for
error data in AFCARS. Nonetheless, we considered setting different
compliance levels for these elements so that select elements would have
a lower error-free standard. Alternatively, we also considered allowing
a certain number of elements (e.g., 10 percent, or 5, of the remaining
53 elements) to fail the 90 percent standard before we considered a
State out of compliance. We ultimately rejected these approaches
because we have been careful to propose only those NYTD elements that
we believe will provide us with the most essential information to meet
the requirements in law and our program goals. Since we value each of
these elements of equal importance we were compelled to require States
to provide the same level of quality information in each element.
In paragraph (b)(2), we are requiring that States ensure that all
youth whom the State reported to ACF as participating in the outcomes
data collection at age 17 (or all 17-year-olds who participated and are
sampled to be part of the follow-up population) are reported for their
outcomes again in the
[[Page 40363]]
State's subsequent data submissions when the youth turns 19- and 21-
years old. A youth is considered to have participated if the State
collected and reported some information on one of the outcomes-related
elements (see 45 CFR 1356.83(g)(38) through (60)). We are calling this
the outcomes universe standard.
We are not requiring that the State obtain full outcomes
information on the 19- and 21-year-olds if the youth declines or is
otherwise unavailable, but rather that the State send us a record on
these older youth that provides us with some outcome information or why
the State was unable to collect outcome information on the youth.
This compliance standard is necessary so that we can determine
accurately whether the State is meeting the outcomes participation
standards (see discussion on paragraph (b)(3) below). Unless we hold
States accountable for either providing outcome information for each
young person or indicating why the State was unable to get this
information, we would create a loophole in calculating the outcomes
participation standard. For example, in the absence of this standard if
a State were initially to report complete or partial outcome
information on 100 17-year-old youth but only provide us with outcomes
information for the 50 youth who the State was able to collect some
outcomes information on in the follow-up sample at age 19, the State
would appear to have met the outcomes participation standards (at a
rate of 100%) when in fact the State did not. This is because we could
only calculate the participation standard based on the information
provided in the present year if we did not look back to the State's
data file from two years prior.
In paragraph (b)(3) we propose that the State must meet two youth
participation rate standards for the outcomes data collection. Again, a
youth is considered to have participated in the outcomes data
collection if the State has provided a valid response (i.e., a response
other than ``declined'' or ``not applicable'') for at least one of the
outcome-related data elements in 45 CFR 1356.83(g)(38) through (g)(60).
The first youth participation rate standard, which we are calling
the foster care youth participation rate, relates to the State
collecting and reporting to ACF outcome information on 19- and 21-year-
old youth in the follow-up population that are in foster care at the
time of outcomes collection. We are requiring that States report full
or partial outcome information on 80 percent of these youth in foster
care as described in paragraph (b)(2)(i). The second youth
participation rate standard, which we are calling the discharged youth
participation rate, relates to the State collecting and reporting
outcome information on 19- and 21-year-old youth in the follow-up
population that are no longer in foster care at the time of outcomes
collection. We are requiring that States report full or partial outcome
information on 60 percent of these youth no longer in foster care as
described in paragraph (b)(2)(ii). All youth who participated in the
data collection at age 17 are considered part of the denominator and
youth who participate at age 19 or 21 are part of the numerator in
calculating the participation rates.
We are proposing a participation rate standard to encourage States
to make significant efforts to track, locate, and obtain outcome
information from youth. We acknowledge that the outcomes portion of the
proposed NYTD is one of the more challenging for States to implement.
Nonetheless, it is critical to our ability to understand how States are
performing in operating independent living services programs and
determine how youth who emancipate from foster care are faring.
We initially considered setting a standard based on the State
making a successful contact with the youth rather than the youth's
actual participation in the outcome survey. This approach seemed to
work in favor of a State that was successful in tracking the youth and
asking the youth to participate, but ultimately the youth chose not to
respond to the survey. This approach would have given the State credit
for its efforts to solicit the youth's participation. However, we were
unsure how we could define or measure an appropriate contact in
establishing a contact standard. In particular, we were uncertain how
we could distinguish between States that made active and personal
efforts to contact a youth by following up with individuals several
times, versus those that engaged in more passive activities such as
sending out mass e-mails or letters and awaiting a response.
After deciding on a participation rate, we were faced with how we
could establish an appropriate standard. We chose to differentiate
between youth in foster care versus those who have left foster care
because we believed doing so would acknowledge the challenges in
achieving youth's participation. For instance, we considered setting a
single participation rate standard regardless of the youth's foster
care status. However, we believe that those States with a larger number
of older youth in foster care would perform better in relation to a
single standard than those States where most youth leave foster care at
age 18 because those youth still in foster care are easier to locate.
We also considered setting a participation standard based solely on the
youth's age, but believe that this approach would have the same flaw as
a single standard. Setting a higher standard for youth in foster care
versus those who have left foster care best takes into account the fact
that the State has to expend more effort to locate youth who have left
foster care and that these youth may be less interested in discussing
how they are faring with an agency that no longer has active
involvement in their day-to-day care. States will already know where
youth in foster care are located and should be engaging them on an
ongoing basis in developing their case plans and preparing the youth
for emancipation, so we believe that States should be more accountable
for obtaining a youth in foster care's participation in the outcomes
survey.
Next, we considered the level for the participation rates. To
determine the appropriate level, we reviewed the response rates for
outcome surveys of data collection on former foster youth and on
similar hard-to-serve populations. We learned from that review that
some researchers and program evaluators had obtained close to 90
percent participation from foster and former foster youth or hard-to-
serve populations, while others have achieved only a 50 to 70 percent
response rate. Furthermore, these response rates were often obtained
with the help of a highly skilled and dedicated team of locators and
interviewers who did not have other child welfare responsibilities.
Since we expect that many States will incorporate the responsibility to
track youth and engage youth in responding to the outcome survey into
the work of caseworkers and service providers, we wanted to set a
reasonable expectation for compliance. In balancing these interests, we
determined that a rate of 80 percent for youth in foster care and 60
percent for those youth no longer in foster care was appropriately in
line with the survey research but also met our need to have some
confidence in the outcome information that States report to us.
Finally, we considered establishing initial participation rates
that would rise as time passed and States became more adept at locating
and engaging youth in participating in the outcome survey. Although we
do not propose to have participation rates that increase over time in
this NPRM, we are interested in comments on such an approach.
[[Page 40364]]
In paragraph (b)(3)(iii), we clarify how we will apply the outcomes
youth participation rates to those States that choose to sample. We
propose to apply the participation rates to the minimum sample size
rather than on all 19- and 21-year-old youth from whom State attempts
to collect outcome data. We believe this is a reasonable approach since
we do not want to penalize States that chose to sample when we are
offering sampling as an alternative.
For example, a State has 1,500 youth in its total follow-up
population of 21-year-olds, none of whom is in foster care. The State's
sample size is 300 (for the sake of this example only). The State
reports full or partial outcomes information on 250 21-year-olds and
reports that the remaining 50 youth in the sample could not be located,
had declined, or were incapacitated. The State has surpassed the
participation rate standard for discharged youth because the State was
successful in reporting full or partial outcome information on more
than 60 percent of the youth no longer in foster care based on its
sample size, rather than its total possible follow-up population.
A State can only be determined out of compliance on either of the
participation rates if the State has met the compliance standard for
the outcomes universe. As stated above in the discussion on paragraph
(b)(2), this is because we can determine the participation rates
accurately only when the State has provided us with information on
every youth in the outcomes universe. We welcome comments on the
participation rates chosen.
Errors. In paragraph (c), we define further the concept of data in
error. Error data is both a factor in the file submission standards
described in paragraph (a) and data standards described in paragraph
(b) above.
In paragraph (c)(1), we identify blank or missing responses as one
component of error data. The elements as described in 45 CFR 1356.83(g)
indicate when blank responses are acceptable. Blank responses should
not be confused with an acceptable response that indicates that a youth
has declined to respond to an outcomes-related element.
In general, blank responses are never acceptable in the general
elements in 45 CFR 1356.83(g)(1) through (g)(5), which are the State,
report date, record number, date of birth and gender of the youth.
Blank responses are acceptable in the data elements that are collected
on the served population if the State is reporting the youth in the
baseline or follow-up population only. Similarly, blank responses are
acceptable in the data elements pertaining to the baseline and follow-
up populations if the State is reporting the youth in the served
population only (see Appendix A of the proposed regulation). Otherwise,
a blank response indicates that the State has not provided a required
response and will be subject to the compliance standards.
We want to note that for those readers who are familiar with the
term ``missing data'' in AFCARS that the definition of blank or missing
data is more limited here. AFCARS currently uses the term ``missing
data'' to refer to blank responses and out-of-range responses
(discussed below). We chose not to use a similar definition here to
avoid the common confusion that only blank data is problematic.
In paragraph (c)(2), we identify out-of-range responses as another
component of data in error. Out-of-range responses are those responses
where the data provided does not match one of the valid responses or
the response exceeds the possible range of responses. For example, we
will consider that a State reporting that a youth has a date of birth
that indicates that the youth is either 10 or 100 as out-of-range, as
they both far exceed the credible ages of youth receiving services or
being reported for outcomes. Also, if ``yes,'' ``no,'' or ``not
applicable,'' for a particular element are the only valid responses for
an element, a response of ``none'' would be considered out-of-range.
In paragraph (c)(3) we identify inconsistent data as another
component of data in error. Inconsistent data are those elements that
fail internal consistency checks that are designed to evaluate the
logical relationships between two or more elements within a single
youth's record. We have chosen not to regulate the internal consistency
checks so as to provide maximum flexibility to change them as needed.
We will, however, notify States officially of the internal consistency
checks.
We would like to note that based on our experience with AFCARS, we
have found it useful to perform additional logical checks across the
State's entire file, known as cross-file checks. For example, a State's
data file that indicates that all youth for whom the State provided
information in a reporting period are male, or all have the same date
of birth, is likely to be erroneous. Although we have not proposed such
cross-file checks as a factor of compliance in the NYTD, we welcome
comments on incorporating cross-file checks into the error standard.
Review for compliance. In paragraph (d), we describe our process
for reviewing a State's data file for compliance with the
aforementioned standards. Although we anticipate having an automated
system that will assess a State's compliance and quickly identify the
errors in a State's data file, we are not confining ourselves to any
particular system at this point.
In subparagraph (d)(1)(i), we propose that as long as the State is
in compliance with the file submission standards, ACF will continue to
assess the remaining file for compliance with the data standards. In
subparagraph (d)(1)(ii), we propose to notify the State if the State
has not met the file submission standards so that the State can submit
corrected data (described further in the next section). As mentioned in
the discussion on paragraph (a), a State must meet the file submission
standards for us to make an accurate determination of compliance with
the data standards. We will also notify the State if the State has not
met the data standards.
In paragraph (d)(2), we propose that ACF may use other monitoring
tools that are not explicitly mentioned in regulation to determine
whether the State meets all requirements of the NYTD. For example, we
may in the future wish to conduct onsite reviews to ensure proper data
mapping or provide other technical assistance to ensure valid NYTD
data. We have used this approach in AFCARS by conducting onsite
assessment reviews of a State's process to submit AFCARS data. Through
these assessment reviews we have found that States may be in compliance
with the AFCARS data standards, but not in compliance with all the
AFCARS requirements. For example, through the automated AFCARS, we
cannot determine whether the State is submitting the entire or the
correct reporting population. But through the assessment reviews, we
have been able to provide States with technical assistance on how to
meet all aspects of the AFCARS requirements. Regarding the AFCARS
review process, we have often heard from States that the onsite
activities are beneficial and provide the State with valuable technical
assistance. Therefore, we want to reserve our ability to conduct other
monitoring activities for NYTD.
Submitting corrected data and noncompliance. In paragraph (e), we
outline a State's opportunity to correct any data that does not meet
the compliance standard. We are proposing that States have an
opportunity to correct their data file prior to our making a final
determination on whether the State is in compliance with the standards.
Providing this opportunity is consistent with our
[[Page 40365]]
current policy in implementing existing child and family services
programs under titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act. The
Department is encouraging continuous improvement in those programs by
allowing noncompliant States a period of corrective action prior to
taking penalties. We also have taken this approach in AFCARS even
though we are not taking AFCARS penalties currently.
States have responded well to this strategy by refocusing their
efforts on addressing the problems that affect noncompliance. The
Department believes that this strategy of continuous improvement also
is essential to promoting strong State-Federal partnerships while
ensuring accountability in meeting Federal requirements. Finally, we
anticipate making technical assistance available to States, to the
extent possible, during the period of corrective action.
In paragraph (e)(1), we propose that a State will have until the
end of the subsequent reporting period to submit a corrected data file.
Expressed another way, a State will have four and a half months to
correct their data file from the reporting period deadline in which the
State's data did not meet the standards. We believe this period is
sufficient because the type of problems that cause noncompliance
typically do not require extensive and time-consuming efforts for
States to correct. Also, we want to ensure that the information that
States submit is recent and do not wish to encourage delays in
providing the NYTD information.
The State need not develop an actual corrective action plan that
outlines how the State plans to comply with the data standards, as is
required in other program improvement efforts in child welfare (i.e.,
Child and Family Service Reviews and Title IV-E Eligibility Reviews).
We believe that an actual plan is not necessary in this case as we
anticipate that the Federal system will identify the errors that caused
the State to be in noncompliance. Furthermore, because the period in
which a State may submit data is relatively short, we believe that
engaging in a process to develop an action plan and seek ACF approval
will only reduce the amount of time the State has to make actual
improvements that may bring the State into compliance with the
standards.
In paragraph (e)(2) we propose to make a final determination that a
State is out of compliance if a State's corrected data file does not
meet the compliance standards. Similarly, we will determine that a
State that chooses not to submit a corrected data file or submits a
corrected data file late is out of compliance. This final determination
of noncompliance means that the State will be subject to the penalties
described in section 1356.86. Although States that submit their
corrected data late will be subject to penalties we are interested in
receiving this information. However, we believe that even late data
will help shape the national picture of independent living services and
youth outcomes.
Section 1356.86 Penalties for Noncompliance
In this section we propose a penalty structure for those States
that are out of compliance with the NYTD standards following an
opportunity to submit corrected data. We are proposing a penalty
structure consistent with section 477(e)(2) of the Act, which requires
the Secretary to assess a penalty against a State that fails to comply
with the NYTD data requirements.
Definition of Federal funds subject to a penalty. In paragraph (a),
we define which funds will be subject to a penalty for a State that ACF
determines is out of compliance with the data standards.
We propose that the funds subject to a penalty are the State's
annual allotment of CFCIP funds for the fiscal year that corresponds
with the reporting period in which the State was required originally to
submit the data. The State's total CFCIP funds include any allotted or
re-allotted funds for the general CFCIP program and the education and
training voucher program.
Section 477(e)(2) of the Act is ambiguous as to which fiscal year
should be penalized due to a State's noncompliance. We chose to
penalize the year in which the State's original submission was required
because we believed it was simpler for States and ACF to estimate the
potential penalty amount should the State not achieve compliance. The
penalty amount actually will be withheld from the current fiscal year
award of the general CFCIP and education and training voucher program
funds.
For example, a State submits data for the second reporting period
in FY 2008 by November 14, 2008 that does not meet the compliance
standards. The State submits a corrected data file by the end of the
subsequent reporting period, March 31, 2009 that does not meet the
compliance standards either. ACF makes a final determination that the
corrected data file is out of compliance with the data standards and
notifies the State in April 2009. The funds that will be subject to a
penalty are the State's allotment of FY 2008 funds. As can be seen from
this example, the date that the State submits a corrected but non-
compliant data file and the date of ACF's final determination that the
State is not in compliance are irrelevant for the purposes of
determining which Federal fiscal year of funds are subject to a
penalty.
Assessed Penalty Amounts. In paragraph (b), we propose the specific
penalty structure for States that fail the file submission and data
standards. The statute at section 477(e)(3) of the Act requires that we
implement a penalty structure that ranges between one and five percent
of the State's annual CFCIP allotment. The law also requires us to take
into account the degree of a State's noncompliance with the NYTD
requirements. In meeting these requirements, we are proposing to base
penalties on how a State performs with regard to the compliance
standards for each six-month reporting period at penalty levels that
reflect the relative importance of each compliance standard to the
objectives of the NYTD. The discussion on paragraph (d) below goes into
more detail on how we calculate a State's penalty amount.
In paragraph (b)(1), we propose a 2.5 percent penalty against the
State's CFCIP annual funds for a State that does not meet the file
submission standards per reporting period. We are assessing the largest
possible penalty (for the reporting period) for not achieving any one
of the file submission standards because we will not have useable
information in a timely fashion for the reporting period. As noted in
the previous section on compliance, if a State's data does not comply
with file submission standards we will not process the State's data
file any further to determine if the State is in compliance with the
data standards. In large part, this is because we cannot trust the
reliability of this data. We believe that assigning the largest
possible penalty amount for not meeting the file submission standards
is an appropriate incentive for States to submit data to us each
reporting period.
We are proposing 2.5 percent because we are constrained by the
statute to keep the penalty level between one and five percent of the
State's annual CFCIP funds (see section 477(e)(2) of the Act). If the
State fails to achieve the file submission standards for both reporting
periods in a year, then the State will receive the maximum allowed
penalty by law, five percent of their annual CFCIP allotment. We
considered assessing the maximum five percent penalty for a State's
failure to meet the file submission standards in one reporting period
in the year because of
[[Page 40366]]
the importance that we attach to receiving useable data. However, we
did not want to create a disincentive for States to submit information
in the subsequent reporting period. For example, if we were to set the
penalty at five percent for a State not achieving the file submission
standard in the first reporting period, the State could opt to not
submit data at all for the subsequent reporting period in the year with
no consequences.
In paragraph (b)(2), we propose penalty amounts for a State's
noncompliance with the data standards. Unlike the file submission
standards, where failure on any one of the three standards for timely
data, format and error-free information results in a single large
penalty, we are proposing to assess penalties for the data standards
for each specific compliance issue. This is in large part because some
of the data standards are inapplicable in certain years, so assessing a
single penalty amount for any failure to comply with a single data
standard may not take into account the extent of noncompliance as is
required by law. For example, if we were to have a single penalty for
failure to comply with any data standard, a State that failed to comply
with the error-free standard only in year two of implementation when we
require only services information would be penalized for the same
amount as a State that failed to comply with the error-free, foster
care youth and discharged youth participation rate standards in year
three of implementation.
In subparagraph (b)(2)(i), we propose a 1.25 percent penalty should
a State fail to achieve the standard for error-free data in 45 CFR
1356.85(b)(1). Since States submit at least some of the data elements
(i.e., demographics, characteristics and services) that are assessed
for compliance with the error-free data standard every reporting period
each year, a State that fails to comply with this standard may be
assessed a penalty each reporting period.
We have assigned a significant penalty amount to the error-free
compliance standard because we believe that quality data is very
important. In many cases, a State will be out of compliance with this
standard because of simple data entry errors. These errors can often be
avoided or overcome by thoroughly training State staff who input data
and closely adhering to the data element descriptions and response
options proposed in this regulation. Moreover, we have provided States
with 45 days between the end of the reporting period and the time when
the data file is due to us to review their data for these errors. We
believe, therefore, that a relatively high penalty is warranted to
encourage States to take all necessary steps to provide quality data.
In paragraph (b)(2)(ii), we propose a 1.25 percent penalty for a
State's noncompliance with the outcomes universe standard. As this
compliance standard is only applicable in years when a State must
submit data on the follow-up population of 19- and 21-year-olds, this
penalty can be assessed only in those years.
We determined that a relatively high penalty amount for
noncompliance with the outcomes universe standard was appropriate
because it is assessed when a State has failed to provide a minimal
amount of information on the 19- and 21-year-olds that we are requiring
States to follow. As stated earlier in the discussion on this
compliance standard (45 CFR 1356.85(b)(2)), we are simply requiring
here that a State indicate whether the State is reporting full or
partial outcome information on the youth, or why the State was unable
to obtain the information. Since providing this information for all
youth in the follow-up population requires a modicum of effort on the
part of the State in comparison to the other outcome-related compliance
standards, we believe a large penalty is warranted.
We are also limited by the statutory maximum penalty of five
percent in proposing an appropriate penalty level for a State's failure
to comply with the outcomes universe. Since a State may be out of
compliance with the outcomes universe standard as well as the error-
free standard (1.25 percent), the maximum penalty level we could choose
in accordance with the law is 1.25 percent for the reporting period.
In paragraph (b)(2)(iii), we propose a 0.5 percent penalty for a
State's noncompliance with the foster care youth participation rate. We
could assess this penalty in any year in which the State is required to
submit outcome data on the baseline population and may assess the
penalty in a year in which the State is required to submit outcome data
on the follow-up population, depending on whether there are 19- and 21-
year-olds in foster care.
In paragraph (b)(2)(iv), we propose a 0.5 percent penalty for a
State's noncompliance with the discharged youth participation rate. We
can assess this penalty only in a year in which the State is required
to submit outcome data on the follow-up population of 19- and 21-year-
olds.
The penalties for noncompliance with either the discharged youth or
foster care youth participation rates can only be assessed when the
State meets the outcomes compliance standard, as explained in the
discussion on 45 CFR 1356.85(b)(3).
We chose a 0.5 percent penalty, which we consider to be a
relatively small penalty amount, for both participation rates for a
number of reasons. First, we acknowledge that collecting outcome data
directly from youth is the most challenging aspect of the proposed
NYTD. Specifically, since collecting outcome data entails keeping track
of youth over time (at least for the follow-up population) and
soliciting the voluntary participation of the youth, we do not want to
penalize States harshly given these challenges. At the same time we
want to encourage States to collect outcomes information diligently, so
we considered a modest penalty--rather than no penalty--appropriate.
Second, the amount of the penalty had to be small enough so that in
combination with other potential penalties, the maximum penalty would
not be exceeded for the Federal fiscal year (5 percent). Since a State
could be in noncompliance with the error-free data (1.25 percent),
foster care youth participation (0.5 percent) and discharged youth
participation standards (0.5 percent), the maximum penalty for each
reporting period for a State in noncompliance on all three would be
2.25 percent. We considered assigning penalty levels for the
participation rates that would total 2.5 percent for the reporting
period if a State was out of compliance with all the data standards,
but chose not to avoid having penalty amounts that were less than 0.5
percent.
Third, we wanted to ensure that we did not create a disincentive
for a State to obtain youth outcome information in light of the other
penalties related to outcomes. That is, we wanted to ensure that the
penalties for failing to meet the participation rates did not exceed
the penalties for a State failing to submit data on the outcomes
universe. For example, a State that does not report outcome information
or why the State did not obtain outcome data for each youth in the
follow-up population will receive a larger penalty (1.25 percent) per
reporting period, than a State that provides information on all youth
in the follow-up population but fails to achieve both participation
rates (1.0 percent) in a reporting period.
We thought of proposing incentives to States to meet file
submission and data standards in the form of a prospective penalty
reduction for meeting certain data standards. This would further
encourage States to comply with the data requirements. Since we
understand
[[Page 40367]]
that collecting data in accordance with the proposed requirements will
represent a challenge to States, we wanted to explore avenues to
encourage States to comply. Although participants in the consultation
process did not mention incentives specifically, our experience with
AFCARS and other Child and Family Services Programs indicate that
States are very interested in incentives that encourage desired
behavior. Our initial thinking had been to propose a one percent
prospective penalty reduction for a State that complies with all of the
file submission and data standards in 45 CFR 1356.85 in a single fiscal
year. We also contemplated proposing a prospective penalty reduction of
0.5 percent for a State that meets the file submission standards and
the data submission standard for error-free data as defined in 45 CFR
1356.85(b)(1) in a single fiscal year. We ultimately decided that the
penalty amounts are rather small given the size of the Chafee
allotments. Furthermore, it would be too complex to implement an
``incentive'' that would also be rather small in amount at the same
time we were implementing a complicated penalty scheme. However, we are
interested in comments on the idea.
Calculation of the Penalty Amount. In paragraph (c), we explain how
we will take into account the assessed penalties in determining a final
amount of a State's penalty for noncompliance with the file submission
or data standards. We propose to add all applicable assessed penalties
in calculating the State's penalty amount for the reporting period. In
the event that a State is in noncompliance in any reporting period in a
Federal fiscal year and the total penalty amount would be less than one
percent of the State's annual CFCIP funds, we propose to penalize the
State one percent for the year.
We have set this minimum penalty of one percent for the year in
accordance with the statutory minimum in section 477(e)(2) of the Act,
which requires that the penalty structure range from one to five
percent of the State's annual CFCIP funds. Since we have chosen to base
penalties on a State's level of compliance for each reporting period,
there may be situations in which the State's assessed penalty is less
than one percent for the first reporting period. In that situation, we
will determine that the State's penalty amount is one percent of the
State's annual CFCIP for that first reporting period. Should the State
also be in noncompliance with any standard in the subsequent reporting
period in the Federal fiscal year, we will not penalize the State more
than the actual calculated penalty amount for the fiscal year.
For example, a State is out of compliance with the discharged youth
participation rate only in the first reporting period of a fiscal year,
which carries a 0.5 percent penalty for the reporting period. ACF will
notify the State that the State's penalty for the first reporting
period is one percent given the minimum penalty exception. In the
second reporting period of the same fiscal year, the State is out of
compliance with the error-free data standard only, which carries a 1.25
percent penalty for the reporting period. ACF will notify the State
that the State's penalty is 0.75 percent for the second reporting
period. This is because the State's total assessed penalty for the
fiscal year is 1.75 percent, of which the State's allocation has
already been reduced by one percent for the first reporting period. If
the same State was in compliance with all standards in the second
reporting period, the one percent minimum that the State's allocation
was reduced by in the first reporting period would stand.
Notification of penalty amount. In paragraph (d), we propose to
notify States officially of our final determination that the State is
out of compliance with the file submission or data standards following
an opportunity for corrective action. This notification will contain
the calculated penalty amount for noncompliance.
Interest. In paragraph (e), we propose that a State be liable for
applicable interest on the amount of funds we penalize, in accordance
with the regulations at 45 CFR 30.13. This proposal to collect interest
is consistent with Department-wide regulations and policy on collecting
on debts owed to the Federal government.
Appeals. In paragraph (f), we propose to provide the State with an
opportunity to appeal a final determination that the State is out of
compliance and any resulting penalties to the HHS Departmental Appeals
Board (DAB). Since the law does not require any unique appeal rights or
time frames regarding NYTD requirements, all appeals must follow the
DAB regulations in 45 CFR part 16.
Appendix A to Part 1356
The table in Appendix A of the proposed regulation outlines all of
the data elements described in 45 CFR 1356.83(g) and the response
options. The numbering of data elements in Appendix A corresponds with
the paragraph numbers of each data element identified in section
1356.83(g). As is discussed in 45 CFR 1356.83(h), ACF will provide
details of the acceptable format requirements at a later date.
Appendix B to Part 1356
The table in Appendix B of the proposed regulation presents the
questions the State must use in collecting outcome information on youth
in the baseline and follow-up populations. The table shows the data
element (reflecting the element name in Appendix A of the proposed
regulation), the question to elicit the information, and the definition
of the data element and terms used in the question. The table is
divided into two parts; the first part, subtitled ``Information to
Collect from All Youth Surveyed for Outcomes, Whether in Foster Care or
Not,'' contains questions for all youth in the baseline and follow-up
populations. The second part, subtitled ``Additional Information to
Collect from Youth Out Of Foster Care,'' contains questions that are
not applicable for youth still in foster care, and should only be asked
of young people in the follow-up population who are no longer in foster
care.
As was discussed earlier in the discussion on the data elements in
45 CFR 1356.83(g), there are several questions that are phrased in two
different ways; one way to elicit responses from 17-year-olds on their
lifetime experiences, and another to elicit responses from 19- and 21-
year-olds, on their experiences in the past two years. The State may
find it easier to design several different surveys that are specific to
the youth's age and foster care status that contain the applicable
questions only.
Finally, we designed the questions to be understood easily by both
the interviewer and/or the youth interviewed. Many of these questions
were pilot tested with both caseworkers and youth. In the tests, the
interviews were brief and the young people responded favorably to the
questions.
Appendix C to Part 1356
Appendix C of the proposed regulation presents the formulas the
State must use in calculating the number of youth to select into a
random sample for the purposes of collecting information from the
follow-up population. These formulas are standard and commonly used for
this purpose. Two formulas are presented, one for a State where the
number of interviewed 17-year-olds is 5,000 or less and one for a State
where the number of interviewed 17-year-olds is more than 5,000. The
formula for the smaller population requires the Finite Population
Correction (FPC) to reduce the sampling
[[Page 40368]]
error. The formula for the larger population does not require the FPC
because the sampling error does not need to be reduced.
For example, a large State has approximately 6,500 17-year-old
youth in foster care according to their AFCARS data on September 30,
2003. This State will not need to apply the FPC in determining their
sample size because they have a sampling frame of over 5,000 youth. The
State's sample size is 339. Alternatively, a State with a smaller youth
population of 1,200 17-year-olds in foster care will use the FPC to
determine their sample size, because the State has a sampling frame of
less than 5,000 youth. This State's sample size is 288.
V. Charts and Tables
Chart 1.--Outcomes and Relevant Data Elements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outcome measure Relevant data elements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outcome 1: Increase young people's Current full-time employment,
financial self-sufficiency. Current part-time employment,
Employment-related skills,
Social Security, Education
financial assistance, Public
financial assistance, Food
assistance, Housing
assistance, Other support.
Outcome 2: Improve young people's Highest educational
educational (academic or vocational) certification received,
attainment. Current enrollment/attendance.
Outcome 3: Increase young people's Connection to adult.
positive connections with adults.
Outcome 4: Reduce homelessness among Homelessness.
young people.
Outcome 5: Reduce high-risk behavior Substance abuse referral,
among young people. Incarceration, Children,
Marriage at child's birth.
Outcome 6: Improve young people's Medicaid, Other health
access to health insurance. insurance coverage, Health
insurance type.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1.--Example of State Sample Sizes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
State 17-year- Minimum
olds sample size
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama....................................... 466 223
Alaska........................................ 96 92
Arizona....................................... 581 241
Arkansas...................................... 266 175
California.................................... 7,678 341
Colorado...................................... 787 263
Connecticut................................... 501 229
Delaware...................................... 79 79
Dist of Col................................... 157 130
Florida....................................... 1,465 298
Georgia....................................... 833 267
Hawaii........................................ 181 142
Idaho......................................... 103 97
Illinois...................................... 1,189 288
Indiana....................................... 573 240
Iowa.......................................... 669 251
Kansas........................................ 503 230
Kentucky...................................... 717 256
Louisiana..................................... 380 206
Maine......................................... 238 165
Maryland...................................... 794 263
Massachusetts................................. 1,237 290
Michigan...................................... 1,725 305
Minnesota..................................... 813 265
Mississippi................................... 179 141
Missouri...................................... 843 267
Montana....................................... 117 107
Nebraska...................................... 755 260
Nevada........................................ 159 131
New Hampshire................................. 104 98
New Jersey.................................... 789 263
New Mexico.................................... 111 103
New York...................................... 2,824 322
North Carolina................................ 640 248
North Dakota.................................. 122 110
Ohio.......................................... 1,608 302
Oklahoma...................................... 476 225
Oregon........................................ 466 223
Pennsylvania.................................. 2,063 312
Rhode Island.................................. 269 176
South Carolina................................ 420 215
South Dakota.................................. 92 90
Tennessee..................................... 1,107 284
Texas......................................... 1,411 296
Utah.......................................... 224 160
Vermont....................................... 198 149
Virginia...................................... 835 267
Washington.................................... 457 222
West Virginia................................. 439 218
Wisconsin..................................... 590 242
Wyoming....................................... 153 128
Puerto Rico................................... 329 194
-------------------------
Totals.................................... 39,811 11,088
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table shows potential sample sizes based on the number of 17-
year-olds in foster care. We calculated the total number of 17-year-
olds from AFCARS data by summing: (1) the number of 17-year-olds who
were in foster care as of September 30, 2004; and, (2) the number of
17-year-olds who had exited foster care during the previous six months.
Chart 2.--Overview of the Proposed NYTD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A State will report semi-annually on all youth receiving X X X X X
independent living services (the served population) and
the demographic characteristics of those youth. This
includes youth in foster care and those who have aged
out of foster care and are still receiving services.....
In Year One and every three years, the State will collect X ......... ......... X .........
and report on the outcomes of all 17 year olds in foster
care who complete a survey (the baseline population)....
In Year Four, the State will collect outcomes on a new
cohort of 17 year olds in foster care
In Year Three, the State will again collect and report on ......... ......... X ......... .........
the outcomes of the first cohort of youth from Year One
at age 19 (the follow up population)....................
In Year Six (not shown) the State will collect and report
on the outcomes for the second cohort of 17 year old
youth who are 19
In Year Five, the State will collect and report on the ......... ......... ......... ......... X
outcomes of the Year One cohort of 17 year old youth who
are now 21 years old (the follow up population).........
In Year Eight (not shown) the State will collect and
report outcomes data for the second cohort of youth who
are now 21 years old
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 40369]]
VI. IMPACT ANALYSIS
Executive Order 12866
Executive Order 12866 requires that regulations be drafted to
ensure that they are consistent with the priorities and principles set
forth in the Executive Order. The Department has determined that this
proposed rule is consistent with these priorities and principles. In
particular, we have determined that a regulation is the best and most
cost-effective way to implement the statutory mandate for a data
collection system to track the independent living services States
provide to youth and develop outcome measures that may be used to
assess State performance.
We have determined that the costs to the States as a result of this
rule will be minor. Many of the costs that States incur as a result of
NYTD may be eligible for Federal financial participation at the 50%
rate depending on whether the costs to develop and implement the NYTD
are allowable costs under a State's approved planning document for
SACWIS. States may also use their allotment of Federal Chafee funds to
implement NYTD. Additional costs to the Federal government to develop
and implement a system to collect NYTD data are expected to be minimal.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Secretary certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), as enacted by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354), that this rule will not
result in a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This proposed rule does not affect small entities because it
is applicable only to State agencies that administer child and family
services programs and the title IV-E CFCIP program.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies
to prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before
proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure by State,
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation). This
proposed rule does not impose any mandates on State, local or tribal
governments, or the private sector that will result in an annual
expenditure of $100,000,000 or more.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104-13), all Departments
are required to submit to OMB for review and approval any reporting or
record-keeping requirements inherent in a proposed or final rule. This
NPRM contains information collection requirements in sections 1356.82
and 1356.83 that the Department has submitted to OMB for its review.
The respondents to the information collection in this proposed rule are
State agencies.
The Department requires this collection of information to address
the data collection requirements of the John H. Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program. Specifically, the law requires the Secretary to
track youths' demographic characteristics and independent living
services provided and to develop outcome measures that can be used to
assess the performance of States in operating independent living
programs.
The following are estimates:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Average
Instruments: Number of responses per burden per Total burden
respondents respondent response hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. NYTD......................................... 52 2 1,580 hours 164,360
2. NYTD Youth Outcome Survey.................... 23,903 1 0.25 hours 5,976
---------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL....................................... .............. .............. .............. 170,336
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This information collection will be comprised of:
(1) The State's submission to ACF of two-semi-annual data files
that contain information on all data elements regarding youth services,
demographics, characteristics and outcomes. A State will collect this
information on an ongoing basis. The total annual burden will vary from
year to year; the burden will be lower in years in which States do not
have to collect information on youth outcomes. Years in which a State
must expend effort to track or maintain contacts with youth as they age
from 17 years old through 21 will have the highest total burden hours;
and,
(2) A survey composed of up to 19 questions on youth outcomes (that
correspond with 19 data elements in the first instrument) to be
completed by youth in the baseline and/or follow-up populations.
Determining Burden Estimates for the NYTD
Using AFCARS data and interviews with States, we estimated that the
average number of youth per State who receive independent living
services annually is 2,518. This figure is based on estimates that
include only children 14 and above (because it was determined unlikely
that younger children would be receiving independent living services);
an estimate that 50% of children ages 14-15 will be served based on
interviews with States; and an estimate that 90% of youth in foster
care ages 16 and higher will be served, again based on interviews with
States. This number also includes estimates of the number of youth
formerly in a State's foster care system who received or are receiving
independent living services as well as eligible youth who were never in
the State's foster care system (these youth may have been in foster
care in another State).
Based on these and other sources, we estimate that the average
amount of staff time per youth to collect and record services,
demographic and characteristics data will be 30 minutes per youth per
reporting period. This estimate is based on a pilot test, and on
experience with AFCARS and other data systems.
States will collect and report outcomes information on the youth at
three specific intervals: on or about the youth's 17th birthday while
the youth is in foster care; on or about the youth's 19th birthday; and
again on or about the youth's 21st birthday. The data collection for 19
and 21-year-olds will include only those youth 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 age 19 and 21.
We used AFCARS data to determine that there will be, on average,
approximately 766 youth annually per State in the baseline population
of 17-year-olds in foster care. We expect it will take a State worker
approximately one quarter hour to collect and report outcome data. We
expect that States will collect and report outcome data on
approximately 80% of the 19- and 21-
[[Page 40370]]
year-olds in the follow-up population (on average 613 youth per State).
In order to determine the total burden hours per respondent, we
include the number of hours it will take States to track the
whereabouts of these youth at age 19. We do not build into the
calculation the burden of tracking the 17-year-olds because we expect
States to know the whereabouts of the 17-year-olds since they will
still be in foster care. We estimate it will take approximately a total
of two hours of staff time per youth to keep track of the youth's
whereabouts over the two-year period.
In order to determine the average State burden (hours) per response
we added the number of hours it would take for the State to collect and
report on each youth expected to receive services in each of the first
three years, the number of hours it would take for the State to survey
each youth for outcomes over the same three year period and the number
of hours it would take for the State to track the whereabouts of the
young people for outcomes during the same time-period. We averaged the
result, 4,563 hours, over the three years to conclude an estimated
average burden per response of 1,521 hours.
Determining burden estimates for the NYTD Youth Outcomes Survey
Using AFCARS information and interviews with States, we estimated
there will be approximately 766 17-year-olds in the baseline population
in each State who will respond to the NYTD Youth Outcomes Survey. We
expect States will survey approximately 80% of these youth again at age
19 (approximately 613 youth per State). There are a total of 19
questions on the survey that elicit information from a youth on his/her
outcomes. All of the information needed to complete the survey is
readily accessible to the youth, because it primarily covers the
youth's own experiences and current situation. For the most part these
questions have simple yes or no answers. A State may present the survey
to youth in several different ways i.e.; via the internet, by phone,
via the mail or in person at the youth's home or the agency's offices.
We estimate however it is presented, it will take no more than one
quarter hour to complete the survey based on the number of questions
involved and the accessibility to the youth of the answers. We estimate
the total number of respondents in Year 1 will be 39,832 (766 x 52). We
estimate the total burden hours will be 9,958 in Year 1 when youth in
the baseline population complete the survey (39,832 x 0.25). We
estimate the total number of respondents in Year 3 will be 31,876 (613
x 52) when 19 year-old members of the follow-up population complete the
survey. We estimate the total burden hours will be 7,969 in Year 3.
This is an over-estimate given the fact that many States may choose to
survey a sample of 19-year-olds. These States will have fewer young
people who must complete the survey at age 19.
NYTD Three-Year Timeline
Year One--A State will report on all youth receiving independent
living services and the demographic characteristics of those youth. All
17-year-olds in foster care (the baseline population) who opt to will
complete the NTYD Youth Outcome Survey. A State will collect and report
the outcomes data from the survey for the baseline population.
Year Two--A State will report on all youth receiving independent
living services and the demographic characteristics of those youth.
There will not be any information collected or reported on outcomes in
this year.
Year Three--A State will report on all youth receiving independent
living services and the demographic characteristics of those youth.
Youth in the State who were in the cohort of 17-year-olds who are now
19 years old (the follow-up population) will complete the NTYD Youth
Outcomes Survey. A State will collect and report the outcomes data.
The following table summarizes the phase-in period and the
reporting that will be required in each fiscal year of the first five
years that NYTD is operational:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All youth receiving 17-year-olds in
Required reporting services and their foster care for 19-year-olds for 21-year-olds for
characteristics outcomes outcomes outcomes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1......................... A. X B. X
Year 2......................... C. X
Year 3......................... D. X .................. E. X
Year 4......................... F. X G. X
Year 5......................... H. X .................. .................. I. X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administration for Children and Families is particularly
interested in comments by the public on this proposed collection of
information in the following areas:
Evaluating whether the proposed collection(s) is [are]
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of ACF, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
Evaluating the accuracy of the ACF's estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection[s] of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
Minimizing the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technology, e.g.,
permitting electronic submission of responses.
Estimates or examples of actual State costs for the
collection of information, particularly as it relates to conducting
youth outcome surveys, tracking youth who will and have left foster
care, and collecting data on services.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication. This does not affect the
deadline for the public to comment to the Department on the proposed
regulations. Written comments to OMB for the proposed information
collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of
Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the
Administration for Children and Families.
[[Page 40371]]
Congressional Review
This regulation is not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. Chapter
8.
Assessment of Federal Regulations on Policies and Families
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act of 1999 requires Federal agencies to determine whether a proposed
policy or regulation may affect family well-being. If the agency's
determination is affirmative, then the agency must prepare an impact
assessment addressing criteria specified in the law. These proposed
regulations will have an impact on family well-being as defined in the
legislation by tracking independent living services provided to youth,
developing outcome measures, and assessing a State's performance in
operating an independent living program. We expect that States will be
able to improve their programs for youth in foster care based on an
understanding of how their services affect youth outcomes through this
data, which will lead to positive influences on the behavior and
personal responsibility of youth.
Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132 on Federalism requires that Federal agencies
consult with State and local government officials in the development of
regulatory policies with Federalism implications. Consistent with
Executive Order 13132, we specifically solicit comment from State and
local government officials on this proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 1356
Adoption and Foster Care.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 93,658,
Foster Care Maintenance)
Dated: October 25, 2005.
Wade F. Horn,
Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.
Approved: March 24, 2006.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Secretary.
Editorial Note: This document was received in the Office of the
Federal Register June 30, 2006.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 45 CFR part 1356 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 1356--REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TITLE IV-E
1. The authority citation for part 1356 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 620 et seq., 42 U.S.C. 670 et seq.; 42
U.S.C. 1302.
2. Sections 1356.80 through 1356.86 and Appendix A to Part 1356 are
added to read as follows:
Sec. 1356.80 Scope of the National Youth in Transition Database.
The requirements of the National Youth in Transition Database
(NYTD) Sec. Sec. 1356.81 through 1356.86 of this part apply to the
agency in any State, the District of Columbia, or Territory, that
administers the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP) under
section 477 of the Social Security Act (the Act).
Sec. 1356.81 Reporting population.
The reporting population is comprised of all youth in the following
categories:
(a) Served population: Each youth who received independent living
services paid for or provided by the State agency during the reporting
period.
(b) Baseline population: Each youth who is in foster care as
defined in section 1355.20 of this part and reaches his or her 17th
birthday during a specified Federal fiscal year.
(c) Follow-up population: Each youth who reaches his or her 19th or
21st birthday in a Federal fiscal year and had participated in data
collection as part of the baseline population, as specified in Sec.
1356.82(a)(2) of this part. A youth has participated in the outcomes
data collection if the State agency reports to ACF a valid response
(i.e., a response option other than ``declined'' and ``not
applicable'') to any of the outcomes-related elements described in
Sec. 1356.83(g)(38) through (g)(60) of this part.
Sec. 1356.82 Data Collection Requirements.
(a) The State agency must collect applicable information as
specified in section 1356.83 of this part on the reporting population
defined in section 1356.81 of this part in accordance with the
following:
(1) For each youth in the served population, the State agency must
collect information for the data elements specified in Sec. 1356.83(b)
and (c) of this part on an ongoing basis, for as long as the youth
receives services.
(2) For each youth in the baseline population, the State agency
must collect information for the data elements specified in Sec.
1356.83(b) and (d) of this part. The State agency must collect this
information on a new baseline population every three years.
(i) For each youth in foster care who turns age 17 in the first
Federal fiscal year of implementation, the State agency must collect
this information within 45 days following the youth's 17th birthday,
but not before that birthday.
(ii) Every third Federal fiscal year thereafter, the State agency
must collect this information on each youth in foster care who turns
age 17 during the year within 45 days following the youth's 17th
birthday, but not before that birthday.
(iii) The State agency must collect this information using the
survey questions in Appendix B of this part entitled ``Information to
collect from all youth surveyed for outcomes, whether in foster care or
not.''
(3) For each youth in the follow-up population, the State agency
must collect information on the data elements specified in Sec.
1356.83(b) and (e) of this part within the reporting period of the
youth's 19th and 21st birthday. The State agency must collect the
information using the appropriate survey questions in Appendix B of
this part, depending upon whether the youth is in foster care.
(b) The State agency may select a sample of the 17-year-olds in the
baseline population to follow over time consistent with the sampling
requirements described in Sec. 1356.84 of this part to satisfy the
data collection requirements in paragraph (a)(3) of this section for
the follow-up population.
Sec. 1356.83 Reporting Requirements and Data Elements.
(a) Reporting periods and deadlines. The six-month reporting
periods are from October 1 to March 31 and April 1 to September 30. The
State agency must submit data files that include the information
specified in this section to ACF on a semi-annual basis, within 45 days
of the end of the reporting period (i.e., by May 15 and November 14).
(b) Data elements for all youth. The State agency must report the
data elements described in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(13) of this
section for each youth in the entire reporting population defined in
Sec. 1356.81 of this part.
(c) Data elements for served youth. The State agency must report
the data elements described in paragraphs (g)(14) through (g)(33) of
this section for each youth in the served population defined in Sec.
1356.81(a) of this part.
(d) Data elements for baseline youth. The State agency must report
the data elements described in paragraphs (g)(34) through (g)(60) of
this section for each youth in the baseline population defined in Sec.
1356.81(b) of this part.
(e) Data elements for follow-up youth. The State agency must report
the data elements described in paragraphs (g)(34) through (g)(60) of
this section for each
[[Page 40372]]
youth in the follow-up population defined in Sec. 1356.81(c) of this
part or alternatively, for each youth selected in accordance with the
sampling procedures in Sec. 1356.84 of this part.
(f) Single youth record. The State agency must report all
applicable data elements for a youth in one record per reporting
period.
(g) Data element descriptions. For each element described in
paragraphs (1) through (60), the State agency must indicate the
applicable response as instructed.
(1) State. State means the State responsible for reporting on the
youth. Indicate the first two digits of the State's Federal Information
Processing Standard (FIPS) code for the State submitting the report to
ACF.
(2) Report date. The report date corresponds with the end of the
current reporting period. Indicate the last month and the year of the
reporting period.
(3) Record number. The record number is the encrypted, unique
person identification number for the youth. The State agency must apply
and retain the same encryption routine or method for the person
identification number across all reporting periods. The record number
must be encrypted in accordance with ACF standards. Indicate the record
number for the youth.
(i) If the youth is in foster care during the current reporting
period or was in foster care under the placement and care
responsibility of the State agency during a previous reporting period,
the State agency must use and report to the NYTD the same person
identification number for the youth the State agency reports to AFCARS.
The person identification number must remain the same for the youth
wherever the youth is living and in any subsequent NYTD reports.
(ii) If the youth was never in the State's foster care system, the
State agency must assign a person identification number that must
remain the same for the youth wherever the youth is living and in any
subsequent reports to NYTD.
(4) Date of birth. The youth's date of birth. Indicate the year,
month, and day of the youth's birth.
(5) Sex. The youth's gender. Indicate whether the youth is male or
female as appropriate.
(6) Race: American Indian or Alaska Native. In general, a youth's
race is determined by the youth or the youth's parent(s). A youth has
origins in any of the original peoples of North or South America
(including Central America), and maintains tribal affiliation or
community attachment. Indicate whether this racial category applies for
the youth, with a ``yes'' or ``no.''
(7) Race: Asian. In general, a youth's race is determined by the
youth or the youth's parent(s). A youth has origins in any of the
original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian
subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan,
Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and
Vietnam. Indicate whether this racial category applies for the youth,
with a ``yes'' or ``no.''
(8) Race: Black or African American. In general, a youth's race is
determined by the youth or the youth's parent(s). A youth has origins
in any of the black racial groups of Africa. Indicate whether this
racial category applies for the youth, with a ``yes'' or ``no.''
(9) Race: Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. In general, a
youth's race is determined by the youth or the youth's parent(s). A
youth has origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam,
Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. Indicate whether this racial category
applies for the youth, with a ``yes'' or ``no.''
(10) Race: White. In general, a youth's race is determined by the
youth or the youth's parent(s). A youth has origins in any of the
original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. Indicate
whether this racial category applies for the youth, with a ``yes'' or
``no.''
(11) Race: Unknown/Unable to Determine. The race, or at least one
race of the youth is unknown, or the youth or parent is unable to
communicate (due to age, disability or abandonment) the youth's race.
Indicate whether this category applies for the youth, with a ``yes'' or
``no.''
(12) Race: Declined. The youth or parent has declined to identify a
race. Indicate whether this category applies for the youth, with a
``yes'' or ``no''.
(13) Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity. In general, a youth's ethnicity
is determined by the youth or the youth's parent(s). A youth is of
Hispanic or Latino ethnicity if the youth is a person of Cuban,
Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish
culture or origin, regardless of race. Indicate which category applies,
with ``yes,'' ``no,'' ``unknown/unable to determine,'' or ``declined,''
as appropriate. ``Unknown/unable to determine'' means that the youth or
parent is unable to communicate (due to age, disability or abandonment)
the youth's ethnicity. ``Declined'' means that the youth or parent has
declined to identify the youth's ethnicity.
(14) Foster care status--services. The youth receiving services is
or was in foster care during the reporting period if the youth is or
was in the placement and care responsibility of the State title IV-B/
IV-E agency in accordance with the definition of foster care in section
1355.20 of this part. Indicate whether the youth is or was in foster
care at any point during the reporting period, with a ``yes'' or ``no''
as appropriate. If the youth is not in the served population this
element must be left blank.
(15) Local agency. The local agency is the county or equivalent
jurisdictional unit that has primary responsibility for the youth's
placement and care if the youth is in foster care, or that has primary
responsibility for providing services to the youth if the youth is not
in foster care. Indicate the five-digit Federal Information Processing
Standard (FIPS) code(s) that corresponds to the identity of the county
or equivalent unit jurisdiction(s) that meets these criteria during the
reporting period. If a youth who is not in foster care is provided
services by a centralized unit only, rather than a county agency,
indicate ``centralized unit.'' If the youth is not in the served
population this element must be left blank.
(16) Tribal membership. The youth is a tribal member if the youth
is enrolled in or eligible for membership in a federally recognized
tribe. The term ``federally recognized tribe,'' means any Indian tribe,
band, nation, or other organized group or community of Indians,
including any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation
as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (43 U.S.C 1601 et seq.), that is recognized as eligible
for the special programs and services provided by the United States to
Indians because of their status as Indians pursuant to the Indian Self-
Determination and Educational Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.).
Indicate ``yes'' or ``no'' as appropriate. If the youth is not in the
served population this element must be left blank.
(17) Adjudicated delinquent. Adjudicated delinquent means that a
State or Federal court of competent jurisdiction has adjudicated a
youth as a delinquent. Indicate ``yes,'' or ``no'' as appropriate. If
the youth is not in the served population this element must be left
blank.
(18) Educational level. Educational level means the highest
educational level completed by the youth. For example, for a youth
currently in 11th grade, ``10th grade'' is the highest educational
level completed. Post-
[[Page 40373]]
secondary education or training refers to any other post-secondary
education or training, other than an education pursued at a college or
university. College refers to completing at least a semester of study
at a college or university. Indicate the highest educational level
completed by the youth during the reporting period. If the youth is not
in the served population this element must be left blank.
(19) Special education. The term ``special education,'' means
specifically designed instruction, at no cost to parents, to meet the
unique needs of a child with a disability. Indicate whether the youth
has received special education instruction during the reporting period,
with a ``yes'' or ``no,'' as appropriate. If the youth is not in the
served population this element must be left blank.
(20) Independent living needs assessment. An independent living
needs assessment is a systematic procedure to identify a youth's basic
skills, emotional and social capabilities, strengths, and weaknesses to
match the youth with appropriate independent living services. An
independent living needs assessment may address knowledge of basic
living skills, job readiness, money management abilities, decision-
making skills, goal setting, task completion, and transitional living
needs. Indicate whether the youth received an independent living needs
assessment during the reporting period, with a ``yes'' or ``no'', as
appropriate. If the youth is not in the served population this element
must be left blank.
(21) Academic support. Academic supports are services designed to
help a youth complete high school or obtain a General Equivalency
Degree (GED). Such services include the following: academic counseling;
preparation for a GED, including assistance in applying for or studying
for a GED exam; tutoring; help with homework; study skills training;
literacy training; and help accessing educational resources. Academic
support does not include a youth's general attendance in high school.
Indicate whether the youth received academic supports during the
reporting period with a ``yes'' or ``no'' as appropriate. If the youth
is not in the served population this element must be left blank.
(22) Post-secondary educational support. Post-secondary educational
support are services designed to help a youth enter or complete
college, and include the following: classes for test preparation, such
as the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT); counseling about college;
information about financial aid and scholarships; help completing
college or loan applications; or tutoring while in college. Indicate
whether the youth received post-secondary educational support during
the reporting period with a ``yes'' or ``no'' as appropriate. If the
youth is not in the served population this element must be left blank.
(23) Career preparation. Career preparation services focus on
developing a youth's ability to find, apply for, and retain appropriate
employment. Career preparation includes the following types of
instruction and support services: Vocational and career assessment,
including career exploration and planning, guidance in setting and
assessing vocational and career interests and skills, and help in
matching interests and abilities with vocational goals; job seeking and
job placement support, including identifying potential employers,
writing resumes, completing job applications, developing interview
skills, job shadowing, receiving job referrals, using career resource
libraries, understanding employee benefits coverage, and securing work
permits; retention support, including job coaching; learning how to
work with employers and other employees; understanding workplace values
such as timeliness and appearance; and understanding authority and
customer relationships. Indicate whether the youth received career
preparation services during the reporting period with a ``yes'' or
``no'' as appropriate. If the youth is not in the served population
this element must be left blank.
(24) Employment programs or vocational training. Employment
programs and vocational training are designed to build a youth's skills
for a specific trade, vocation, or career through classes or on-site
training. Employment programs include a youth's participation in an
apprenticeship, internship, or summer employment program and do not
include summer or after-school jobs secured by the youth alone.
Vocational training includes a youth's participation in vocational or
trade programs in school or through nonprofit, commercial or private
sectors and the receipt of training in occupational classes for such
skills as cosmetology, auto mechanics, building trades, nursing,
computer science, and other current or emerging employment sectors.
Indicate whether the youth attended an employment program or received
vocational training during the reporting period, with a ``yes'' or
``no'' as appropriate. If the youth is not in the served population
this element must be left blank.
(25) Budget and financial management. Budget and financial
management assistance includes the following types of training and
practice: living within a budget; opening and using a checking and
savings account; balancing a checkbook; developing consumer awareness
and smart shopping skills; accessing information about credit, loans
and taxes; and filling out tax forms. Indicate whether the youth
received budget and financial management assistance during the
reporting period with a ``yes'' or ``no'' as appropriate. If the youth
is not in the served population this element must be left blank.
(26) Housing education and home management training. Housing
education includes assistance or training in: locating and maintaining
housing, including filling out a rental application and acquiring a
lease, handling security deposits and utilities, understanding
practices for keeping a healthy and safe home; understanding tenants
rights and responsibilities, and handling landlord complaints. Home
management includes instruction in food preparation, laundry,
housekeeping, living cooperatively, meal planning, grocery shopping and
basic maintenance and repairs. Indicate whether the youth received
housing education or home management training during the reporting
period with a ``yes'' or ``no'' as appropriate. If the youth is not in
the served population this element must be left blank.
(27) Health education and risk prevention. Health education and
risk prevention includes providing information about: hygiene,
nutrition, fitness and exercise, and first aid; medical and dental care
benefits, health care resources and insurance, prenatal care and
maintaining personal medical records; sex education, abstinence
education, and HIV prevention, including education and information
about sexual development and sexuality, pregnancy prevention and family
planning, and sexually transmitted diseases and AIDS; substance abuse
prevention and intervention, including education and information about
the effects and consequences of substance use (alcohol, drugs, tobacco)
and substance avoidance and intervention. Health education and risk
prevention does not include the youth's actual receipt of direct
medical care or substance abuse treatment. Indicate whether the youth
received these services during the reporting period with a ``yes'' or
``no'' as appropriate. If the youth is not in the
[[Page 40374]]
served population this element must be left blank.
(28) Family support and healthy marriage education. Such services
include education and information about safe and stable families,
healthy marriages, spousal communication, parenting, responsible
fatherhood, childcare skills, teen parenting, and domestic and family
violence prevention. Indicate whether the youth received these services
during the reporting period with a ``yes'' or ``no'' as appropriate. If
the youth is not in the served population this element must be left
blank.
(29) Mentoring. Mentoring means that the youth has been matched
with a screened and trained adult for a one-on-one relationship that
involves the two meeting on a regular basis. Mentoring can be short-
term but it may also support the development of a long-term
relationship. While youth often are connected to adult role models
through school, work, or family, this service category only includes a
mentor relationship that has been facilitated or funded by the child
welfare agency or its staff. Indicate whether the youth received
mentoring services during the reporting period with a ``yes'' or ``no''
as appropriate. If the youth is not in the served population this
element must be left blank.
(30) Supervised independent living. Supervised independent living
means that the youth is living independently under a supervised
arrangement that is sponsored, facilitated, or referred to by the child
welfare agency. A youth in supervised independent living is not
supervised 24-hours a day by an adult and often is provided with
increased responsibilities, such as paying bills, assuming leases, and
working with a landlord, while under the supervision of an adult.
Indicate whether the youth was living in a supervised independent
living setting during the reporting period with a ``yes'' or ``no'' as
appropriate. If the youth is not in the served population this element
must be left blank.
(31) Room and board financial assistance. Room and board financial
assistance includes payments that the State agency makes or provides
for room and board, including rent deposits, utilities, and other
household start-up expenses. Indicate whether the youth received
financial assistance with room and board during the reporting period
with a ``yes'' or ``no'' as appropriate. If the youth is not in the
served population this element must be left blank.
(32) Education financial assistance. Education financial assistance
includes payments for education or training, including allowances to
purchase textbooks, uniforms, computers, and other educational
supplies; tuition assistance; scholarships; payment for educational
preparation and support services (i.e., tutoring), and payment for GED
and other educational tests that are paid for or provided by the State
agency. This financial assistance also includes vouchers for tuition or
vocational education or tuition waiver programs paid for or provided by
the State agency. Indicate whether the youth received education
financial assistance during the reporting period with a ``yes'' or
``no'' as appropriate. If the youth is not in the served population
this element must be left blank.
(33) Other financial assistance. Other financial assistance
includes any other payments made or provided by the State agency to
help the youth live independently. Indicate whether the youth received
any other financial assistance during the reporting period, with a
``yes'' or ``no'' as appropriate. If the youth is not in the served
population this element must be left blank.
(34) Outcomes reporting status. If the State agency collects and
reports information on any of the data elements in paragraphs (g)(38)
through (g)(60) for a youth in the baseline or follow-up population,
indicate that the youth participated. If the State agency is unable to
report any of these data elements for a youth in the baseline or
follow-up populations, indicate the reason. If the youth is not in the
baseline or follow-up population this element must be left blank.
(i) Youth participated. The youth participated in the outcome
survey, either fully or partially.
(ii) Youth declined. The State agency located the youth
successfully and invited the youth's participation, but the youth
declined to participate in the data collection.
(iii) Parent declined. The State agency invited the youth's
participation, but the youth's parent/guardian declined to grant
permission. This response may be used only when the youth has not
reached the age of majority in the State and State law or policy
requires a parent/guardian's permission for the youth to participate in
information collection activities.
(iv) Incapacitated. The youth has a permanent or temporary mental
or physical condition that prevents him or her from participating in
the outcomes data collection.
(v) Incarcerated. The youth is unable to participate in the
outcomes data collection because of his or her incarceration.
(vi) Runaway/missing. A youth in foster care is known to have run
away or be missing from his or her foster care placement.
(vii) Unable to locate/invite. The State agency could not locate a
youth who is not in foster care or otherwise invite such a youth's
participation.
(viii) Death. The youth died prior to his participation in the
outcomes data collection.
(35) Date of outcome data collection. The date of outcome data
collection is the latest date that the agency collected data from a
youth for the elements described in paragraphs (g)(38) through (g)(60)
of this section. Indicate the month, day and year of the outcomes data
collection. If the youth is not in the baseline or follow-up population
this element must be left blank.
(36) Foster care status--outcomes. The youth is in foster care if
the youth is under the placement and care responsibility of the State
title IV-B/IV-E agency in accordance with the definition of foster care
in section 1355.20 of this part. Indicate whether the youth is in
foster care on the date of outcomes data collection, with a ``yes'' or
``no'' as appropriate. If the youth is not in the baseline or follow-up
population this element must be left blank.
(37) Sampling status. Indicate whether a youth who has participated
in the outcomes data collection as part of the baseline population
currently (a 17-year-old in foster care) has been selected by the State
agency to be surveyed for outcomes as part of the follow-up population
(at ages 19 and 21). Indicate ``yes'' if the youth will be a part of
the sample or the State agency will follow-up with all youth in the
baseline population, ``no'' if the youth will not be a part of the
follow-up population or sample, and ``not applicable'' if the State
agency is not collecting information on the baseline population during
the current reporting period. If the youth is not in the baseline or
follow-up population this element must be left blank.
(38) Current full-time employment. A youth is employed full-time if
employed at least 35 hours per week as of the date of the outcome data
collection. Indicate whether the youth is employed full-time, with a
``yes'' or ``no'' as appropriate. If the youth does not answer this
question indicate ``declined.'' If the youth is not in the baseline or
follow-up population this element must be left blank.
(39) Current part-time employment. A youth is employed part-time if
[[Page 40375]]
employed between one and 34 hours per week as of the date of the
outcome data collection. Indicate whether the youth is employed part-
time, with a ``yes'' or ``no.'' If the youth does not answer this
question, indicate ``declined.'' If the youth is not in the baseline or
follow-up population this element must be left blank.
(40) Employment-related skills. A youth has obtained employment-
related skills if the youth completed an apprenticeship, internship, or
other on-the-job training, either paid or unpaid, in the past year. The
experience must help the youth acquire employment-related skills, such
as specific trade skills such as carpentry or auto mechanics, or office
skills such as word processing or use of office equipment. Indicate
whether the youth has obtained employment-related skills, with a
``yes'' or ``no'' as appropriate. If the youth does not answer this
question, indicate ``declined.'' If the youth is not in the baseline or
follow-up population this element must be left blank.
(41) Social Security. A youth is receiving some form of Social
Security if receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social
Security Disability Insurance, either directly or as a dependent
beneficiary as of the date of the outcome data collection. SSI payments
are made to eligible low-income persons with disabilities. Social
Security Disability Insurance payments are made to persons with a
certain amount of work history who become disabled. A youth may receive
Social Security Disability Insurance payments through a parent.
Indicate whether the youth is receiving a form of Social Security
payments, with a ``yes'' or ``no'' as appropriate. If the youth does
not answer this question, indicate ``declined.'' If the youth is not in
the baseline or follow-up population this element must be left blank.
(42) Educational aid. A youth is receiving educational aid if using
a scholarship, voucher (including Chafee education or training
vouchers), grant, stipend, student loan, or other type of educational
financial aid to cover any living or educational expenses as of the
date of the outcome data collection. Scholarships, grants, and stipends
are funds awarded for spending on expenses related to gaining an
education. ``Student loan'' means a government-guaranteed, low-interest
loan for students in post-secondary education. Indicate whether the
youth is receiving educational aid, with a ``yes'' or ``no'' as
appropriate. If the youth does not answer this question, indicate
``declined.'' If the youth is not in the baseline or follow-up
population this element must be left blank.
(43) Public financial assistance. A youth is receiving public
financial assistance if receiving cash payments under TANF or the
State's title IV-A family assistance cash payment program (title IV-A
of the Social Security Act), as of the date of the outcome data
collection. Indicate whether the youth is receiving public financial
assistance, with ``yes,'' ``no'' as appropriate, or ``not applicable''
for a youth still in foster care. If the youth does not answer this
question, indicate ``declined.'' If the youth is not in the baseline or
follow-up population this element must be left blank.
(44) Food assistance. A youth is receiving food assistance if
receiving food stamps in any form (i.e., government-sponsored checks,
coupons or debit cards) to buy eligible food at authorized stores as of
the date of the outcome data collection. This definition includes
receiving food assistance through the Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
program. Indicate whether the youth is receiving some form of food
assistance with ``yes,'' ``no'' or ``not applicable'' for a youth still
in foster care. If the youth does not answer this question, indicate
``declined.'' If the youth is not in the baseline or follow-up
population this element must be left blank.
(45) Housing assistance. A youth is receiving housing assistance if
the youth is living in government-funded public housing, or receiving a
government-funded housing voucher to pay for part of his/her housing
costs as of the date of the outcome data collection. Chafee room and
board payments are not included in this definition. Indicate whether
the youth is receiving housing assistance with ``yes,'' ``no'' or ``not
applicable'' if a youth still in foster care. If the youth does not
answer this question, indicate ``declined.'' If the youth is not in the
baseline or follow-up population this element must be left blank.
(46) Other support. A youth has other support if receiving any
other ongoing financial resources or support from another source, such
as from a spouse or members of the birth or foster family, as of the
date of outcome data collection. This definition does not include
occasional gifts, such as birthday or graduation checks or small
donations of food or personal incidentals and excludes support from any
sources listed in the elements described in paragraphs (g)(41) through
(g)(45) of this section. Indicate whether the youth is receiving any
other financial support with a ``yes'' or ``no.'' If the youth does not
answer this question, indicate ``declined.'' If the youth is not in the
baseline or follow-up population this element must be left blank.
(47) Highest educational certification received. A youth has
received an education certificate if the youth has a high school
diploma or general equivalency degree (GED), vocational certificate,
vocational license, associate's degree (A.A.), bachelor's degree (B.A.
or B.S.), or a higher degree as of the date of the outcome data
collection. Indicate the highest degree that the youth has received. If
the youth does not answer this question, indicate ``declined.'' If the
youth is not in the baseline or follow-up population this element must
be left blank.
(i) A vocational certificate is a document stating that a person
has received education or training that qualifies him or her for a
particular job, e.g., auto mechanics or cosmetology.
(ii) A vocational license is a document that indicates that the
State or local government recognizes an individual as a qualified
professional in a particular trade or business.
(iii) An associate's degree is generally a two-year degree from a
community college.
(iv) A bachelor's degree is a four-year degree from a college or
university.
(v) A higher degree indicates a graduate degree, such as a Master's
Degree or a Juris Doctor (J.D.).
(vi) None of the above means that the youth has not received any of
the above educational certifications.
(48) Current enrollment and attendance. Indicate whether the youth
is enrolled in and attending high school, GED classes, or postsecondary
vocational training or college, as of the date of the outcome data
collection. A youth is still considered attending school if the youth
is enrolled while the school is currently out of session. Indicate
whether the youth is currently enrolled and attending school with a
``yes'' or ``no.'' If the youth does not answer this question, indicate
``declined.'' If the youth is not in the baseline or follow-up
population this element must be left blank.
(49) Connection to adult. A youth has a connection to an adult if
the youth knows as of the date of the outcome data collection, an adult
who he or she can go to for advice or guidance when there is a decision
to make or a problem to solve, or for companionship when celebrating
personal achievements. The adult must be easily accessible to the
youth, either by telephone or in person. This can include older
relatives or foster parents, but excludes peers, spouses and
[[Page 40376]]
current caseworkers. Indicate whether the youth has such a connection
with an adult, with a ``yes'' or ``no.'' If the youth does not answer
this question, indicate ``declined.'' If the youth is not in the
baseline or follow-up population this element must be left blank.
(50) Homelessness. A youth is considered to have experienced
homelessness if the youth had no regular place to live of his own. For
a 17-year-old youth in the baseline population, the data element
relates to a youth's lifetime experiences. For a 19 or 21-year-old
youth in the follow-up population, the data element relates to the
youth's experience in the past two years. This definition includes
situations where the youth is living in a car or on the street, staying
temporarily with a friend, or staying in a shelter. Indicate if the
youth has been homeless with a ``yes'' or ``no.'' If the youth does not
answer this question, indicate ``declined.'' If the youth is not in the
baseline or follow-up population this element must be left blank.
(51) Substance abuse referral. A youth has received a substance
abuse referral if the youth was referred for an alcohol or drug abuse
assessment or counseling. For a 17-year-old youth in the baseline
population, the data element relates to a youth's lifetime experience.
For a 19 or 21-year-old youth in the follow-up population, the data
element relates to the youth's experience in the past two years. This
definition includes either a self-referral or referral by a social
worker, school staff, physician, mental health worker, foster parent,
or other adult. Alcohol or drug abuse assessment is a process designed
to determine if someone has a problem with alcohol or drug use.
Indicate whether the youth had a substance abuse referral with a
``yes'' or ``no.'' If the youth does not answer this question, indicate
``declined.'' If the youth is not in the baseline or follow-up
population this element must be left blank.
(52) Incarceration. A youth is considered to have been incarcerated
if the youth was arrested, or was held or detained in a jail, prison,
correctional facility, or juvenile or community detention facility in
connection with allegedly committing a crime (misdemeanor or felony).
For a 17-year-old youth in the baseline population, the data element
relates to a youth's lifetime experience. For a 19-or 21-year-old youth
in the follow-up population, the data element relates to the youth's
experience in the past two years. Indicate whether the youth was
incarcerated or arrested with a ``yes'' or ``no'' as appropriate. If
the youth does not answer this question, indicate ``declined.'' If the
youth is not in the baseline or follow-up population this element must
be left blank.
(53) Children. A youth is considered to have a child if the youth
has given birth herself, or the youth has fathered any children who
were born. For a 17-year-old youth in the baseline population, the data
element relates to a youth's lifetime experience. For a 19-or 21-year-
old youth in the follow-up population, the data element refers to
children born to the youth in the past two years only. This refers to
biological parenthood. Indicate whether the youth had a child with a
``yes'' or ``no.'' If males say they do not know, indicate ``no.'' If
the youth does not answer this question, indicate ``declined.'' If the
youth is not in the baseline or follow-up population this element must
be left blank.
(54) Marriage at child's birth. A youth is married at the time of
the child's birth if he or she was united in matrimony according to the
laws of the State to the child's other parent. Indicate whether the
youth was married at the time of the birth of any child reported in the
element described in paragraph (g)(53) of this section, with a ``yes''
or ``no'' as appropriate. If the youth does not answer this question,
indicate ``declined.'' If the answer to the element described in
paragraph (g)(53) is ``no,'' indicate ``not applicable.'' If the youth
is not in the baseline or follow-up population this element must be
left blank.
(55) Medicaid. A youth is receiving Medicaid if the youth is
participating in a Medicaid-funded State program, which is a medical
assistance program supported by the Federal and State government under
title XIX of the Social Security Act as of the date of outcomes data
collection. Indicate whether the youth receives Medicaid with ``yes,''
``no'' or ``don't know'' as appropriate. If the youth does not answer
this question, indicate ``declined.'' If the youth is not in the
baseline or follow-up population this element must be left blank.
(56) Other health insurance coverage. A youth has other health
insurance if the youth has a third party pay (other than Medicaid) for
all or part of the costs of medical care, mental health care, and/or
prescription drugs, as of the date of the outcome data collection. This
definition includes group coverage offered by employers, schools or
associations, an individual health plan, self-employed plans, or
inclusion in a parent's insurance plan. This also could include access
to free health care through a college, Indian Health Service, or other
source. Medical or drug discount cards or plans are not insurance.
Indicate ``yes'', ``no,'' or ``don't know,'' as appropriate, or ``not
applicable'' for youth participating solely in Medicaid. If the youth
does not answer this question, indicate ``declined.'' If the youth is
not in the baseline or follow-up population this element must be left
blank.
(57) Health insurance type: medical only. Indicate whether the
youth has coverage for medical health care only if the youth has
indicated that he or she has health insurance coverage in the element
described in paragraph (g)(56) of this section. If a youth knows that
he or she has one type of coverage and is not sure about the other
types, indicate only the type he or she knows about. Indicate ``not
applicable'' if the youth has no health insurance coverage or no
coverage other than Medicaid. If the youth does not answer this
question, indicate ``declined.'' If the youth is not in the baseline or
follow-up population this element must be left blank.
(58) Health insurance type: medical and mental health. Indicate
whether the youth has insurance coverage for medical and mental health
care only if the youth has indicated that he or she has health
insurance coverage as described in paragraph (g)(56) of this section.
If a youth knows that he or she has one type of coverage and is not
sure about the other types, indicate only the type he or she knows
about. Indicate ``not applicable'' if the youth has no health insurance
coverage or no coverage other than Medicaid. If the youth does not
answer this question, indicate ``declined.'' If the youth is not in the
baseline or follow-up population this element must be left blank.
(59) Health insurance type: medical and prescription drugs.
Indicate whether the youth has insurance coverage for medical health
care and prescription drugs only if the youth has indicated that he or
she has health insurance coverage as described in paragraph (g)(56) of
this section. If a youth knows that he or she has one type of coverage
and is not sure about the other types, indicate only the type he or she
knows about. Indicate ``not applicable'' if the youth has no health
insurance coverage or no coverage other than Medicaid. If the youth
does not answer this question, indicate ``declined.'' If the youth is
not in the baseline or follow-up population this element must be left
blank.
(60) Health insurance type: medical, mental health and prescription
drugs. Indicate whether the youth has insurance coverage for medical,
mental health and prescription drugs, if the youth has indicated that
he or she has health insurance coverage as described
[[Page 40377]]
in paragraph (g)(56) of this section. If a youth knows that he or she
has one type of coverage and is not sure about the other types,
indicate only the type he or she knows about. Indicate ``not
applicable'' if the youth has no health insurance coverage or no
coverage other than Medicaid. If the youth does not answer this
question, indicate ``declined.'' If the youth is not in the baseline or
follow-up population this element must be left blank.
(h) Electronic reporting. The State agency must report all data to
ACF electronically according to ACF's specifications and Appendix A of
this part.
Sec. 1356.84 Sampling.
(a) The State agency may collect and report the information
required in Sec. 1356.83(e) of this part on a sample of the baseline
population consistent with the sampling requirements described in
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(b) The State agency must select the follow-up sample using simple
random sampling procedures based on random numbers generated by a
computer program, unless ACF approves another sampling procedure. The
sampling universe consists of youth in the baseline population who
participated in the State agency's data collection at age 17.
(c) The sample size is based on the number of youth in the baseline
population who participated in the State agency's data collection at
age 17.
(1) If the number of youth in the baseline population who
participated in the outcome data collection at age 17 is 5,000 or less,
the State agency must calculate the sample size using the formula in
Appendix C of this part, with the Finite Population Correction (FPC).
The State agency must increase the resulting number by 30 percent to
allow for attrition, but the sample size may not be larger than the
number of youth who participated in data collection at age 17.
(2) If the number of youth in the baseline population who
participated in the outcome data collection at age 17 is greater than
5,000, the State agency must calculate the sample size using the
formula in Appendix C of this part, without the FPC. The State agency
must increase the resulting number by 30 percent to allow for
attrition, but the sample size must not be larger than the number of
youth who participated in data collection at age 17.
Sec. 1356.85 Compliance.
(a) File submission standards. A State agency must submit a data
file in accordance with the following file submission standards:
(1) Timely data. The data file must be received in accordance with
the reporting period and timeline described in Sec. 1356.83(a) of this
part;
(2) Format. The data file must be in a format that meets ACF's
specifications; and,
(3) Error-free information. The file must contain data in the
general and demographic elements described in Sec. 1356.83(g)(1)
through (g)(5), (g)(14) and (g)(36) of this part that is 100 percent
error-free as defined in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Data standards. A State agency also must submit a file that
meets the following data standards:
(1) Error-free. The data for the applicable demographic, service
and outcomes elements defined in Sec. 1356.83(g)(6) through (13),
(g)(15) through (35) and (g)(37) through (60) of this part must be 90
percent error-free as described and assessed according to paragraph (c)
of this section.
(2) Outcomes universe. In any Federal fiscal year for which the
State agency is required to submit information on the follow-up
population, the State agency must submit an outcomes data record on
each youth for whom the State agency reported outcome information as
part of the baseline population or, if the State agency has elected to
conduct sampling in accordance with Sec. 1356.84 of this part, on each
youth in the sample as indicated in Sec. 1356.83(g)(37) of this part.
(3) Outcomes participation rate. The State agency must report
outcome information on each youth in the follow-up population at the
rates described in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section.
A youth has participated in the outcomes data collection if the State
agency collected and reported a valid response (i.e., a response option
other than ``declined'' or ``not applicable'') to any of the outcomes-
related elements described in Sec. 1356.83(g)(38) through (g)(60) of
this part.
(i) Foster care youth participation rate. The State agency must
report outcome information on at least 80 percent of youth in foster
care on the date of outcomes data collection as indicated in Sec.
1356.83(g)(35) and (g)(36) of this part.
(ii) Discharged youth participation rate. The State agency must
report outcome information on at least 60 percent of youth who are not
in foster care on the date of outcomes data collection as indicated in
section 1356.83(g)(35) and (g)(36) of this part.
(iii) Effect of sampling on participation rates. For State agencies
electing to sample in accordance with section 1356.84 and Appendix C of
this part, ACF will apply the outcome participation rates in paragraphs
(b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section to the minimum required sample size
for the State.
(c) Errors. ACF will assess each State agency's data file for the
following types of errors: missing data, out-of-range data or
internally inconsistent data. The amount of errors acceptable for each
reporting period is described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section.
(1) Missing data is any element that has a blank response, when a
blank response is not a valid response option as described in Sec.
1356.83(g) of this part;
(2) Out-of-range data is any element that contains a value that is
outside the parameters of acceptable responses or exceeds, either
positively or negatively, the acceptable range of response options as
described in Sec. 1356.83(g) of this part; and
(3) Internally inconsistent data is any element that fails an
internal consistency check designed to evaluate the logical
relationship between elements in each record. The evaluation will
identify all elements involved in a particular check as in error.
(d) Review for compliance. (1) ACF will determine whether a State
agency's data file for each reporting period is in compliance with the
file submission standards and data standards in paragraphs (a) and (b)
of this section.
(i) For State agencies that achieve the file submission standards,
ACF will determine whether the State agency's data file meets the data
standards.
(ii) For State agencies that do not achieve the file submission
standards or data standards, ACF will notify the State agency that they
have an opportunity to submit a corrected data file by the end of the
subsequent reporting period in accordance with paragraph (e) of this
section.
(2) ACF may use monitoring tools or assessment procedures to
determine whether the State agency is meeting all the requirements of
Sec. Sec. 1356.81 through 1356.85 of this part.
(e) Submitting corrected data and noncompliance. A State agency
that does not submit a data file that meets the standards in section
1356.85 of this part will have an opportunity to submit a corrected
data file in accordance with paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this
section.
(1) A State agency must submit a corrected data file no later than
the end of the subsequent reporting period as defined in section
1356.83(a) of this part (i.e., by September 30 or March 31).
(2) If a State agency fails to submit a corrected data file that
meets the compliance standards in section 1356.85 of this part and the
deadline in
[[Page 40378]]
paragraph (e)(1) of this section, ACF will make a final determination
that the State is out of compliance, notify the State agency, and apply
penalties as outlined defined in section 1356.86 of this part.
Sec. 1356.86 Penalties for noncompliance.
(a) Definition of Federal funds subject to a penalty. The funds
that are subject to a penalty are the total CFCIP funds allocated to
the State for the Federal fiscal year that corresponds with the
reporting period for which the State agency was required originally to
submit data according to Sec. 1356.83(a) of this part. The total CFCIP
funds include funds allocated or reallocated to the State agency under
section 477(c)(1) or 477(c)(3) of the Act.
(b) Assessed penalty amounts. ACF will assess penalties in the
following amounts, depending on the area of noncompliance:
(1) Penalty for not meeting file submission standards. ACF will
assess a penalty in an amount equivalent to two and one half percent
(2.5%) of the funds subject to a penalty for each reporting period in
which ACF makes a final determination that the State agency's data file
does not comply with the file submission standards defined in Sec.
1356.85(a) of this part.
(2) Penalty for not meeting certain data standards. ACF will assess
a penalty in an amount equivalent to:
(i) One and one quarter percent (1.25%) of the funds subject to a
penalty for each reporting period in which ACF makes a final
determination that the State agency's data file does not comply with
the data standard for error-free data as defined in Sec. 1356.85(b)(1)
of this part.
(ii) One and one quarter percent (1.25%) of the funds subject to a
penalty for each reporting period in which ACF makes a final
determination that the State agency's data file does not comply with
the outcome universe standard defined in Sec. 1356.85(b)(2) of this
part.
(iii) One half of one percent (0.5%) of the funds subject to a
penalty for each reporting period in which ACF makes a final
determination that the State agency's data file does not comply with
the participation rate for youth in foster care standard defined in
Sec. 1356.85(b)(3)(i) of this part.
(iv) One half of one percent (0.5%) of the funds subject to a
penalty for each reporting period in which ACF makes a final
determination that the State agency's data file does not comply with
the participation rate for discharged youth standard defined in Sec.
1356.85(b)(3)(ii) of this part.
(c) Calculation of the penalty amount. ACF will add together any
assessed penalty amounts described in paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of
this section. If the total calculated penalty result is less than one
percent of the funds subject to a penalty, the State agency will be
penalized in the amount of one percent.
(d) Notification of penalty amount. ACF will advise the State
agency in writing of a final determination of noncompliance and the
amount of the total calculated penalty as determined in paragraph (c)
of this section.
(e) Interest. The State agency will be liable for interest on the
amount of funds penalized by the Department, in accordance with the
provisions of Sec. 30.13 of this part.
(f) Appeals. The State agency may appeal, pursuant to part 16 of
this title, ACF's final determination and any subsequent withholding or
reduction of funds to the HHS Departmental Grant Appeals Board.
Appendix A to Part 1356--NYTD Data Elements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responses Applicable
Element No. Element name options * population
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................... State.......... 2 digit FIPS
code.
2.................... Report date.... CCYYMM: CC =
century year
(i.e., 20); YY
= decade year
(00-99); MM =
month (01-12).
3.................... Record number.. Unique,
encrypted
person
identification
number.
4.................... Date of birth.. CCYYMMDD: CC =
century year
(i.e., 20); YY
= decade year
(00-99); MM =
month (01-12);
DD = day (01-
31).
5.................... Sex............ Male, Female...
6.................... Race--American Yes, No........ All youth in
Indian or reporting
Alaska Native. population
(i.e., served,
baseline and
follow-up
populations).
7.................... Race--Asian.... Yes, No........
8.................... Race--Black or Yes, No........
African
American.
9.................... Race--Native Yes, No........
Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander.
10................... Race--White.... Yes, No........
11................... Race--Unknown/ Yes, No........
Unable to
Determine.
12................... Race--Declined. Yes, No........
13................... Hispanic or Yes, No,
Latino Unknown/unable
Ethnicity. to determine,
Declined.
14................... Foster care Yes, No........ Served
status--servic population
es. only.
15................... Local agency... FIPS code(s),
Centralized
unit.
16................... Tribal Yes, No........
membership.
17................... Adjudicated Yes, No........
delinquent.
18................... Last grade Less than 6th
completed. grade, 6th
grade, 7th
grade, 8th
grade, 9th
grade, 10th
grade, 11th
grade, 12th
grade,
Postsecondary
education or
training
College, at
least one
semester.
19................... Special Yes, No........
education
status.
20................... Independent Yes, No........
living needs
assessment.
21................... Academic Yes, No........
support.
22................... Post-secondary Yes, No........
educational
support.
23................... Career Yes, No........
preparation.
[[Page 40379]]
24................... Employment Yes, No........ Served
programs or population
vocational only.
training.
25................... Budget and Yes, No........
financial
management.
26................... Housing Yes, No........
education and
home
management
training.
27................... Health Yes, No........
education and
risk
prevention.
28................... Family Support/ Yes, No........
Health
Marriage
Education.
29................... Mentoring...... Yes, No........
30................... Supervised Yes, No........
independent
living.
31................... Room and board Yes, No........
financial
assistance.
32................... Education Yes, No........
financial
assistance.
33................... Other financial Yes, No........
assistance.
34................... Outcomes Youth Baseline and
reporting Participated, follow-up
status. Youth populations.
Declined,
Parent
Declined,
Youth
Incapacitated,
Incarcerated,
Runaway/
Missing,
Unable to
locate/invite,
Death.
35................... Date of outcome CCYYMMDD: CC =
data century year
collection. (i.e., 20); YY
= decade year
(00-99); MM =
month (01-12);
DD = day (01-
31).
36................... Foster care Yes, No........
status-
outcomes.
37................... Sampling status Yes, No, Not
applicable.
38................... Current full- Yes, No,
time Declined.
employment.
39................... Current part- Yes, No,
time Declined.
employment.
40................... Employment- Yes, No,
related skills. Declined.
41................... Social Security Yes, No,
Declined.
42................... Educational aid Yes, No,
Declined.
43................... Public Yes, No, Not
financial applicable,
assistance. Declined.
44................... Food assistance Yes, No, Not
applicable,
Declined.
45................... Housing Yes, No, Not
assistance. applicable,
Declined.
46................... Other support.. Yes, No, Baseline and
Declined. follow-up
population.
47................... Highest High school
educational diploma/GED,
certification Vocational
received. certificate,
Vocational
license,
Associate's
degree,
Bachelor's
degree,
Higher, None
of the above,
Declined.
48................... Current Yes, No,
enrollment and Declined.
attendance.
49................... Connection to Yes, No,
adult. Declined.
50................... Homelessness... Yes, No,
Declined.
51................... Substance abuse Yes, No,
referral. Declined.
52................... Incarceration.. Yes, No,
Declined.
53................... Children....... Yes, No,
Declined.
54................... Marriage at Yes, No, Not
child's birth. applicable,
Declined.
55................... Medicaid....... Yes, No,
Declined.
56................... Other health Yes, No, Not
insurance applicable,
coverage. Declined.
57................... Health Yes, No, Not
insurance applicable,
type--medical Declined.
only.
58................... Health Yes, No, Not Baseline and
insurance applicable, follow-up
type--medical Declined. population.
and mental
health.
59................... Health Yes, No, Not
insurance applicable,
type--medical Declined.
and
prescription
drugs.
60................... Health Yes, No, Not
insurance applicable,
type--medical, Declined.
mental heath
and
prescription
drugs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* A blank response is acceptable in elements 14 through 60 only if the
youth is not a part of the applicable reporting population. Blank
responses are never acceptable in elements one--13.
Appendix B to Part 1356--NYTD Youth Outcome Survey
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question to youth
Data element and response Definition
options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INFORMATION TO COLLECT FROM ALL YOUTH SURVEYED FOR OUTCOMES, WHETHER IN
FOSTER CARE OR NOT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current full-time employment.. Currently are you ``Full-time'' means
employed full- working at least 35
time? hours per week.
----Yes..........
----No...........
----Declined.....
Current part-time employment.. Currently are you ``Part-time'' means
employed part- working at least 1-
time? 34 hours per week.
----Yes..........
----No...........
----Declined.....
[[Page 40380]]
Employment-related skills..... In the past year, This means
did you complete apprenticeships,
an internships, or
apprenticeship, other on-the-job
internship, or trainings, either
other on-the-job paid or unpaid, that
training, either helped the youth
paid or unpaid? acquire employment-
----Yes.......... related skills
----No........... (which can include
----Declined..... specific trade
skills such as
carpentry or auto
mechanics, or office
skills such as word
processing or use of
office equipment).
Social Security............... Currently are you These are payments
receiving social from the government
security to meet basic needs
payments for food, clothing,
(Supplemental and shelter of a
Security Income person with a
or SSI, disability. A youth
disability, or may be receiving
dependents' these payments
payments)? because of a parent
----Yes.......... or guardian's
----No........... disability, rather
----Declined..... than his/her own.
Scholarship................... Currently are you Scholarships, grants,
using a and stipends are
scholarship, funds awarded for
grant, stipend, spending on expenses
student loan, related to gaining
voucher, or an education.
other type of ``Student loan''
educational means a government-
financial aid to guaranteed, low-
cover any living interest loan for
or educational students in post-
expenses? secondary education.
----Yes..........
----No...........
----Declined.....
Other support................. Currently are you This means ongoing
receiving any support from a
ongoing spouse or family
financial member (either
resources or biological or foster
support from family). This does
another source, not include
excluding paid occasional gifts,
employment? such as birthday or
----Yes.......... graduation checks or
----No........... small donations of
----Declined..... food or personal
incidentals.
Highest educational What is the ``Vocational
certification received. highest certificate'' means
educational a document stating
degree or that a person has
certification received education
that you have or training that
received? qualifies him or her
----High school for a particular
diploma/GED. job, e.g., auto
----Vocational mechanics or
certificate. cosmetology.
----Vocational ``Vocational
license. license'' means a
----Associate's document that
degree (A.A.). indicates that the
----Bachelor's State or local
degree (B.A. or government
B.S.). recognizes an
----Graduate individual as a
Degree. qualified
----None of the professional in a
above. particular trade or
----Declined..... business. An
Associate's degree
is generally a two-
year degree from a
community college,
and a Bachelor's
degree is a four-
year degree from a
college or
university.
``Graduate degree''
indicates a graduate
degree, such as a
Masters or Doctorate
degree. ``None of
the above'' means
that the youth has
not received any of
the above
educational
certifications.
Current enrollment and Currently are you This means both
attendance. enrolled in and enrolled in and
attending high attending high
school, GED school, GED classes,
classes, post- or postsecondary
high school vocational training
vocational or college. A youth
training, or is still considered
college? attending school if
----Yes.......... the youth is
----No........... enrolled while the
----Declined..... school is currently
out of session
(e.g., Spring break,
summer vacation,
etc.).
Connection to adult........... Currently is This refers to an
there at least adult who the youth
one adult in can go to for advice
your life, other or guidance when
than your there is a decision
caseworker, to to make or a problem
whom you can go to solve, or for
for advice or companionship to
emotional share personal
support? achievements. The
----Yes.......... adult must be easily
----No........... accessible to the
----Declined..... youth, either by
telephone or in
person.
Homelessness.................. Have you ever ``Homeless'' means
been homeless? that the youth had
OR In the past no place of his or
two years, were her own to live on a
you homeless at regular basis.
any time? Examples include
----Yes.......... living in a car or
----No........... on the street,
----Declined..... staying temporarily
with a friend, or
staying in a
shelter.
[[Page 40381]]
Substance abuse referral...... Have you ever This includes either
referred self-referring or
yourself or has being referred by a
someone else social worker,
referred you for school staff,
alcohol or drug physician, mental
abuse assessment health worker,
or counseling? foster parent, or
OR In the past other adult for
two years, did alcohol or drug
you refer abuse assessment or
yourself, or had counseling. Alcohol
someone else or drug abuse
referred you for assessment is a
alcohol or drug process designed to
abuse assessment determine if someone
or counseling? has a problem with
----Yes.......... alcohol or drug use.
----No...........
----Declined.....
Incarceration................. Have you ever This means that youth
been arrested, was arrested, or was
incarcerated or held or detained in
detained in a a jail, prison,
jail, prison, correctional
correctional facility, or
facility, or juvenile or
juvenile or community detention
community facility in
detention connection with an
facility, alleged crime
because of an (misdemeanor or
alleged crime? felony) committed by
OR In the past the youth.
two years, were
you arrested, or
were you
incarcerated or
detained in a
jail, prison,
correctional
facility, or
juvenile or
community
detention
facility,
because of an
alleged crime?
----Yes..........
----No...........
----Declined.....
Children...................... Have you ever This means giving
given birth or birth to or
fathered any fathering at least
children that one child that was
were born? OR In born. If males do
the past two not know, answer
years, did you ``No.''
give birth to or
father any
children that
were born?
----Yes..........
----No...........
----Declined.....
Marriage...................... If you responded This means that when
yes to the every child was born
previous in the past year,
question, were the youth was
you married to married to the other
the child's parent of the child.
other parent at
the time each
child was born?
----Yes..........
----No...........
----Declined.....
Medicaid...................... Currently are you Medicaid (or the
on Medicaid [or State medical
use the name of assistance program)
the State's is a health
medical insurance program
assistance funded by the
program under government.
title XIX]?
----Yes..........
----No...........
----Don't know...
----Declined.....
Health insurance.............. Currently do you ``Health insurance''
have health means having a third
insurance, other party pay for all or
than Medicaid? part of health care.
----Yes.......... Youth might have
----No........... health insurance
----Don't know... such as group
----Declined..... coverage offered by
employers or
schools, or
individual policies
that cover medical
and/or mental health
care and/or
prescription drugs,
or youth might be
covered under
parents' insurance.
This also could
include access to
free health care
through a college,
Indian Tribe, or
other source.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDITIONAL OUTCOMES INFORMATION TO COLLECT FROM YOUTH OUT OF FOSTER CARE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public financial assistance... Currently are you This refers to
receiving cash receiving cash
payments under assistance under
TANF [or use the TANF (or the State's
name of the family assistance
State's family cash payment
assistance cash program).
payment program]
to help support
a child?
----Yes..........
----No...........
----Declined.....
Food assistance............... Currently are you Food assistance
receiving food includes food
assistance? stamps, which are
----Yes.......... coupons or debit
----No........... cards that
----Declined..... recipients can use
to buy eligible food
at authorized
stores. Food
assistance also
includes assistance
from the Women,
Infants and Children
(WIC) program.
[[Page 40382]]
Housing assistance............ Currently are you Public housing is
receiving any rental housing
sort of housing provided by the
assistance from government to keep
the government, rents affordable for
such as living eligible individuals
in public and families, and a
housing or housing voucher
receiving a allows participants
housing voucher? to choose their own
----Yes.......... housing while the
----No........... government pays part
----Declined..... of the housing
costs. This does not
include payments
from the child
welfare agency for
room and board
payments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix C to Part 1356--Calculating Sample Size for NYTD Follow-Up
Populations
1. Using Finite Population Correction
The Finite Population Correction (FPC) is applied when the
sample is drawn from a population of one to 5,000 youth, because the
sample is more than five percent of the population.
Sample size with FPC =
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JY06.027
(Py)(Pn), an estimate of the percent of responses to a
dichotomous variable, is (.50)(.50) for the most conservative
estimate.
Standard error =
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JY06.028
Acceptable level of error = .05 (results are plus or
minus five percentage points from the actual score)
Z = 1.645 (90 percent confidence interval)
Standard error, 90 percent confidence interval =
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JY06.029
N = number of youth from whom the sample is being drawn
2. Not Using Finite Population Correction
The FPC is not applied when the sample is drawn from a
population of over 5,000 youth.
Sample size without FPC, 90 percent confidence interval
=
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JY06.030
[FR Doc. 06-6005 Filed 7-13-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P