[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 7, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32969-32987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-5193]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families


The Data Measures, Data Composites, and National Standards To Be 
Used in the Child and Family Services Reviews

AGENCY: Children's Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and 
Families, Administration for Children and Families, Department of 
Health and Human Services.

ACTION: Final notice of the data measures, data composites, and 
national standards to be used in the Child and Family Services Reviews.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On November 7, 2005, the Administration for Children and 
Families (ACF) published a notice in the Federal Register soliciting 
comment regarding its proposal to replace the six data measures used as 
part of the assessment of State performance on the Federal Child and 
Family Services Review (CFSR) with six data composites (70 FR 67479). 
Based on the results of our data analyses and a review of comments from 
the field, ACF made the following decisions:
     The CFSR will use a State's performance on two individual 
data measures as part of the assessment of the State's substantial 
conformity with CFSR Safety Outcome 1--Children are, first and 
foremost, protected from abuse and neglect. A national standard is 
established for each of these measures.
     The CFSR will use a State's performance on four data 
composites as part of the assessment of the State's substantial 
conformity with CFSR Permanency Outcome 1--Children have permanency and 
stability in their living situations. A national standard is 
established for each of these data composites.
    This announcement presents the following information:
     The decisions made by the Children's Bureau regarding use 
of data composites for the Federal Child and Family Services Review 
(CFSR);
     The composites and additional data that will be used as 
part of the assessment of a State's substantial conformity with the 
CFSR requirements; and
     Descriptive statistics relevant to each composite and 
measure, including the score that will serve as the national standard 
for the second round of the CFSR.
    Where relevant, the announcement addresses key comments from the 
field in response to the Federal Register notice.
    The announcement also includes the following attachments:
    Attachment A: Data to be included in the CFSR State Data Profile.
    Attachment B: Methodology for Composite Construction.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact: John Hargrove at 
[email protected], (202) 205-8625.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    The CFSR is ACF's results-oriented comprehensive monitoring system 
designed to promote continuous improvement in the outcomes experienced 
by children and families who come into contact with public child 
welfare agencies. ACF developed the CFSR in response to a mandate in 
the Social Security Amendments of 1994 (see section 1123A of the Social 
Security Act) for the Department of Health and Human Services to 
promulgate regulations for reviews of State child and family services 
programs under titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act. ACF's 
final regulations on the CFSR process, issued in 2000, can be found at 
45 CFR 1355.31 through 1355.37. Between fiscal year (FY) 2001 and FY 
2004, ACF conducted the first round of the CFSR. A ``round'' is defined 
as a cycle of the CFSR that includes every State, the District of 
Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
    Information for each CFSR came from the following sources: (1) The 
Statewide Assessment, (2) case-level reviews conducted by a team of 
Federal and State reviewers, (3) interviews with key stakeholders, and 
(4) State data from the Foster Care File of the Adoption and Foster 
Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) and the Child File of the 
National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS), or an 
alternative data source approved by the Children's Bureau. Using this 
information, the first round of the CFSR assessed State performance on 
seven outcomes and seven systemic factors. For the most part, 
performance on the seven outcomes was determined through the results of 
the case reviews. However, in the first round of the CFSR, the 
assessment for two outcomes also included a State's performance on six 
national data measures that ACF adapted from measures developed for the 
Annual Report to Congress on Child Welfare Outcomes in response to the 
requirements of section 479A of the Social Security Act. ACF 
established national standards for each of the six data measures, all 
of which were calculated from data reported by States to NCANDS and 
AFCARS. ACF described these six data measures and the national 
standards in the preamble to the final CFSR regulation, published in 
the Federal Register (65 FR 4024-4025). This same regulation provides 
information on how ACF calculated the national standards associated 
with each of the six data measures. Subsequently, ACF issued 
information memoranda on the specific national standards that would be 
used in the initial CFSR implementation (see ACYF-CB-IM-00-11 and ACYF-
CB-IM-01-07).
    The following performance measures and national standards were used 
during the first round of the CFSR as part of the assessment of a 
State's substantial conformity with CFSR Safety Outcome 1--Children 
are, first and

[[Page 32970]]

foremost, protected from abuse and neglect:
     Repeat maltreatment--Of all children who were victims of 
substantiated or indicated child abuse and/or neglect during the first 
6 months of the reporting period, 6.1 percent or less had another 
substantiated or indicated report within a 6-month period.
     Maltreatment of children in foster care--Of all children 
who were in foster care during the reporting period, 0.57 percent or 
less were the subject of substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a 
foster parent or facility staff member.
    The following performance measures and national standards were used 
as part of the assessment of a State's substantial conformity with CFSR 
Permanency Outcome 1--Children have permanency and stability in their 
living situations:
     Timeliness of reunification--Of all children who were 
reunified with their parents or caretakers at the time of discharge 
from foster care, 76.2 percent or more were reunified in less than 12 
months from the time of the latest removal from home.
     Re-entry into foster care--Of all children who entered 
foster care during the reporting period, 8.6 percent or less were re-
entering foster care in less than 12 months of a prior foster care 
episode.
     Timeliness of adoption--Of all children who exited foster 
care to a finalized adoption, 32 percent or more exited foster care in 
less than 24 months from the time of the latest removal from home.
     Placement stability--Of all children who have been in 
foster care for less than 12 months from the time of the latest removal 
from home, 86.7 percent or more have had no more than two placement 
settings.
    ACF views the CFSR as a dynamic process. We made ongoing 
improvements after each year of the first round of reviews in response 
to our experiences in the field and to suggestions from State child 
welfare agency administrators. After completion of the first round in 
FY 2004, ACF contracted with a consultant to study the CFSR and make 
further suggestions regarding potential revisions to the process. To 
assist in this task, the consultant convened a CFSR workgroup including 
State child welfare agency administrators, child welfare specialists, 
and researchers. Based on input from this workgroup, the consultant 
presented a set of suggestions for ACF. One suggestion was to replace 
the existing CFSR single data measures for which national standards 
were established with data composites that incorporate a wider range of 
performance areas relevant to a particular child welfare domain. ACF 
determined that making this change would enhance the quality of the 
CFSR for the following reasons:
     The recommendation is consistent with our observations 
during the first round of the CFSR that expanding the scope of data 
pertaining to a particular child welfare domain will provide a more 
effective assessment of State performance. For example, expanding the 
scope of data pertaining to the timeliness of reunification will 
address various performance areas relevant to this domain, including 
the permanency of the reunification.
     Data composites will provide a more holistic view of State 
performance in a particular domain than a single data measure can 
achieve. For example, the current CFSR measure of timeliness of 
adoptions considers the percentage of children adopted within 24 months 
of entering foster care, but not children's experiences with regard to 
the timeframes between key points in the adoption process, such as the 
time from termination of parental rights (TPR) to a finalized adoption.
     Data composites will ensure that the data component of a 
State's performance with regard to a particular domain will not depend 
on one measure. For example, a State's performance regarding the data 
composite for the domain of timeliness to adoption may be uneven, with 
performance higher in one area than in another. However, overall 
performance on the composite may be high. Thus, the data composite will 
account for both the strengths and weaknesses that a State exhibits 
within a particular domain.
     Data composites are being used by the Federal government 
to assess other programs. For example, composite measures are being 
developed and used for the No Child Left Behind initiative. In 
addition, composite measures have been used to evaluate the performance 
of hospitals in various health-related domains.

II. Analysis and Decisions

    ACF published a Federal Register notice presenting proposed data 
composites and performance areas for each composite on November 7, 
2005, with a 30-day public comment period. We received 66 letters from 
State and local child welfare agencies, national and local advocacy 
groups, researchers, State and local courts, and national associations 
representing groups of practitioners. ACF's final decisions regarding 
the composites are presented below. These decisions are based on our 
review of comments from the field, our data analyses, and the 
principles and objectives of the Social Security Amendments of 1994 and 
the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997.

A. ACF Will Replace the Existing Six Data Measures Used for the First 
Round of the CFSR With Four Data Composites and Two Single Measures

    The majority of respondents to the Federal Register notice 
expressed support for our proposal to use data composites as part of 
the assessment of a State's substantial conformity with the 
requirements of the CFSR. A few respondents expressed concern about the 
potential burden to the States involved in revising their data systems 
to provide data for the composites. However, the composites will not 
require States to revise their basic data systems because all data 
necessary for the composites come from existing AFCARS or NCANDS data 
elements. Also, because States submit the NCANDS Child File on a 
voluntary basis, the CFSR regulation allows us to accept data from an 
alternative source from those States that do not submit the Child File 
to NCANDS. However, for the second round of the CFSR, the use of 
alternative data sources applies only to measures calculated from data 
reported to the NCANDS Child File. It does not apply to measures 
calculated from data reported to AFCARS.
    A few respondents expressed concern that the composite approach 
would make it difficult for States to track their own performance in 
specific areas and to identify those areas where improvements may be 
needed. To assist States in tracking their performance on the 
composites, we will provide them with a State Data Profile that 
presents information on all of the individual performance areas 
included in the composites as well as the composite scores.\1\ The 
State Data Profile also will include information pertaining to the 
relative contribution (or weight) of a variable to the composite. 
Attachment A itemizes the data that will be included in the State Data 
Profile to be provided to each State. ACF will provide States with the 
syntax used for establishing each of the performance areas and 
calculating the composite scores. In addition, we will ensure that 
technical assistance is available to States in developing the tools 
necessary to track their performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Several States requested that ACF continue to report data 
pertaining to the six data measures used in the first round of the 
CFSR. This information will be provided in the State Data Profile.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 32971]]

    Although ACF initially intended to replace the six data measures 
with six data composites, we have decided to use two single measures 
that are similar to those used in the first round of the CFSR to assess 
State performance with regard to CFSR safety outcome 1--Children are, 
first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect. We made the 
decision not to develop safety composites for the following reasons:
     Many respondents to the Federal Register notice expressed 
concern about the usefulness and appropriateness of the new measures 
proposed for the safety-related composites.
     A review of the data for the measures revealed potential 
problems with consistency in State reporting, particularly with regard 
to how States defined certain data elements.
     The results of the data analyses for the composites did 
not provide strong support for inclusion of some of the measures 
proposed for the composite.
    Additional information relevant to our decision to eliminate 
particular measures is provided in the section of this Announcement 
pertaining to CFSR Safety Outcome 1.

B. ACF Used Principal Components Analysis To Develop the Composites

    ACF identified and implemented the methodology for establishing 
data composites in consultation with an internationally known expert 
statistician. Our goal was to increase the amount of pertinent 
information that would be considered in assessing a State's performance 
with regard to particular outcomes without increasing the number of 
measures that would be subject to a national performance standard. We 
reviewed with our expert consultant all possible statistical 
methodologies and determined that a principal components analysis was 
the most appropriate data analysis method for achieving our goal.
    Principal components analysis is a commonly used statistical 
technique for reducing a large set of variables into a smaller set by 
combining highly inter-correlated variables. Use of this analysis is 
based on two basic psychometric principles of measurement: (a) A test 
with more questions is more reliable; and (b) combining related scores 
into a composite score results in a more reliable and valid score than 
the individual scores on which the composite is based. Each variable in 
the set is given a weight in accordance with its relative importance to 
the overall composite. (See attachment B for more information on this.) 
These sets, or principal components, usually are more stable and easier 
to interpret than individual variables because they incorporate several 
variables that are related to one another but also capture unique 
information.
    The principal components analyses conducted to generate the 
composites were closely guided by our expert consultant and were 
systematic and conservative in nature. The analyses generated valid and 
meaningful results that exceed the minimum requirements of 
acceptability for this analytical technique. Decisions made regarding 
the composites were based on the empirical data resulting from the 
analyses. Consequently, we believe that the composites established will 
enhance the assessment of State performance.
    A few respondents questioned whether a principal components 
analysis methodology was appropriate and requested an opportunity to 
review the details of the methodology and to provide comment on the 
appropriateness of the methodology. Because the methodology used is 
based on a sound and widely accepted statistical process, we will not 
be submitting it for comment from the field. Many of the concerns 
expressed by respondents are the result of a lack of understanding of 
principal components analysis. The specifics regarding these concerns 
are addressed in attachment B, which also provides a description of how 
the methodology was used in generating the composites.
    ACF understands that our composite approach represents a new 
conceptual framework for many States. Therefore, we will conduct 
orientation sessions with States in each ACF region to familiarize them 
with the composites and the methodology prior to implementing the next 
round of the CFSR. In addition, the data set used for the principal 
components analyses and the syntax used to construct the composites 
will be made available to States.

C. Wherever Possible and Appropriate, the Data Composites Incorporate a 
Combination of Longitudinal Measures That Follow a Cohort of Children 
Over Time, Measures That Capture Outcomes Experienced by Children 
Exiting Foster Care in a Given Year, and Measures That Assess the 
Status of Children in Foster Care Within a Particular Timeframe

    Several respondents recommended that all measures in the data 
composites should be longitudinal measures that follow a cohort of 
children over time to establish timeliness of permanency and placement 
stability. These respondents suggested that such measures, particularly 
those that follow a cohort of children entering foster care, reflect a 
more accurate picture of State performance in these areas than do other 
types of measures. However, several other respondents expressed support 
for maintaining the measures used in the first round of the CFSR that 
capture outcomes experienced by children exiting foster care in a given 
year. As one of these respondents noted, ``I have heard and studied 
much of the criticism (of the six indicators), but I find much of the 
criticism to be without merit. * * * the six indicators have served us 
very well here in (State).''
    To address both perspectives, we have included as many longitudinal 
measures as possible in the composites along with other types of 
measures. Some respondents expressed concern that AFCARS does not 
permit a longitudinal analysis that crosses over fiscal years. This is 
not true. We currently can and have used AFCARS data to assess children 
across years--i.e., children entering or exiting foster care in one 
year can be followed in subsequent years. However, our ability to 
conduct longitudinal analysis for the CFSR is restricted somewhat by 
the timeframes of the CFSR and, in particular, the need to have data 
that reflect both a recent level of performance and change in 
performance during the period of program improvement. For example, the 
data used at the time of the second round of the CFSR for a given State 
cannot overlap with a State's Program Improvement Plan (PIP) 
implementation period. Within the context of the CFSR timeframes, it is 
not feasible to follow children for longer than a 12-month period and 
no measure can incorporate more than four AFCARS reporting periods (2 
years).
    Given this situation, most of the final composites include a 
combination of types of measures. ACF believes that each type of 
measure contributes to an understanding of State performance from a 
particular perspective. We have used the principal components analyses 
to determine the relative contribution of each type of measure to the 
overall composite. (See attachment B for more information on this 
issue.) Specific information about decisions pertaining to the types of 
measures incorporated in each composite is provided in the discussion 
of the individual composites.

D. ACF Will Use the Data Composites for the Second Round of the CFSR

    Many respondents to the Federal Register notice, while indicating 
support for the data composite approach, proposed that ACF ``pilot 
test'' this approach during the second round of the CFSR and not 
implement

[[Page 32972]]

this approach for assessment purposes until a later round of the CFSR. 
However, because the methodology used for establishing the composites 
is statistical rather than theoretical, the concept of a pilot test is 
not applicable. For example, the process of conducting the CFSR was 
initially piloted in 14 States to test whether the procedures (e.g., 
Statewide Assessment, case reviews, and stakeholder interviews) were 
appropriate and yielded the desired information. Although this process 
is valid for testing the utility of procedures, it is not applicable to 
data composites, which are derived from a statistical analysis of data 
submitted by the States to AFCARS.\2\ However, the quality of the data 
submitted by the States to these Federal systems may be an issue for 
some States. ACF strongly encourages States to assess the quality of 
the data that they report to these systems and to improve the quality 
if any problems are identified. In addition, ACF will continue to 
provide guidance to States, either directly or through ACF's resource 
center, the National Resource Center for Child Welfare Data and 
Technology, in improving the quality of the data submitted to AFCARS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The composites pertain to permanency only and therefore do 
not involve data from NCANDS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Instead of a ``pilot,'' ACF conducted a replication of the 
principal components analyses on data from prior years to examine 
whether the resulting component structures exhibit stability over time. 
The composites were constructed with the focus on data from fiscal year 
(FY) 2004. Data from FY 2003 were incorporated for the measures 
involving long-term longitudinal analysis. ACF conducted two 
replications of the principal components analysis on data reported to 
AFCARS relevant to FY 2002/2003 and FY 2001/2002. The results of this 
replication indicate that there is a clear and stable structure in the 
data to support the use of the composites as a meaningful component of 
the CFSR assessment of State performance.

E. ACF Will Establish National Standards for the Two Independent 
Measures and for Each of the Four Composites

    Many respondents to the Federal Register notice recommended that 
ACF not establish national standards for the data indicators used in 
the next round of the CFSR. They proposed that ACF assess performance 
based on continuous improvement on the data measures over time within 
an individual State.
    After consideration of this recommendation, ACF decided to maintain 
the practice of establishing national standards for the CFSR and to 
continue to use the standards as part of the assessment of a State's 
substantial conformity with outcomes pertaining to safety and 
permanency. The reasons for this decision are the following:
     ACF initially established national standards for each of 
the six CFSR data measures as desired national goals for the field with 
regard to achieving safety and permanency for children. We believe that 
setting national goals for the field is an important part of ensuring 
that Federal, State, and local agencies remain focused on achieving the 
highest level of results for children who come into contact with the 
nation's child welfare systems.
     Because the national standards for the first round of the 
CFSR were based on the distribution of performance across States, they 
are relative rather than absolute. By setting the standard at the 75th 
percentile (as adjusted for sampling error and for normality of 
distribution), we believe that the goals represented by the standards 
are realistic and attainable and that, by establishing standards, ACF 
is promulgating the expectation that States make concerted efforts to 
achieve these goals.
     The assessment of a State's performance on its individual 
PIP is, and will continue to be, based on change in an individual 
State's performance over time rather than on whether the State meets 
the national standard. With regard to the national data measures, ACF 
has not required that a State meet the national standard in order to 
avoid financial penalties, only that the State demonstrate an agreed-
upon amount of progress in moving toward the standard.
    The primary concern raised by respondents to the Federal Register 
notice that pertained to the issue of national standards was that the 
standards involve a comparison among States that is not valid because 
variations in State practices, statutes, and policies often impact the 
comparability of performance on a particular measure. ACF acknowledges 
that variations in policies and statutes can affect comparability and 
has attempted to address these variations both in the new measures 
proposed for the composites and in the use of composites themselves.
    The standards were calculated using data pertaining to State 
performance in FY 2004, with data from FY 2003 included when there is a 
measure requiring a longitudinal analysis that spans fiscal years. When 
the performance of individual States is considered with regard to the 
national standards, we will ensure that the State data pertain to time 
periods that are after completion of the PIP implementation period.

F. ACF Will Not Establish Separate National Standards Based on 
Variations Across States With Regard to the Age or Race/Ethnicity of 
Children in Foster Care, or Whether the Reason for Entering Foster Care 
Was Maltreatment or the Child's Behavior

    Many respondents to the Federal Register notice suggested that ACF 
should assess performance on the composites and the measures to 
determine whether there are differences in performance as a result of 
children's age, race/ethnicity, or reasons for entering foster care and 
that the national standards should be adjusted accordingly. For 
example, respondents noted that older children are more likely to 
experience placement changes than younger children, and therefore, 
States that have a relatively high percentage of older children 
entering the foster care population could not be expected to perform as 
well on measures of placement stability as other States.
    We are not establishing separate performance standards for children 
of different ages, races, or reasons for entering foster care. 
Consistent with the tenets of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and 
with the best interests of children, all children have the same need 
for safety, placement stability, and timely permanency. Rather, this 
type of analysis is best left to the States to further examine the 
characteristics of their own child welfare populations as part of their 
Statewide Assessment.
    A few respondents to the Federal Register notice also suggested 
that rather than adjust the national standards, the measures for the 
permanency-related composites should apply only to children who enter 
foster care as a result of abuse or neglect. ACF decided not to exclude 
children from the measures who enter foster care for reasons other than 
child maltreatment. We believe that all children who are in the custody 
of the State child welfare agency and who are reported to AFCARS share 
the same needs for permanency and placement stability regardless of 
their reason for entering care.

III. Data Measures and Composites

    In this section, we present the measures and composites that will 
be used in the next round of the CFSR. We also identify and discuss the 
critical

[[Page 32973]]

features of each measure and composite and address key comments 
concerning the measures and composites received in response to the 
Federal Register notice. Table 1 provides summary information regarding 
all of the composites, measures, and national standards to be used in 
the second round of the CFSR.

A. CFSR Measures That Will Be Used as Part of the Assessment of 
Substantial Conformity With CFSR Safety Outcome 1--Children Are, First 
and Foremost, Protected From Abuse and Neglect

    Two individual measures rather than composites will be used as part 
of the assessment of substantial conformity with CFSR Safety Outcome 1. 
These measures are the following:
     Recurrence of maltreatment. Of all children who were 
victims of substantiated or indicated abuse or neglect during the first 
6 months of the reporting year, what percent did not experience another 
incident of substantiated or indicated abuse or neglect within a 6-
month period?
     Maltreatment of children in foster care. Of all children 
in foster care during the reporting period, what percent were not 
victims of a substantiated or indicated maltreatment by foster parents 
or facility staff members?
Key Features of the Measures
    These measures are similar to those used in the first round of the 
CFSR. The only difference is that the focus has shifted from the 
occurrence of maltreatment to the absence of maltreatment. We made this 
change for the following reasons:
     Respondents to the Federal Register notice and others in 
the field recommended that all data measures address performance from a 
positive perspective.
     The composite measures pertaining to permanency and 
placement stability are all in the same direction with higher scores 
meaning higher levels of performance. We believe that assessing all 
data in the same direction will simplify the interpretation of State 
performance with regard to the national data.
    Although there was general support from the field for the proposed 
measure of recurrence of maltreatment, some respondents suggested that 
the measure be restricted to maltreatment recurrence involving the same 
perpetrator and the same type of abuse. ACF decided not to make this 
change because children should be protected from continued maltreatment 
within a 6-month period even if the perpetrator is the mother in one 
incident, for example, and the father or grandmother in another 
incident, or if the perpetrator is the same but the maltreatment is 
neglect in one incident and physical abuse in another.
    Respondents also questioned whether and, if so, how the measure of 
recurrence will incorporate maltreatment allegations that are referred 
for an ``alternative response.'' Alternative response usually refers to 
the practice implemented by several States in which a maltreatment 
allegation that is believed to involve low risk of harm to the child is 
referred to an agency for an assessment to determine whether the family 
is in need of services. In these situations, the allegation is not 
referred for a formal child abuse and neglect investigation. We 
determined that it is not possible to include maltreatment allegations 
that are referred for an alternative response in the measure of 
maltreatment recurrence because the majority of States that implement 
this approach do not make a disposition as to whether the allegation is 
substantiated or indicated.
    Although respondents to the initial Federal Register notice also 
expressed support for the measure of maltreatment of children in foster 
care by foster parents or facility staff members, some suggested that 
the measure include maltreatment by relative caregivers. It already 
does this. The maltreatment in foster care measure includes 
perpetrators who are relative foster parents, non-relative foster 
parents, and group home or residential facility staff. It does not 
include perpetrators who are relative caregivers taking care of 
children who are not in foster care. NCANDS's current definition of 
``foster parent'' is ``an individual licensed to provide a home for 
orphaned, abused, neglected, delinquent, or disabled children, usually 
with the approval of the government or a social service agency. This 
individual may be a relative or a non-relative.''
    The final two measures to be associated with the assessment of CFSR 
Safety Outcome 1 represent those that remained after we excluded the 
other measures initially proposed in the Federal Register notice. ACF 
decided to exclude the other proposed measures based on feedback from 
the field and the results of our review of the data and our data 
analyses. The measures excluded and reasons for exclusion are described 
below:
     Measure of multiple unsubstantiated maltreatment 
allegations. In the November 7th Federal Register notice, ACF proposed 
a safety-related measure assessing the performance area of multiple 
unsubstantiated maltreatment reports. This was based on the findings of 
several research studies indicating that many children who are the 
subject of multiple unsubstantiated allegations actually experience 
maltreatment. However, almost all respondents recommended eliminating 
this performance area from the CFSR assessment. They noted that the 
measure is problematic because of State variations in practices and 
procedures relevant to substantiation. A particular concern was that 
many States do not differentiate in their dispositions between 
unsubstantiated allegations and allegations that are found to be 
intentionally false or without merit. Consequently, there would be no 
way to exclude the latter types of allegations from the assessment in 
all States.
     Measure of timeliness of initiating investigations of 
maltreatment allegations. In the Federal Register notice, ACF proposed 
a measure of timeliness of initiating investigations of maltreatment 
allegations, with initiation defined as establishing face-to-face 
contact with the child who is the subject of the allegation and with 
the family. The measure was designed to address the proposition that 
investigations that are initiated quickly are more likely to ensure the 
safety of children than investigations that are not initiated quickly. 
We decided to exclude this measure primarily because the results of our 
data analyses did not support its inclusion and because it was not 
clear from the data that States were defining either the starting point 
(i.e., receipt of the allegation) or the end point (i.e., initiation of 
investigation) of the proposed measure in a consistent manner. In 
addition, most respondents expressed concern that such a measure would 
result in the Federal government setting policy for the States with 
regard to timeliness of initiating an investigation.\3\ However, 
because timeliness of investigations will continue to be part of the 
CFSR case review assessment, we have decided to provide data relevant 
to State performance in this area in the State Data Profile without an 
associated national standard. We will require that States address their 
performance in this area in their Statewide Assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Some respondents raised concern that the proposed timeliness 
to investigation measures did not reflect the prioritization and 
classification systems based on the perceived risk of harm to the 
child that some States have developed for establishing timeframes 
for responding to maltreatment allegations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Measure of timeliness of dispositions of maltreatment 
reports.

[[Page 32974]]

ACF initially proposed this measure because of our concern that a child 
welfare agency may not be able to address the safety of the child fully 
until an investigation is completed and a disposition is made. We 
decided to exclude the measure from the composite analysis because the 
majority of respondents indicated that State child welfare agencies are 
able to provide the necessary services and conduct adequate safety and 
risk assessment prior to a formal disposition, and that often a 
disposition is a court decision that is made after the agency has 
already intervened with the family to ensure safety and address risk 
issues.
     Measure of maltreatment of children in foster care by 
their parents. We proposed this measure as a result of an unanticipated 
finding in our initial data review that for many of the children who 
were reported as being victims of maltreatment when they were in foster 
care, the perpetrator was identified as the parent. However, almost all 
respondents to the Federal Register notice expressed concern that 
because States report to NCANDS the report date rather than the 
incident date of a maltreatment allegation, the measure would capture 
incidents of maltreatment by parents that were received while the child 
was in foster care but that actually occurred before the child entered 
foster care. We initially attempted to address this problem by 
excluding from the measure reports received during the first 30 days 
that a child was in foster care. However, respondents did not agree 
that this would be sufficient to resolve the problem. Although NCANDS 
now includes a data element that asks States to report the date of the 
maltreatment incident as well as the date the report was received, 
States are not yet using that data element on a consistent basis. ACF 
has decided to report data on this measure to the States in the State 
Data Profile. We believe that States may not be aware of the extent of 
this problem and that by providing these data we will encourage them to 
use the NCANDS data element pertaining to the date of the maltreatment 
incident to assess whether children are victims of maltreatment by 
their parents while they are in foster care.

B. CFSR Composites and Measures That Will Be Used as Part of the 
Assessment of a State's Substantial Conformity With CFSR Permanency 
Outcome 1--Children Have Permanency and Stability in Their Living 
Situations

    Four data composites will be used as part of the assessment of 
State performance in achieving CFSR Permanency Outcome 1. A composite 
reflects the general domain that is assessed by the data. The four 
composites are: Permanency Composite 1: Timeliness and permanency of 
reunifications; Permanency Composite 2: Timeliness of adoptions; 
Permanency Composite 3: Achieving permanency for children in foster 
care for extended periods of time; and Permanency Composite 4: 
Placement stability. Information pertaining to construction of the 
composites is provided in attachment B.
    Each composite comprises one or more components, depending upon the 
results of the data analysis. Components are the general factors that 
contribute to the composite score. If a composite has two components, 
each one contributes 50 percent to the composite score. If a composite 
has three components, each one contributes 33.3 percent to the 
composite score.
    Each component comprises one or more measures. The measures provide 
the actual data for the analysis. The contribution of each measure 
(also called the weight) to the component score is determined by the 
principal components analysis and is presented in attachment B. The 
general structure of each composite with regard to the number of 
components and the number of measures, a summary of the data for each 
measure, and the national standards are presented in table 1.
1. Permanency Composite 1: Timeliness and Permanency of Reunifications
    The principal components analysis of the measures proposed for this 
composite yielded a composite comprised of two components. One 
component pertains to timeliness of reunifications. This component 
includes three measures. The other component pertains to the permanency 
of reunifications and includes one measure. Each component has a unique 
score and contributes 50 percent to the final composite score. 
Information regarding the contributions of individual measures to the 
component score is provided in attachment B. Composite scores represent 
the conversion of z-scores to a scale ranging from 50 to 150.

Component 1: Timeliness of Reunification

    For the CFSR data measures, reunification occurs if the child is 
reported to AFCARS as discharged from foster care and the reason for 
discharge is either ``reunification with parents or primary 
caretakers'' or ``living with other relatives.'' The score for the 
timeliness of reunification component of Permanency Composite 1 was 
derived from State performance on the following measures:
     Of all children discharged from foster care to 
reunification in FY 2004 who had been in foster care for 8 days or 
longer, what percent were reunified in less than 12 months from the 
date of the latest removal from home? In calculating this measure, the 
following children are included in the numerator: (1) Children who were 
discharged from foster care to a reunification in less than 12 months 
from the date of removal from home; and (2) children who were 
discharged from foster care to a reunification who were reported to 
AFCARS as being placed in a Trial Home Visit in less than 11 months 
from the date of removal from the home and who remained in that 
placement until discharge from foster care to reunification.
     Of all children exiting foster care to reunification in 
2004 who had been in foster care for 8 days or longer, what was the 
median length of stay in months from the date of the most recent entry 
into foster care until the date of reunification? For this measure, the 
length of stay in foster care of a particular child was assessed in two 
ways: (1) The length of stay in months from the date of removal from 
the home to the date of discharge from foster care to reunification; or 
(2) the length of stay in months from the date of removal from the home 
to the date that the child was reported to AFCARS as being placed in a 
Trial Home Visit, if the trial home visit lasted longer than 30 days 
and was the last placement setting before the child's eventual 
discharge from foster care. The score for this measure was adjusted to 
reflect a positive direction with higher scores indicating higher 
performance. This is explained further in attachment B.
     Of all children entering foster care for the first time in 
the second 6 months of FY 2003 who remained in foster care for 8 days 
or longer, what percent were reunified in less than 12 months of the 
date of entry into foster care? In calculating this measure, the 
following children are included in the numerator: (1) Children who 
entered foster care in the second 6 months of FY 2003 who were 
discharged from foster care to reunification in less than 12 months 
from the date of entry into foster care; and (2) children who entered 
foster care in the second 6 months of FY 2003 who were reported to 
AFCARS as being placed in a Trial Home Visit in less than 11 months 
from the date of entry into foster care and remained in the trial home 
visit until discharge to reunification.

[[Page 32975]]

    The contribution (weight) of each of these measures to the 
component score is determined by the coefficient resulting from the 
principal components analysis. The actual score is multiplied by the 
coefficient to achieve the actual score. This is explained further in 
attachment B.
Component 2: Permanency of Reunification
    The score for the permanency of reunification component of this 
composite was derived from State performance on the following measure:
     Of all children exiting foster care to reunification in FY 
2003, what percent re-entered foster care in less than 12 months?
    As noted above, the score for this measure contributes 50 percent 
to the final composite score. The actual score for this measure was 
adjusted to reflect performance in a positive direction so that a 
higher score reflects higher performance. This is explained further in 
attachment B.
Key Features of the Components and Measures
Adjustments to the Measures
    As indicated in the information above, all measures assessing the 
timeliness of reunification component are adjusted to exclude children 
who were not in foster care for 8 days or longer. The calculation of 
the measures also is adjusted to include children who are placed in a 
trial home visit prior to discharge from foster care to reunification 
if the trial home visit meets specific conditions (as noted in the 
description of the calculation of the measures above). Most respondents 
to the Federal Register notice who commented on these adjustments 
expressed support for them.
    ACF proposed that the measure of timeliness of reunification should 
include only children who were in foster care for 8 days or longer in 
order to address variation in State practices and policies concerning 
the placement of children in very short term foster care. We believe 
that for the most part, the kinds of case practices and agency efforts 
necessary to achieve a timely reunification for a child who has been 
removed from home and placed in foster care are not usually applicable 
for these very short-term placements. Initially, we also proposed a 
measure that required that a child be in foster care for 30 days or 
longer in order to be included in the analysis. This measure was 
eliminated from the composite after the principal components analysis 
revealed a very high correlation between the 30-day and 8-day 
adjustment measures, suggesting that the measures capture the same 
information. In addition, there was more support among respondents to 
the Federal Register notice for the 8-day measure than there was for 
the 30-day measure. To assist States in understanding how this 
adjustment impacts their performance, we will provide data in the State 
Data Profile regarding the percentage of children entering foster care 
in a fiscal year who are discharged from foster care in less than 8 
days after the date of removal from the home.
    ACF initially proposed the trial home visit adjustment to the 
measures of timeliness of reunification in order to address variations 
in State policy regarding returning children to their families 
(parents, relatives, or other caretakers) for a period of time before a 
discharge from foster care. This practice often is referred to as 
``physical reunification'' to distinguish it from a reunification in 
which custody is transferred to the parents or relatives. For the most 
part, the purpose of this practice is to monitor and assist families in 
the reintegration process. This practice may be required in State 
statute, written into agency policy, or reflect standard case practice 
in a State.
    Many respondents recommended that for purposes of the CFSR, ACF 
should consider ``physical reunification'' as equivalent to a discharge 
from foster care to reunification. We are unable to do this because the 
CFSR data profile considers children as reunified only if there is a 
discharge from foster care and if the discharge reason reported to 
AFCARS is ``return to family'' or ``live with relatives.'' Once 
discharged, the child is no longer reported to AFCARS, unless the child 
re-enters foster care. There is no data element in AFCARS that would 
allow us to know specifically that a child has been physically 
reunified.
    We believe that the trial home visit adjustment we have made to the 
measures of timeliness of reunification captures information about the 
time in foster care of most children who were physically reunified 
prior to an actual discharge from foster care. States that return 
children to their families prior to discharge usually report them as 
being in a ``Trial Home Visit,'' which is one of the placement 
categories in AFCARS, although they may not actually consider the 
placement a ``trial.'' Through a review of the data, we determined that 
a trial home visit placement of longer than 30 days that resulted in an 
eventual discharge to reunification captures the vast majority of 
instances that may be considered ``physical reunification.'' Therefore, 
we incorporated into the measure the time span from the date of entry 
into foster care to a placement in a Trial Home Visit (as reported in 
AFCARS) that was longer than 30 days and that was the final placement 
before the child was discharged from foster care with a discharge 
reason of return to family or live with relatives.
Timeframe for Reunification
    Several respondents expressed concern that most of the measures 
proposed for this composite continue to focus on 12 months as the 
appropriate time period for assessing timeliness of reunification. 
These respondents suggested that a 12-month timeframe is not sufficient 
in many cases to achieve reunification, particularly for families in 
which parental substance abuse was a key reason for a child's removal 
from the home. They noted that 12 months is not sufficient for a parent 
to receive and complete substance abuse treatment services. These 
respondents recommended that the timeframe be extended to either 18 or 
24 months to reflect the reality of many of the families whose children 
are in foster care.
    ACF acknowledges that it is not always feasible or desirable for 
all children to be reunified with their families in less than 12 months 
and we have no expectation that this goal will be accomplished for 100 
percent of the children who are eventually reunified. However, we 
believe that the focus of the measure on reunifications occurring in 
less than 12 months emphasizes the responsibility of child welfare 
agencies to return children to safe homes as quickly as possible. This 
includes working quickly and intensively with parents with difficult 
issues such as substance abuse to address the problems that resulted in 
the child's removal from home. In addition, we have incorporated a 
measure of median length of stay in foster care to reunification that 
does not specify a 12-month timeframe.
Inclusion of Three Measures in the Timeliness of Reunification 
Component
    Several respondents to the Federal Register notice suggested that 
the measure of reunification that follows an entry cohort of children 
is sufficient to capture State performance with regard to timeliness of 
reunification. They expressed the opinion that other measures of 
timeliness are not necessary, and in fact, are not valid in assessing 
timeliness. From the beginning of this process, ACF determined that the 
decision regarding the measures to be incorporated in the

[[Page 32976]]

composite would be based primarily on the empirical results of the 
principal components analyses. For the timeliness of reunification 
component, the results of the analysis revealed that, although there is 
overlapping information, each of the three measures chosen for the 
composite makes a substantial contribution to explaining the variation 
in performance regarding timeliness (see attachment B for the results 
of the analysis). For example, the entry cohort measure only captures 
information about children who enter foster care in the second 6 months 
of the year who are reunified in less than 12 months of the time of 
entry into foster care. It does not provide information about what 
happens to the children who are not reunified in that time frame. As 
indicated in table 1, the median across States for the percentage of 
children entering foster care in the second six months of a fiscal year 
who are reunified in less than 12 months is 35.1 percent. This 
indicates that there are substantial numbers of children who are not 
reunified in less than 12 months of entering foster care. Although no 
measure is ideal, we believe that by combining all three measures in 
the timeliness of reunification component we are able to incorporate a 
broader picture of State performance with regard to reunifying children 
in a timely manner than we are able to capture with any single measure.
    We acknowledge, however, that an entry cohort approach would be 
able to capture a wider range of information if each entry cohort for 
each year could be followed for several years. Although the timeframe 
for the CFSR precludes this type of analysis, it is possible for a 
State to use a multiple year entry cohort analysis to assess its own 
performance and progress. We also are aware that there are statistical 
procedures available to estimate the percentage of children entering 
foster care who are likely to be reunified within various timeframes. 
However, because the CFSR can result in penalties for a State, ACF 
determined that estimates of performance with regard to achieving 
particular outcomes are not appropriate. Most respondents to the 
Federal Register notice agreed with this determination and did not want 
the CFSR to use measures requiring statistical projections.
Inclusion of a Measure of Foster Care Re-Entry As Part of the 
Reunification Composite
    As noted in the Federal Register notice, ACF proposed that State 
performance with regard to children re-entering foster care in less 
than 12 months of a prior foster care episode would be incorporated 
into the composite assessing the timeliness and permanency of 
reunification. In the first round of the CFSR, the re-entry measure was 
assessed separately from the timeliness of reunification measure. 
Although ACF believes that it is important to reunify children with 
their families as quickly as possible, we also believe that children 
should not be reunified until sufficient changes are made to prevent 
the child being removed from the home again. The majority of 
respondents supported the inclusion of a measure of foster care re-
entry as part of a single composite assessing the timeliness and 
permanency of reunification.
    In addition, the measure of foster care re-entry that was used in 
the first round of the CFSR has been revised to reflect a longitudinal 
analysis. The new measure follows children who exited foster care to 
reunification in one year to identify the percentage who re-enter in 
less than 12 months of the time of exit. All respondents commenting on 
this measure indicated support for this change.
2. Permanency Composite 2: Timeliness of Adoptions
    The principal components analysis of the performance measures 
proposed for the timeliness of adoption composite yielded three 
components. One component pertains to the timeliness of adoptions of 
children exiting foster care to adoption. The second component assesses 
progress toward adoption of a cohort of children who have been in 
foster care for 17 months or longer and therefore meet the ASFA time-
in-foster care requirements regarding the State filing for a 
termination of parental rights and pursuing adoption unless there is an 
exception.\4\ This may be found in section 475(5)(E) and (F) of the 
Social Security Act. The third component pertains to the timeliness of 
adoptions of a cohort of children for who are ``legally free'' for 
adoption. Legally free means that there is a termination of parental 
rights for each of the child's living parents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ASFA requires State child welfare agencies to file a 
petition to terminate parental rights and pursue adoption for a 
child who has been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 
months, unless an exception exists. A 17-month rather than a 15-
month timeframe was chosen for the measure because, in accordance 
with ASFA, a child is considered to have ``entered foster care'' 
(for purposes of starting the clock for the 15 of 22 months) on the 
earlier of:
    (1) the first judicial finding that the child has been subjected 
to abuse and neglect, or
    (2) the date that is 60 days after the date on which the child 
is removed from the home.
    The 17 month time frame in the measure is used because AFCARS 
does not collect information pertaining to the date of the first 
judicial finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each component has a unique score and each contributes 33.3 percent 
to the final composite score. The contribution of the individual 
measures to the score for each component is determined by the results 
of the principal components analysis, as explained further in 
attachment B. Data pertaining to the composite score and individual 
measures are presented in table 1.
Component 1. Timeliness of Adoptions of Children Exiting Foster Care
    The score for the component pertaining to timeliness of adoptions 
of children exiting foster care was derived from performance on the 
following measures:
     Of all children who were discharged from foster care to a 
finalized adoption in FY 2004, what percent was discharged in less than 
24 months from the date of the latest removal from the home?
     Of all children who were discharged from foster care to a 
finalized adoption in FY 2004, what was the median length of stay in 
foster care (in months) from the date of removal from the home to the 
date of discharge? The actual score for this measure was adjusted to 
reflect performance in a positive direction so that a higher score 
reflects higher performance. This is explained further in attachment B.
    The contribution of each of these measures to the component score 
is provided in attachment B.
Component 2. Progress Toward Adoption of Children Who Have Been in 
Foster Care for 17 Months or Longer
    The score for the component assessing progress toward adoption of a 
cohort of children who meet the ASFA time-in-foster care requirements 
was derived from performance on the following measures:
     Of all children in foster care on the first day of FY 2004 
who were in foster care for 17 continuous months or longer, what 
percent was discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption before 
the end of the fiscal year?
     Of all children in foster care on the first day of FY 2004 
who were in foster care for 17 continuous months or longer, what 
percent became legally free for adoption in less than 6 months from the 
beginning of the fiscal year?
    The contribution of each of these measures to the component score 
is provided in attachment B.

[[Page 32977]]

Component 3: Timeliness of Adoptions of Children Who Are Legally Free 
for Adoption
    The score for the component assessing timeliness of adoptions for 
children who are legally free for adoption was derived from performance 
on the following measure:
     Of all children who became legally free for adoption 
during FY 2003, what percent were discharged from foster care to a 
finalized adoption in less than 12 months of becoming legally free?
Key Features of Components and Measures
    The timeliness of adoption composite does not include an entry 
cohort measure.
    Several respondents to the Federal Register Announcement expressed 
concern that the proposed timeliness of adoptions composite did not 
include an entry cohort measure--that is, a measure that follows 
children longitudinally from the date of entry into foster care to the 
date of the finalized adoption. As noted in the November 7th 
Announcement, in determining appropriate measures to test for the 
composite, our review of the data indicated that an entry cohort 
approach to assessing the timeliness of adoptions is not feasible 
within the timeframes of the CFSR. The reasons for this, which were 
indicated in the Federal Register notice, are the following:
     An extensive timeframe is required to follow a cohort of 
children from entry into foster care to a finalized adoption and the 
timeframe is not consistent with the CFSR timeframes. For example, in 
following a cohort of children entering foster care in FY 2001, 
meaningful data pertaining to adoptions did not emerge until 3 years 
after the entry year.
     Because not all children entering foster care will be 
adopted, and because the number of children waiting to be adopted 
changes each year, it is not possible to establish a stable denominator 
for an entry cohort measure pertaining to timeliness of adoptions. In 
following the FY 2001 cohort, for example, we found that the 
denominator for assessing adoptions changed on an ongoing basis as 
children in the original cohort were reunified or exited foster care 
for other reasons.
     Although it is possible to apply statistical methods to 
historical data and estimate the ``likelihood'' of children who enter 
foster are in a given year being adopted within particular timeframes, 
ACF cannot use statistical projections to assess CFSR performance 
because of the potential for financial penalties associated with CSFR 
performance.
    A few respondents suggested that the assessment of timeliness of 
adoptions used by the CFSR will not be meaningful without an entry 
cohort measure. However, we believe that the measures and components 
for this composite that resulted from the principal components analysis 
provide a comprehensive picture of State performance with regard to the 
timeliness of adoption and capture meaningful information. Furthermore, 
we believe that the three longitudinal measures of progress toward 
adoption that were incorporated into the composite follow a cohort of 
children but have a more stable denominator than an entry cohort 
measure and a timeframe that is consistent with the CFSR.
Measures of Timeliness of Adoption of Children Discharged From Foster 
Care to a Finalized Adoption
    The measure assessing the percent of adoptions occurring in less 
than 24 months of a child's entry into foster care is identical to the 
adoption-related data measure used in the first round of the CFSR. 
Support for this measure from the field was mixed. Some respondents 
expressed strong support for the measure, while others suggested that 
it be replaced by an entry cohort measure. Respondents expressed 
similar differences of opinion regarding the measure of the median 
length of stay of children discharged from foster care to adoption. In 
general, the measures are intended to focus on timeliness of adoption 
by considering children who have already experienced that outcome. One 
measure does this by focusing on a specific timeframe (i.e., 24 
months), while the other addresses the range of possible time periods, 
with a focus on the median time in foster care. The results of the 
principal components analysis indicate that taken together, these two 
measures account for a large percentage of the variation in State 
performance with regard to the timeliness of adoptions of a cohort of 
children who have exited foster care to adoption.
Longitudinal Measures of a Cohort of Children Who Have Been in Foster 
Care for 17 Months or Longer
    The two measures that follow the progress toward adoption of a 
cohort of children who have been in foster care for 17 months or longer 
are intended to address the ASFA time-in-foster care requirement for 
States to file for a termination of parental rights and pursue adoption 
unless there is an exception. Several respondents to the Federal 
Register notice suggested that many children who have been in foster 
care for 17 months or longer will exit foster care to a permanency 
option other than adoption or will meet the exceptions noted in ASFA. 
They recommended, therefore, that these measures be limited to children 
who have a case goal of adoption.
    After consideration of this request, ACF decided to maintain the 
denominator for these measures as all children in foster care for 17 
months or longer at the start of the fiscal year. We acknowledge that 
many of the children in foster care for 17 months or longer at the 
start of the fiscal year may be discharged from foster care with a 
discharge reason other than adoption. In addition, we know that some 
children who are in foster care for 17 months or longer are likely to 
meet the criteria for an exception to the ASFA requirement. However, if 
we include in the measure only children who have a goal of adoption 
reported to AFCARS, we will miss those children who have other goals, 
but for whom adoption needs to be considered because of the length of 
time they have been in foster care and because they do not meet the 
criteria for an exception. Also, if we include in the measure only 
children who have a goal of adoption reported to AFCARS, we will miss 
those children for whom the agency is working toward adoption, but has 
not yet reported a goal change to AFCARS.
    The results of our data analyses indicate that the percentages 
regarding State performance on these measures are sufficiently low to 
ensure that States are able to be flexible with regard to meeting the 
unique needs of the children they serve. In fact, very small 
percentages of children in care for 17 months or longer at the start of 
the fiscal year become legally free for adoption within 6 months 
(median = 9.0 percent) or are adopted by the end of the fiscal year 
(median = 18.0 percent). As with all other data measures used for the 
CFSR, there is no expectation that a State achieve a particular goal 
for 100 percent of the children who are included in the denominator of 
a specific measure. However, ACF believes that the ASFA requirement 
regarding the State filing a TPR and pursuing adoption, unless there is 
an exception, reflects a national concern that State child welfare 
agencies make concerted efforts to ensure that children who cannot be 
reunified are legally freed for adoption and adopted as quickly as 
possible.

[[Page 32978]]

Longitudinal Measure of the Percent of Children Who Become Legally Free 
for Adoption in a Given Year Who Are Adopted in Less Than 12 Months of 
Becoming Legally Free
    Although respondents to the initial Federal Register notice 
generally supported this measure, a few expressed concerns about the 
accuracy of information reported to AFCARS regarding termination of 
parental rights. Our review of the data indicated that there are a few 
States that do not appear to report information about termination of 
parental rights to the AFCARS Foster Care File, or who report this 
information for only a very few children. However, most States appear 
to be reporting this information fairly consistently, although they may 
not be reporting it in all instances. We believe that the problem of 
inconsistencies can be resolved by States improving their reporting to 
AFCARS on the data elements pertaining to termination of parental 
rights.
3. Permanency Composite 3: Achieving Permanency for Children in Foster 
Care
    The principal components analysis of the performance measures 
proposed for the composite addressing achieving permanency for children 
yielded two components. One component pertains to achieving permanency 
for children in foster care for long periods of time, and the other 
pertains to the issue of children growing up in foster care and exiting 
to emancipation. A State's score for each component contributes 50 
percent to the State's total score for this composite. As noted for the 
other composites, the scores for the individual components are derived 
from the contribution of each of the measures to the component, as 
determined by the coefficient resulting from the principal components 
analysis.
Component 1: Achieving Permanency for Children in Foster Care for 
Extended Periods of Time
    The score for the component pertaining to achieving permanency for 
children in foster care for long periods of time was derived from 
performance on the following measures:
     Of all children who were discharged from foster care in FY 
2004 who were legally free for adoption (i.e., there was a TPR for each 
living parent), what percent were discharged to a permanent home prior 
to their 18th birthday, with a permanent home defined as having a 
discharge reason of adoption, reunification (including live with 
relative), or guardianship?
     Of all children who were in foster care for 24 months or 
longer on the first day of FY 2004, what percent were discharged from 
foster care to a permanent home prior to their 18th birthday and by the 
end of the fiscal year?
Component 2: Children Growing Up in Foster Care
    The score for the component addressing children growing up in 
foster care was derived from performance on the following measure:
     Of all children who were emancipated from foster care or 
reached their 18th birthday while in foster care, what percent had been 
in foster care for 3 years or longer?
    In AFCARS, emancipation is defined as ``the child reached majority 
according to State law by virtue of age, marriage, etc.'' The actual 
score for this measure was adjusted to reflect performance in a 
positive direction so that a higher score reflects higher performance. 
This is explained further in attachment B.
Key Features of the Composite, Components, and Measures
Inclusion of Guardianship in the Assessment of Achieving Permanency
    A key feature of this component is that guardianship is included as 
one of the permanency options in two of the measures. Several 
respondents to the November 7th Federal Register notice expressed 
concern that the CFSR data measures do not assess State performance 
with regard to achieving guardianship as a permanency option. In 
response to this concern, ACF analyzed the data for guardianship and 
found that, nationally, only a very small percentage of children are 
discharged from foster care to guardianship. In several States, no 
children are discharged from foster care to guardianship, suggesting 
that guardianship is not a permanency option in these States. These 
small numbers did not permit a separate composite or measure focusing 
on timeliness of achieving guardianship. However, because we recognize 
that many States have made concerted efforts to achieve permanency for 
children through guardianship, we included guardianship as a permanency 
option in the two measures that assess achieving permanency for 
children.
Longitudinal Analysis of a Cohort of Children in Foster Care for 24 
Months or Longer
    Many respondents expressed concern that most of the existing 
measures pertaining to adoption and reunification do not capture 
general permanency information for children in foster care for a 
relatively long period of time. In response to this concern, ACF 
developed a measure to assess discharges to permanency of children in 
foster care for 24 months or longer. The 24 month period was chosen 
because, nationally, about 50 percent of the children in foster care on 
any given day have been in foster care for about 2 years or longer. The 
new measure allows an assessment of what happens to these children in a 
12-month time period.
Addressing Concerns Regarding ``Legal Orphans''
    The measure of achieving permanency for children who are discharged 
from foster care and who were legally free for adoption at the time of 
discharge addresses the concern of the field that by pursuing 
termination of parental rights for children who have been in foster 
care for 15 of the most recent 22 months, the field may be creating 
``legal orphans,'' that is, children who have no legal parents and for 
whom no permanent home is found. The data for this measure suggest that 
the vast majority of children who are discharged from foster care prior 
to their 18th birthday and who are legally free for adoption are 
discharged to a permanent home (including guardianship, adoption, and 
reunification). However, despite the large percentages, ACF decided to 
maintain the measure because it is important for States to make 
concerted efforts to ensure permanency for all children for whom a 
termination of parental rights has been granted for each living parent.
Addressing the Issue of Children Emancipated From Foster Care After 
Many Years in Foster Care
    One objective of ASFA was to ensure that child welfare agencies 
make concerted efforts to ensure that children do not spend many of 
their childhood years in foster care, only to leave foster care without 
having found a permanent home. Our initial measure to address this 
concern focused on the percentage of children emancipated from foster 
care or reaching their 18th birthday while in foster care who entered 
foster care when they were age 12 or younger. However, a few 
respondents noted that this measure was more likely to reflect the 
variation among States with regard to the ages of children at the time 
of entry into foster care than it was to capture the general issue of 
children growing up in foster care. In response to this concern, we 
revised the measure to focus on the length of time in foster care of 
children emancipated from foster care rather than the age at entry into 
foster

[[Page 32979]]

care. Due to our criteria of having been in foster care for 3 years or 
longer, the revised measure excludes children who exit to emancipation 
who entered foster care at approximately age 15 or older. This 
addresses a large portion of the variation among States with regard to 
the age of children at the time of entry into foster care.
4. Permanency composite 4: Placement stability
    The principal components analysis for this composite yielded one 
component that incorporates the following three measures:
     Of all children in foster care in FY 2004 who were in 
foster care for 8 days or longer and less than 12 months, what percent 
had two or fewer placement settings?
     Of all children in foster care in FY 2004 who were in 
foster care for at least 12 months but less than 24 months, what 
percent had two or fewer placement settings?
     Of all children in foster care in FY 2004 who were in 
foster care for 24 months or longer, what percent had two or fewer 
placement settings?
    Data pertaining to the composite score and individual measures are 
presented in table 1. The contribution of each measure to the composite 
score is determined by the results of the principal components 
analysis, as described further in attachment B.
Key Features of Composite and Measures
    This composite includes one measure that is similar to the measure 
of placement stability used in the first round of the CFSR--placement 
stability for children who have been in foster care for less than 12 
months. The one revision to this measure is that it includes only 
children who have been in foster care for 8 days or longer. We made 
this revision in response to concerns expressed by respondents 
regarding including children in foster care for very short periods of 
time in the measure of placement stability. However, if a child is in 
care for 8 days or longer, the placement changes that occurred during 
the first 8 days in foster care are considered in the measure. Two 
additional measures were added to the composite to address the issue of 
placement stability for children in foster care for longer periods of 
time. ACF believes that placement stability is as important to the 
well-being of children in foster care for 2 years or longer as it is 
for children who have been in foster care for only a few months. Most 
respondents to the Federal Register notice expressed support for this 
composite and the measures. However, respondents raised the following 
concerns regarding the measures:
     The measures do not define what constitutes a placement 
change. This issue has been raised in the past regarding reporting 
placement changes to AFCARS. Clarification was issued to the States in 
CWPM 1.2B.7.
     The measures do not capture variations with regard to time 
in foster care. Respondents noted that the children included in the 
measure who were in care for less than 12 months could have been in 
care for only a few weeks or for several months. In response to this 
concern, ACF examined alternative approaches to this measure, including 
an entry cohort approach.
    However, unless a measure specified that all children were in 
foster care for a specified time period, all of the approaches 
considered had the same problem. For example, we could address this 
problem if we included in the measure only children who were in foster 
care for at least 11 of the 12 months. However, this does not capture 
the issue of placement stability for children who are in foster care 
for short periods of time. Our review of the data indicated that these 
children can experience multiple placements as well as those children 
in foster care for longer periods of time. Consequently, we have 
maintained the measure as proposed with the exclusion of children who 
were in foster care for less than 8 days.
     ACF should expand the definition of placement stability 
from two placement settings to three placement settings for children 
who have been in foster care for longer than 12 months and for older 
children because two placement settings is not a realistic measure of 
placement stability for these children. In developing the outcome 
measures for the Annual Report to Congress on Child Welfare Outcomes, 
ACF engaged in a broad-based consultation process with stakeholders in 
the field, including representatives from State and county child 
welfare agencies, child advocacy organizations, and child welfare 
researchers. With regard to the outcome measure pertaining to placement 
stability, ACF, based on input from these stakeholders, established a 
definition of placement stability as a child experiencing two or fewer 
placement settings. The decision to have two placement settings in the 
definition instead of one was based on the following: (1) often it is 
difficult to determine the most appropriate placement setting at the 
time of the child's initial removal from home; and (2) in many States, 
children are placed in a shelter type placement for a short period of 
time in order to assess the needs of the child and determine the most 
appropriate placement. We have decided not to increase the number of 
placement settings in our definition of placement stability for any of 
the measures. One reason for this is that our existing definition was 
established in consultation with key stakeholders in the child welfare 
field. In addition, placement stability is a critical component of the 
well-being of children in foster care. States are responsible for 
ensuring that children who are removed from their homes by the State 
experience stability while they are in foster care. It is not in the 
best interest of a child to experience multiple placement settings 
regardless of the time that the child is in foster care, the child's 
age, or the reason for the child's entry into foster care.
     The placement setting information does not capture changes 
in placement settings that are positive changes. AFCARS does not have 
information about whether a placement change reflects a positive move 
for the child. For example, changing a child's placement in order to 
move the child closer to the parents to facilitate more frequent 
visits. It is difficult to assess whether a placement change is 
positive for the child without contextual information about various 
factors such as the needs of the child and the existing conditions of 
the child's placement. For example, a child may change placements 
because of the death or illness of a foster parent, or because the 
child is in need of a specific type of treatment. The question of 
whether a placement change is in a positive direction is addressed in 
the case review component of the CFSR because more information about 
the child and the placements is available in that process. As noted 
previously, although we cannot account for these events in the data 
measure, we also do not expect that 100 percent of the children in any 
of the specified time-in-care timeframes will experience no more than 
two placement settings.
    This announcement is intended to provide information about the 
national data that will be used in the next round of the CFSR as a 
component of the overall assessment of a State's substantial conformity 
with two of the seven CFSR outcomes. The attachments to this 
announcement provide supplementary information regarding the 
methodology used in developing the data composites.

    Dated: June 1, 2006.
Joan E. Ohl,
Commissioner, Administration on Children, Youth and Families.

[[Page 32980]]



  Table 1.--Range, Percentiles, and National Standards for the Measures and Composites To Be Used in the Second
                                  Round of the Child and Family Services Review
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Composites and performance measures             Range      Median           National  standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Performance Measures Associated with Performance on CFSR Safety Outcome 1--Children Are, First and Foremost,
                                        Protected from Abuse and Neglect
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of all children who were victims of a substantiated     86.0-98.0    93.5   95.2 or higher.
 or indicated maltreatment allegation during the
 first 6 months of FY 2004, what percent were not
 victims of another substantiated or indicated
 maltreatment allegation during a 6-month period?
Maltreatment of children in foster care: Of all         99.07-100    99.68  99.67 or higher.
 children in foster care in FY 2004, what percent
 were not victims of a substantiated or indicated
 maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff
 member?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Composites, Components, and Performance Measures Associated with Performance on CFSR Permanency Outcome 1--
                        Children Have Permanency and Stability in Their Living Situations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Permanency Composite 1: Timeliness and Permanency of Reunification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scaled Scores for the Timeliness and Permanency of         50-150    96.1   106.7 or higher.
 Reunification Composite incorporating two
 components and four measures.
Component A. Timeliness of reunification:
    Of all children discharged from foster care to      44.2-88.8    69.5   No Standard.
     reunification in FY 2004 who had been in foster
     care for 8 days or longer, what percent were
     reunified in less than 12 months from the time
     of the latest removal from home? (This includes
     the Trial Home Visit adjustment.).
    Of all children discharged from foster care to       2.0-13.7     6.5   No Standard.
     reunification in FY 2004 who had been in foster
     care for 8 days or longer, what was the median
     length of stay from the time of the most recent
     entry into foster care until discharge to
     reunification (in months)? (This includes the
     Trial Home Visit adjustment.)
    Of all children entering foster care in the         15.7-65.4    35.3   No Standard
     first 6 months of FY 2004 who remained in
     foster care for 8 days or longer, what percent
     were discharged from foster care to
     reunification in less than 12 months of the
     time of entry into foster care? (This includes
     the Trial Home Visit adjustment.)
Component B. Permanency of reunification:
    Of all children discharged from foster care to       1.6-29.5    14.8   No Standard.
     reunification in FY 2003, what percent re-
     entered foster care in less than 12 months?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Composites, commponents, and performance measures      Range      Median           National  standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Permanency Composite 2: Timeliness of Adoptions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scaled scores for the Timeliness of Adoptions              50-150    96.5   102.1 or higher
 Composite incorporating three components and five
 measures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Component A: Timeliness of adoptions of children discharged from foster care
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of all children who were discharged from foster care     6.4-74.9    27.1   No Standard.
 to a finalized adoption in FY 2004, what percent
 was discharged in less than 24 months from the time
 of the latest removal from the home?
Of all children who were discharged from foster care    16.2-55.7    32.0   No Standard.
 to a finalized adoption in FY 2004, what was the
 median length of stay in foster care (in months)
 from the time of removal from the home to the time
 of discharge from foster care?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Component B: Progress Toward Adoption for Children Who Meet ASFA Time-in-Care Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of all children in foster care on the first day of       8.0-25.1    18.0   No Standard.
 FY 2004 who were in foster care for 17 continuous
 months or longer, what percent were adopted before
 the end of the fiscal year?
    Of all children in foster care on the first day      0.2-17.2     9.0   No Standard
     of FY 2004 who were in foster care for 17
     continuous months or longer, what percent
     became legally free for adoption (i.e., a TPR
     was granted for each living parent) within 6
     months of the beginning of the fiscal year?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Component C: Progress Toward Adoption of Children Who Are Legally Free for Adoption
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of all children who became legally free for adoption    18.9-85.2    43.7   No Standard.
 during FY 2004, what percent were discharged from
 foster care to a finalized adoption in less than 12
 months?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Permanency Composite 3: Achieving Permanency for Children in Foster Care
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scaled scores for the Achieving Permanency Composite       50-150    98.6   105.2 or higher.
 incorporating two components and three measures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 32981]]

 
           Component A: Achieving Permanency for Children in Foster Care for Extended Periods of Time
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of all children who were discharged from foster care   84.6-100.0    96.8   No Standard.
 and were legally free for adoption (i.e., there was
 a TPR for each living parent), what percent exited
 to a permanent home defined as adoption,
 guardianship, or reunification prior to their 18th
 birthday?
Of all children in foster care for 24 months or          8.0-35.2    24.6   No Standard.
 longer at the start of the fiscal year, what
 percent were discharged to permanency in less than
 12 months and prior to their 18th birthday?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Component B: Children Emancipated Who Were in Foster Care for Extended Periods of Time
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of all children who exited foster care with             17.5-80.4    50.6   No Standard.
 adischarge reason of emancipation or who reached
 their 18th birthday while in foster care, what
 percent were in foster care for 3 years or longer?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Composites, components and measures             Range      Median            National standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Permanency Composite 4: Placement stability
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scaled scores for the Placement Stability Composite        50-150   102.0   108.2 or higher.
 incorporating three measures.
Of all children in foster care for 8 days or longer     64.7-97.1    82.4   No Standard.
 and less than 12 months, what percenthad two or
 fewer placement settings?
Of all children in foster care for at least 12          37.0-82.3    59.5   No Standard.
 months but less than 24 months, what percent had
 two or fewer placement settings?
Of all children in foster care for at least 24          14.1-53.8    33.4   No Standard.
 months, what percent had two or fewer placement
 settings?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attachment A: List of Data To Be Included in the State Data Profile

    Prior to development of the Statewide Assessment for the CFSR, each 
State will receive a State Data Profile. This profile will continue to 
include the information that was provided in the first round of the 
CFSR. It also will include new information regarding composite scores, 
the measures for the composites, and additional information relevant to 
the composites. This attachment provides a list of the general kinds of 
data that will be provided to States in the State Data Profile. 
Additional information may be added to the State Data Profile at a 
later date. Most of the data will be provided for 3 years. However, the 
States to be reviewed in the first year of the CFSR will have only 2 
years of data for each of the composites and composite measures.

Descriptive Information

Descriptive Information Currently Included in the State Data Profile

A. Descriptive Information From the National Child Abuse and Neglect 
Data System (NCANDS)
    1. The number of reports alleging maltreatment of children that 
reached a disposition within the reporting year; the total numbers of 
reports, and the number of unique children associated with reports 
alleging maltreatment.
    2. The numbers and percentages of reports that were given a 
disposition of ``Substantiated and Indicated,'' ``Unsubstantiated,'' 
and ``Other.''
    3. The numbers and percentages of child cases opened for services, 
which is based on the number of victims during the reporting period 
under review.
    4. The numbers and percentages of children entering foster care in 
response to a child abuse/neglect report.
    5. The number of child fatalities.
B. Descriptive Information From the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis 
and Reporting System (AFCARS). (Where Relevant, the Descriptive Data 
Identified Below Will Be Provided for Both a Point-in-Time Analysis and 
for a Cohort of Children Entering Foster Care in a Given Year)
    1. Number of children in foster care on the first and last day of 
the fiscal year and number of children entering and exiting foster care 
in the fiscal year.
    2. Placement settings for children in foster care.
    3. Case plan goals for children in foster care.
    4. Number of placement settings in the current foster care episode.
    5. Number of foster care episodes of children in foster care at the 
end of the fiscal year.
    6. Number and percentage of children in foster care for 17 of the 
most recent 22 months, calculated from the number of all children in 
foster care on the last day of the fiscal year.
    7. The median length of stay (months) in foster care of children in 
care on the last day of the year.
    8. Number of children who discharged to each type of permanency 
goal and the length of stay in foster care (in months) for those 
children who discharged to each permanency goal.

New Descriptive Information To Be Included in the State Data Profile

A. New Descriptive Information From NCANDS
    1. The mean time from receipt of an allegation of child 
maltreatment to the initiation of an investigation.
    2. The median time from receipt of an allegation of child 
maltreatment to the initiation of an investigation.
    3. The percent of children in foster care who are the subject of a 
substantiated or indicated maltreatment where the perpetrator is a 
parent.
B. New Descriptive Information From AFCARS
    1. The number and percent of children entering foster care in the 
fiscal year who were in care for 7 days or less before being discharged 
from foster care.
    2. The number and percent of children exiting foster care in the 
fiscal year who were in foster care for 7 days or less.

Analytical Information

Analytical Information Currently Included in the State Data Profile

A. Current Analytical Information From NCANDS
    1. Maltreatment recurrence: Of all children who were victims of 
abuse and/or neglect during the first 6 months of the reporting year, 
the percent that were victims of another abuse or neglect incident 
within a 6-month period.

[[Page 32982]]

    2. Maltreatment of children in foster care: Of all children who 
were in foster care during the reporting year, the percent that were 
victims of abuse and/or neglect by a foster parent or facility staff 
member.
B. Current Analytical Information From AFCARS
    1. Time to Reunification: For the reporting year, of all children 
who were reunified with their parents or caretakers at the time of 
discharge from foster care, the percent that were reunified in less 
than 12 months from the time of the latest removal from home.
    2. Time to Adoption: For the reporting year, of all children who 
exited foster care to a finalized adoption, the percent that exited 
foster care in less than 24 months from the time of the latest removal 
from home.
    3. Placement Stability: For the reporting year, of all children 
served who have been in foster care less than 12 months from the time 
of the latest removal from home, the percent that have had no more than 
two placement settings.
    4. Re-entry into foster care: Of all children who entered foster 
care during the reporting year, the percent that re-entered foster care 
within 12 months of a prior foster care episode.

New Analytical Information To Be Included in the State Data Profile

A. New Analytical Information From NCANDS
    1. Maltreatment recurrence: Of all children who were victims of 
abuse or neglect during the first 6 months of the reporting year, the 
percent that were not victims of another maltreatment within a 6-month 
period.
    2. Maltreatment of children in foster care: Of all children who 
were in foster care during the reporting year, the percent that were 
not victims of maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff 
member.
B. New Analytical Information From AFCARS
    1. The composite score for Permanency Composite 1: Timeliness and 
permanency of reunifications and the national standard for this 
composite.
    2. Data pertaining to actual performance on the measures included 
in Permanency Composite 1. These are as follows:
     For the reporting year, of all children discharged from 
foster care to reunification who had been in foster care for 8 days or 
longer, the percent that met either of the following criteria: (1) The 
child was reunified in less than 12 months from the date of the latest 
removal from home, or (2) the child was placed in a trial home visit 
within 11 months of the date of the latest removal and the child's last 
placement prior to discharge to reunification was the trial home visit.
     For the reporting year, of all children discharged from 
foster care to reunification who had been in foster care for 8 days or 
longer, the median length of stay in months from the date of the most 
recent entry into foster care until either of the following: (1) The 
date of discharge to reunification; or (2) the date of placement in a 
trial home visit that exceeded 30 days and was the last placement 
setting prior to discharge to reunification.
     For the reporting year, of all children entering foster 
care in the second 6 months of the year who remained in foster care for 
8 days or longer, the percent who met either of the following criteria: 
(1) The child was reunified in less than 12 months from the date of 
entry into foster care, or (2) the child was placed in a trial home 
visit in less than 11 months from the date of entry into foster care 
and the trial home visit was the last placement setting prior to 
discharge to reunification.
     Of all children exiting foster care to reunification in 
the year prior to the reporting year, the percent that re-entered 
foster care in less than 12 months from discharge from a prior episode.
    3. The composite score for Permanency Composite 2: Timeliness of 
adoptions
    4. Data pertaining to State performance on the following measures 
included in Permanency Composite 2.
     For the reporting year, of all children who were 
discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption during the year, 
the percent that were discharged in less than 24 months from the date 
of the latest removal from the home.
     For the reporting year, of all children who were 
discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption, the median length 
of stay in foster care (in months) from the date of removal from the 
home to the date of discharge to adoption.
     For the reporting year, of all children in foster care on 
the first day of the year who were in foster care for 17 continuous 
months or longer, the percent that were discharged from foster care to 
a finalized adoption before the end of the fiscal year.
     For the reporting year, of all children in foster care on 
the first day of the year who were in foster care for 17 continuous 
months or longer, the percent that became legally free for adoption 
within 6 months from the beginning of the fiscal year.
     For the reporting year, of all children who became legally 
free for adoption, the percent that were discharged from foster care to 
a finalized adoption in less than 12 months of becoming legally free?
    5. The composite score for Permanency Composite 3: Achieving 
permanency for children in foster care.
    6. Data pertaining to State performance on the following measures 
included in Permanency Composite 3.
     For the reporting year, of all children who were 
discharged from foster care who were legally free for adoption (i.e., 
there was a TPR for each living parent), the percent that were 
discharged to a permanent home prior to their 18th birthday, with a 
permanent home defined as having a discharge reason of adoption, 
reunification (including live with relative), or guardianship.
     Of all children who were in foster care for 24 months or 
longer on the first day of the reporting year, the percent that were 
discharged from foster care to a permanent home prior to their 18th 
birthday and by the end of the fiscal year.
     During the reporting year, of all children who were 
emancipated from foster care or reached their 18th birthday while in 
foster care, the percent that had been in foster care for 3 years or 
longer.
    7. The composite score for Permanency Composite 4: Placement 
stability
    8. Data pertaining to the following measures in Permanency 
Composite 4.
     For the reporting year, of all children in foster care who 
were in foster care for 8 days or longer and less than 12 months, the 
percent that had two or fewer placement settings.
     For the reporting year, of all children in foster care who 
were in foster care for at least 12 months but less than 24 months, the 
percent that had two or fewer placement settings.
     For the reporting year, of all children in foster care 
during the year who were in foster care for 24 months or longer, the 
percent that had two or fewer placement settings.

Attachment B: Methodology for Developing the Composites

    After the first round of the Child and Family Services Review, the 
Administration for Children and Families (ACF) conducted a review of 
possible additional measures for

[[Page 32983]]

assessing State performance with regard to achieving permanency and 
placement stability for children in foster care.\5\ The purpose of the 
review was to increase the pertinent data used as part of the 
assessment of a State's substantial conformity with CFSR outcomes. The 
goal was to enhance the understanding of State performance on the 
outcomes assessed through the CFSR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The same process was conducted for assessing State 
performance with regard to safety, but based on feedback from the 
field and the results of our data analyses, no additional safety-
related measures were developed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The review of potential measures was guided by a consideration of 
the following key performance areas reviewed in the CSFR: (1) 
Timeliness and permanency of reunifications; (2) timeliness of 
adoptions; (3) achieving permanency for children in foster care for 
long periods of time; and (4) placement stability. Multiple measures 
were developed for consideration within each performance area. ACF 
determined that all measures considered had to meet the following 
criteria:
     Measures must include data currently collected through the 
Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS). For 
example, although it would be useful to be able to assess such 
variables as adoption dissolution or the quality of a child's 
placement, neither type of information is collected through AFCARS. 
However, ACF encourages State child welfare systems to conduct their 
own analyses of issues such as these to further understand the outcomes 
experienced by the children they serve.
     Measures must meet the timeframe requirements of the CFSR. 
Each measure must be able to be assessed consistent with the period 
under review and the period necessary for assessing progress in the 
Program Improvement Plan (PIP).
     Measures must assess outcomes that are consistent with 
titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act and the Social Security 
Amendments of 1994 which authorized the reviews. While Congress granted 
ACF the authority to monitor the progress of State child welfare 
agencies, there are limits to our statutory authority with regard to 
the CFSR. For example, the authorization for the CFSR does not include 
monitoring for adherence to the requirements of the Chafee Foster Care 
Independence Act or to the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare 
Act.
     Measures must incorporate an assessment of events that 
have actually occurred rather than be based on statistical projections 
of the likelihood of an event occurring sometime in the future. 
Although ACF is aware of the statistical procedures that can be used to 
estimate the likelihood of particular outcomes occurring within 
particular timeframes, we do not believe that it is appropriate to use 
these methodologies in the CFSR assessment because there are penalties 
associated with State performance.
    The measures that we developed were presented to the public for 
comment in a Federal Register notice published on November 7, 2005. 
Based on feedback from the field and additional data analyses, several 
measures were eliminated from consideration or revised to more 
effectively capture the intended objectives.
    Our initial goal was to expand the information used in the data 
indicators. However, ACF did not want to increase the complexity of the 
CFSR by having multiple measures with national standards for each 
measure. Instead, our goal was to implement a methodology that would 
allow us to create a set of composite scores, with each composite score 
reflecting performance on several inter-correlated measures. To assist 
us in achieving this goal, we hired an internationally known expert 
statistician as a consultant. After reviewing several possible 
statistical methodologies, we determined that a Principal Components 
Analysis (PCA) was the most appropriate approach.
    A PCA is a commonly used and widely accepted statistical technique 
for reducing a large set of variables into a smaller set. The PCA not 
only combines inter-correlated variables but also identifies those that 
are redundant because they are very highly inter-correlated. Each 
variable in the set is given a weight in accordance with its relative 
contribution to the set as a whole. The resulting principal components 
are more stable and easier to interpret than individual measures 
because several individual variables are related to one another. The 
principal components that result from a PCA can be used as data for 
other types of statistical analyses, such as survival analysis, 
discriminant function analysis, and multiple regression analysis.
    Although a PCA can be used to test hypotheses or theories, ACF did 
not use it for this purpose. Instead, we used the PCA as an exploratory 
tool. In an exploratory PCA, the goal is to describe and summarize data 
by grouping together variables that are correlated. As noted by 
Tabachnik and Fidel,\6\ PCA is different from factor analysis, which 
focuses on shared variance among variables. ``In a PCA, all variance in 
the observed variables is analyzed, including common, unique, and error 
variance. The resulting components are simply aggregates of existing 
variables. There is no underlying theory about which variables should 
be associated with which factors; rather relationships emerge based 
solely on empirical associations. It is understood that any labels 
applied to derived components are merely convenient descriptions of the 
combination of variables associated with them. These labels are 
intended to describe the critical core outcomes being assessed.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ B.G. Tabachnik and L.S. Fidell (2001). Using Multivariate 
Statistics, Fourth Edition. Boston, Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the PCA to Develop Composite Scores for the CFSR
    This section presents a discussion of the methodology used to 
implement the PCA. The definitions of the terms used and the conceptual 
structure are as follows:
     Measure. In the discussion below, this term refers to the 
variables included in each PCA. Performance on each measure provides 
the basic data for the PCA. We have used the term measure rather than 
variable to clarify that it is performance on the specific measures 
described in this Federal Register Announcement that is considered as 
the focus of analysis.
     Component: This term refers to the general factors that 
comprise a given composite. In our analysis, the number of components 
in a composite ranges from one to three.
     Composite: This term refers to the general performance 
area assessed, i.e., timeliness and permanency of reunification, 
timeliness of adoptions, achieving permanency for children in foster 
care for long periods of time, and placement stability.
     Results: This term refers to the output from each data 
analysis for each composite. That is, the analysis may be said to 
produce results for each composite.
     Solution: This term refers to the overall pattern of 
results across multiple data analyses.
    PCA requires a sample size of 500 or more units to achieve maximum 
stability in the solution. Therefore, ACF decided from the outset that 
the unit of analysis would be performance on the measures included in 
each composite domain at the county rather than at the State level. 
Because many counties often serve very small numbers of children in 
foster care, the number of children served in foster care in each of 
the 2,984 counties was calculated (using the

[[Page 32984]]

FIPScodes).\7\ Small counties within a given State were combined (i.e., 
``rolled up'') to represent a single ``county'' that served at least 50 
children in foster care in FY 2004.\8\ This resulted in a total of 
2,119 ``counties'' that could possibly be included in the analysis.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Counties were excluded from the analyses when the State did 
not report a FIPScode in FY 2004.
    \8\ ACF determined that the composites and national standards 
would be developed using data pertaining to FY 2004. This means 
that, for the second round of the CFSR, the data used to establish 
the national standards will not be the same as the data used to 
evaluate performance of any of the States.
    \9\ The number of counties included in the PCA varies across the 
composites. This is because a county had to have a value for all of 
the measures included in a specific composite domain in order to be 
included in the PCA. For example, if a county did not have any 
children in foster care for 17 months or longer at the start of the 
fiscal year, then that county was not included in the PCA for the 
timeliness of adoption composite because there were two measures in 
that composite that focus on permanency for children in foster care 
for 17 months or longer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once the ``counties'' were established, the PCA was implemented 
using the steps described below.
    1. Rank-order the counties and assign each county to one of two 
samples `` Set A or Set B. Using matched-pair sampling, each county was 
randomly assigned to one of two sets--Set A or Set B. In the matched-
pair sampling, counties first were ranked in descending order in terms 
of ``size,'' with size defined as the number of children served in 
foster care in the county during the fiscal year. The counties were 
then paired on the basis of size, with each pair including counties of 
the same general size. After this matched pairing, each county in the 
pair was randomly assigned to either Set A or Set B. The result was 
that Set A and Set B were matched with respect to the size of the 
counties within each set. The two Sets were not matched on any other 
variable. We created these two sets in order to cross-validate our PCA 
results by comparing the solutions resulting in each set.
    2. Calculate the performance of each county on each measure. The 
performance of each county on each measure was calculated using the 
programming syntax developed for each measure as applied to data 
reported to AFCARS for FY 2003 and FY 2004.\10\ The focus of analysis 
was on data reported for FY 2004. FY 2003 data were used when more than 
a 12-month time span was required to calculate the measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The syntax and the aggregated database will be made 
available to the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Standardize the scores. The results were standardized by 
converting the actual score for each county to a z-score. The use of 
standardized scores rather than actual calculated results allows for 
variables measured in different units to be included in the analysis. 
For example, median length of stay in foster care is calculated in 
months, while reunification within 12 months is calculated in 
percentages. Standardized scores are helpful for two reasons: (a) All 
variables are converted to the same scale of measurement, and (b) 
scores for each variable are normally distributed. The z-scores were 
adjusted for the direction of the measure. For example, a positive 
score on one measure can indicate positive performance or negative 
performance, depending on the focus of the measure. To adjust for this, 
z-scores for some of the measures were multiplied by -1 to ensure that 
all scores are interpreted in the same way. That is, the higher the 
score the better the performance. The following measures were recoded 
to adjust for direction:
     Median length of stay in foster care of children 
reunified;
     Median length of stay in foster care of children 
discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption;
     Percent of children discharged from foster care who re-
entered in less than 12 months from the time of exit; and
     Percent of children who emancipated from foster care or 
who reached their 18th birthday while in foster care who were in foster 
care for 3 years or longer.
    4. Conduct a PCA analysis on Set A and Set B independently. Using 
the Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences (SPSS) statistical 
software, we ran the PCA for Set A and Set B separately for each of the 
four composite areas.
    5. Decide what component variables to include for each composite 
measure. After the initial analyses, we reviewed the results and made 
decisions regarding the variables to be included in each composite 
measure in accordance with the standard procedures for conducting a 
PCA. All decisions were data driven and were nearly identical for both 
Set A and Set B. For example, when two measures correlated so highly 
that they appeared to be capturing the same information, we eliminated 
one of the measures. When one or two measures did not correlate highly 
with other measures but still appeared to account for a high percentage 
of the variance in the total composite domain, we considered those as 
comprising a separate principal component. The goal was to identify 
components that accounted for as much of the sample variance as 
possible. That is, we wished to select the minimum number of principal 
components that would enable us to reproduce the observed correlations 
among the variables used in the analysis. A set of principal components 
that explained 100 percent of the variance would reproduce the data 
perfectly. Generally, identifying one or two principal components that 
explain 50 percent of the variance is considered very good. Identifying 
a small set of principal components that explain 70 percent of variance 
or more is considered excellent.
    6. Compare the findings for Set A and Set B. A t-test on means from 
two independent samples was conducted on the county component scores 
comparing Set A and Set B for each of the four composites. No 
significant differences between the Sets were found for any of the 
composites. The p values exceeded 0.05 for all comparisons. This 
indicated that the PCA of the two independent samples produced the same 
results.
    7. Create a new data set that incorporates all counties included in 
Set A and Set B into one data set and replicate the PCA analysis (Steps 
2 through 6 above) on the combined data set to generate the Component 
Score Coefficient Matrix. The PCA generates what is termed a 
``component score coefficient'' for each measure. The data analyses may 
result in a number of principal components, depending on the 
relationships among the measures as reflected in the component score 
coefficients. The coefficient represents the ``weight'' for a given 
measure--that is the relative contribution of the measure to the 
overall component. The components that emerged from the analyses 
combining Set A and Set B are presented below for each composite. These 
components were identical to those that emerged in the separate 
analyses of Set A and Set B. That is, the same principal components 
emerge consistently and explain the same proportion of variance. We 
have established a ``name'' for each component. The name reflects the 
focus of the measures that have the highest loading on the component. 
The measure with the highest loading often is referred to as the marker 
variable. The coefficients (or weights) for each measure within each 
component are provided in table 1. The higher the coefficient, the 
greater the contribution a particular measure makes to the component.
     Permanency Composite 1--Timeliness and Permanency of 
Reunification. The analyses for this composite included 1,894 counties. 
Two components emerged from the analysis of measures included in this 
composite. The two components explain 73.5

[[Page 32985]]

percent of the variance. We named the first component timeliness of 
reunification, and the second component permanency of reunification. 
Because these components are independent from one another, each 
contributes 50 percent to the total composite score.
     Permanency Composite 2--Timeliness of Adoptions. The 
analysis for this composite included 1,453 counties. Three components 
emerged from the analysis of measures included in this composite. Taken 
together, these components explain 79.8 percent of the total variance. 
The first component we named timeliness of adoptions of children 
exiting foster care to adoption. The second component, we named 
progress toward adoption for children in foster care for 17 months or 
longer. The third component we named timeliness of adoption of children 
who are legally free for adoption. Because these components are 
independent from one another, each contributes 33.3 percent to the 
total composite score.
     Permanency Composite 3--Achieving permanency for children 
in foster care for long periods of time. The analysis for this 
composite included 1,682 counties. Two components emerged from the 
analyses of these measures. These components account for 74.9 percent 
of the total variance. The first component we named permanency for 
children in foster care for long periods of time. The second component 
we named children emancipated after being in foster care for long 
periods of time. Because the components are independent of one another, 
each contributes 50 percent to the total composite score.
     Permanency Composite 4--Placement stability. This analysis 
included 2,119 counties. One component, which we have named placement 
stability, emerged from the analysis of the measures included in this 
composite. The component accounts for 67.4 percent of the variance.
    8. Generate the component scores for each county. For each county 
included in the analysis, the z-score for each measure (generated under 
step 3) is multiplied by the coefficient for that measure (shown in 
table 1), resulting in a ``weighted score'' for each measure within the 
component. The weighted scores for each measure within a component are 
then summed. The result is a county component score.
    9. Generate the composite scores for each county. The county 
composite score represents a combination of the component scores. If 
there is only one component in the composite, then the county composite 
score and the county component score are the same. If there is more 
than one component in the composite, then the county composite score is 
the mean of the scores for each component. For example, if there are 
two components in a composite, then the county component scores are 
summed and divided by two to generate the county composite score. If 
there are three components in a composite, then the county component 
scores are summed and divided by three to generate the county composite 
score.
    10. Generate the composite scores for each State. The composite 
score for each State was generated based on the composite scores for 
each of the counties in the State. Within a given State, each county's 
composite score was assigned a weight based on the number of children 
served in foster care in the county in FY 2004. That is, counties with 
larger foster care populations were weighted more heavily than counties 
with smaller foster care populations. The State composite score was 
calculated as the mean of the weighted county composite scores for that 
State. That is, the weighted composite scores for each county were 
summed and the sum was divided by the number of counties. This resulted 
in the State composite score.
    11. Conduct a consolidated variable analysis. Initially, a separate 
PCA was conducted for each of the composite areas. At this point, we 
also conducted a consolidated variable PCA in order to cross-validate 
the solutions that emerged from the separate PCAs. That is, the PCA was 
applied to all of the measures taken together. The results generated 
from the consolidated variable analysis were identical to those that 
emerged from the separate PCAs; thus, the overall four-composite 
solution was identical across different data analyses.
    12. Transform State composite scores to a scale ranging from 50 to 
150. The initial composite scores were derived from of z-scores. We 
transformed the scores into ranked scale scores by using a 
transformation that assures that the maximum State Composite Score 
attains a value of 150 and the minimum State Composite Score attains a 
value of 50. The other scores fall between these two limits depending 
on their actual State Composite Score.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The formula for transforming the standard scores into 
ranked scaled scores was the following: [100 x ((State Composite 
Score -Minimum State Composite Score) / (Maximum State Composite 
Score -Minimum State Composite Score)) + 50].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response to Concerns Regarding Use of PCA.

    Several individuals commenting on the notice published in the 
November 7, 2005 Federal Register expressed concerns about our use of 
PCA to generate composite scores. We believe that some of these 
concerns are addressed in the description of PCA and our process 
provided in the first section of this attachment. Additional specific 
concerns are presented below (and underlined), followed by our 
response.
     The use of PCA may mask the importance of individual 
variables and perhaps prevent States from identifying ``salient 
contributing variables.'' Although the PCA shifts the focus of 
interpretation to a composite score rather than individual scores that 
make up a composite, the relative contribution of an individual measure 
to the composite scores will be known to States through the county 
weights of the number of children served and the coefficients assigned 
to each measure. From a statistical perspective, the more salient a 
particular variable or measure, the greater the weight. In a PCA, a 
critical measure will have a prominent role either as the ``marker 
variable'' in a PCA (i.e., the one that makes the largest contribution 
to the component with regard to the amount of variance for which it 
accounts) or as the sole measure that loads on a particular component. 
With regard to actual performance on individual measures, ACF will 
provide these data in the State Data Profile for each of the States.
     The ACF proposal seems to arbitrarily group indicators 
together. The methodology of putting several indicators together and 
forcing them to be a composite single indicator contradicts the 
potentially powerful intent and purpose of PCA. As noted in the first 
section of this attachment, the PCA combines scores based on inter-
correlations among the variables used in the analysis. It does not 
force unrelated variables onto a single component. As indicated under 
step 11 above, a consolidated variables analysis produced the same 
results as the composite-specific analyses. That is, the same variables 
were inter-correlated with one another in both analyses and the same 
components emerged.
     It would be better to use other forms of analysis such as 
logistic regression that might demonstrate the variables predictive of 
a dichotomous outcome (such as maltreatment in foster care). PCA 
reduces a larger set of variables into a smaller set based on observed 
empirical relationships. In comparison, regression uses one set of 
variables to

[[Page 32986]]

predict an outcome measure. Our goal in constructing composites was to 
identify relationships among variables that relate to a particular 
performance domain. Also, the goal of the CFSR is to measure 
performance on given outcomes rather than to predict performance on a 
given outcome.
     PCA does not compensate for measures that are currently 
misunderstood or inadequately defined; it compounds the existing 
weaknesses in each measure. It is incorrect to say that
     Knowledge-building and the interpretation of research is 
greatly limited by using component factors calculated as proposed. The 
current set of measures has a latent structure inherent within it. PCA 
analysis enables us to explore that structure and identify a variety of 
highly interpretable PC composite scores. We believe that the results 
of our analyses are very strong and lead to unambiguous interpretations 
of the principal components used to evaluate performance.
     Even sophisticated users of this method agree that the 
number of factors to choose when using the method is to some extent 
arbitrary. We used a highly conservative, data-driven approach to 
identify the relationships among variables. These relationships are not 
arbitrary; rather they are derived empirically from the data and 
reflect the structure inherent within the data. It is important to note 
that changes in extraction and rotation would have little or no impact 
on the present analysis as the cross-validation analysis in Step 11 
indicates. In addition, all four solutions were replicated across two 
different samples, suggesting a high level of stability. Although every 
statistical procedure includes some degree of estimation error, the 
present analyses are robust and do not invite arbitrary interpretation 
of the results.
     More user-friendly approaches to creating composite 
outcome measures are available, but not mentioned in the ACF 
recommendations. We believe that the options available for constructing 
composites from a set of data measures are principal components/factor 
analysis, cluster analysis, and multidimensional scaling. Based on our 
discussions with our expert consultant, we believe that PCA is the most 
appropriate option in the present case. We began our analysis of the 
CFSR variables making only the assumption that the variables possess 
some latent structure. There was no designated criterion variable that 
we could use as a dependent/outcome measure. Our task was to reduce an 
existing set of variables to a smaller set of inter-correlated 
composite scores. Regression/survival methods could be used if we were 
to select an outcome measure as the criterion that will be predicted. 
However, at the outset of this effort, we determined that we would not 
identify or use an outcome measure to estimate the weight of each 
variable in relation to the designated outcome variable.
     Composite scores have no intrinsic meaning or relationship 
to important outcomes. Composite scores are used routinely in 
educational testing and assessment because they are more reliable in 
that they represent the construct of interest better than any single 
variable. Two basic psychometric principles of measurement are (1) a 
test with more questions is more reliable; and (2) combining related 
scores into a composite score results in a more reliable and valid 
score than the individual scores on which the composite is based. This 
is contrary to the notion that well-planned composite scores are 
inferior to individual scores that are used to create the composite.
     No uniformly agreed methodology exists to weight 
individual indicators before aggregating them into a composite 
indicator. A uniform methodology does exist for conducting a PCA. There 
are many highly respected books that lay out the steps to follow and 
how to make critical decisions. All of these books recommend the same 
general process. Our approach to using PCA was very systematic and 
conservative. Like all statistical procedures, the researcher must make 
choices that impact the outcome. For example, in regression analysis, 
the researcher must select variables, determine an order in which they 
enter the analysis, and decide whether nonlinear components are 
relevant. The output also will depend on sample size and what 
population is sampled.

Establishing the National Standard

    The process for establishing the national standards on the 
composite scores was identical to that used for the first round of the 
CFSR. (See ACYF-CB-IM-00-11 and ACYF-CB-IM-01-07). The sampling error 
adjustments were done on the standard score data prior to conversion to 
the scale score.

      Table 1.--Coefficients (Weights) for the Measures Included in the Permanency-Related Data Composites
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Components
       Composites and variables        -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Component 1              Component 2              Component 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permanency Composite 1: Timeliness and  Timeliness of            Permanency of            Not Applicable.
 Permanency of Reunification.            Reunification.           Reunification.
    Reunifications in less than 12      0.447.                   0.032.
     months of children exiting foster
     care to reunifications.
    Median time in foster care to       0.433.                   0.006.
     reunification.
    Reunifications in less than 12      0.342.                   0.121.
     months of children entering
     foster care.
    Re-entries of children into foster  0.141.                   1.107.
     care in less than 12 months.
Permanency Composite 2: Timeliness of   Length of time in        Progress toward          Timeliness of
 Adoptions.                              foster care to           adoption of children     adoptions for
                                         adoption.                in foster care for 17    children who are
                                                                  months or longer.        legally free for
                                                                                           adoption.
    Adoptions within 24 months of       0.536..................  -0.035.................  -0.033.
     entry into foster care.
    Median length of stay of children   0.557..................  0.114..................  -0.042.
     adopted.
    Adoptions within 12 months of       -0.095.................  0.524..................  0.249.
     children in foster care for 17
     months or longer.
    Children legally freed for          0.152..................  0.709..................  -0.254.
     adoption within 6 months who have
     been in foster care for 17 months
     or longer.
Adoptions within 12 months of children  -0.41..................  -0.058.................  0.942.
 who are legally free for adoption.
Permanency Composite 3: Achieving       Children exiting to      Children exiting to      Not applicable to this
 permanency for children in foster       permanent homes.         emancipation.            composite.
 care for long periods of time.

[[Page 32987]]

 
    Children in foster care for 24 or   0.468..................  0.274.
     more months who achieve
     permanency in less than 12 months.
    Permanent homes for children who    0.804..................  -0.244.
     are legally freed for adoption.
    Children emancipated from foster    -0.146.................  0.922.
     care who were in foster care for
     3 years or longer.
Permanency Composite 4: Placement       Placement stability....  Not applicable for       Not applicable for
 stability.                                                       composite.               composite.
    Placement stability for children    0.399.
     in foster care for less than 24
     months.
    Placement stability for children    0.421.
     in foster care between 12 and 24
     months.
    Placement stability for children    0.398.
     in foster care for 24 months or
     longer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 06-5193 Filed 6-6-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P