[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 92 (Wednesday, May 13, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27263-27266]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11515]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families

45 CFR Part 1355


Statewide Data Indicators and National Standards for Child and 
Family Services Reviews

AGENCY: Children's Bureau (CB), Administration for Children and 
Families (ACF), Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Final Notice of Statewide Data Indicators and National 
Standards for Child and Family Services Reviews; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On October 10, 2014, the Administration of Children and 
Families (ACF) published a document in the Federal Register (79 FR 
61241). The document provided CB's final plan to replace the statewide 
data indicators used to determine a state's substantial conformity with 
titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act through the Child and 
Family Services Reviews (CFSRs). This document provides corrections to 
errors and misstatements in that document and some of the calculations 
of the statewide data indicators.

DATES: Effective: May 13, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Miranda Lynch Thomas, Children's 
Bureau, 1250 Maryland Ave. SW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 
205-8138.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    CB implemented the CFSRs in 2001 in response to a mandate in the 
Social Security Amendments of 1994. The reviews are required for CB to 
determine whether such programs are in substantial conformity with 
title IV-B and IV-E plan requirements. The review process, as regulated 
at 45 CFR 1355.31-37, grew out of extensive consultation with 
interested groups, individuals, and experts in the field of child 
welfare and related areas.
    The CFSRs enable CB to: (1) Ensure conformity with federal child 
welfare requirements; (2) determine what is actually happening to 
children and families as they are engaged in child welfare services; 
and (3) assist states to enhance their capacity to help children and 
families achieve positive outcomes. CB conducts the reviews in 
partnership with state child welfare agency staff and other partners 
and stakeholders involved in the provision of child welfare services. 
We have structured the reviews to help states identify strengths as 
well as areas needing improvement within their agencies and programs.
    We use the CFSR to assess state performance on seven outcomes and 
seven systemic factors. The seven outcomes focus on key items measuring 
safety, permanency, and well-being. The seven systemic factors focus on 
key state plan requirements of titles IV-B and IV-E that provide a 
foundation for child outcomes. If we determine that a state has not 
achieved substantial conformity in one or more of the areas assessed in 
the review, the state is required to develop and implement a program 
improvement plan addressing the areas of nonconformity within 2 years. 
CB supports the states with technical assistance and monitors 
implementation of their program improvement plans. If the state is 
unable to complete its program improvement plan successfully, a portion 
of the state's federal title IV-B and IV-E funds is withheld.
    Most relevant to this document are the national standards for state 
performance on statewide data indicators CB uses to determine whether a 
state is in substantial conformity with certain child outcomes. We are 
authorized by the regulations at 45 CFR

[[Page 27264]]

1355.34(b)(4) and (5) to add, amend, or suspend any of the statewide 
data indicators and to adjust the national standards when appropriate. 
If we determine that a state is not in substantial conformity with a 
related outcome due to its performance on an indicator, the state will 
include that indicator in its program improvement plan. The improvement 
a state must achieve is relative to the state's baseline performance at 
the beginning of the program improvement plan period.
    In an April 23, 2014, Federal Register document (79 FR 22604), we 
provided a detailed review of the consultation with the field and 
information considered in developing the third round of the CFSRs and 
proposed a set of statewide data indicators for public comment. We 
considered all public comments and issued a final plan in the October 
10, 2014, Federal Register (79 FR 61241). Simultaneously, CB released 
CFSR Technical Bulletin #8, which provided more details on calculation 
methods and a workbook that showed individual state performance on the 
indicators and preliminary findings of whether the state met the 
national standards at that time based on data submitted as of July 
2014. In responding to state and other stakeholder questions since the 
release of those publications, we have found errors in our descriptions 
and calculations that we are correcting here. We will release an 
amended technical bulletin and workbook concurrently with this Federal 
Register document to make applicable corrections to those documents. We 
will also release the associated syntax in SPSS and STATA format so 
that states and other interested parties can review the detail related 
to the indicators. Although we intend to provide tools that allow the 
state to monitor its performance results on the indicators on a 
periodic basis, we know the additional detail is helpful to states that 
want to monitor themselves more frequently or in more depth. Finally, 
since this document focuses on just the revisions and clarifications 
necessary to the Federal Register document from October 2014, we will 
also publish a document that incorporates these revisions and 
clarifications into the original document.

Language Errors and Clarifications

    This section discusses the language errors and clarifications we 
are making to the original Federal Register document.

Clarification of the Trial Home Visit Adjustment to Permanency 
Performance Areas 1, 2, and 3

    On page 61244, we provided a description of how we calculated the 
permanency in 12 months for children entering foster care indicator. In 
part, we explained that we had applied a trial home visit adjustment to 
this indicator. We stated that this meant that if a child discharges 
from foster care during the 12-month period to reunification with 
parents or other caretakers after a placement setting of a trial home 
visit, any time in that trial home visit that exceeds 30 days is 
discounted from the child's length of stay in foster care. We use six 
6-month Adopting and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) 
reporting periods of data (3 years) to calculate the numerator in this 
indicator. We are clarifying that the trial home visit adjustment is 
applied to all AFCARS reporting periods used for the indicator.
    If a child discharges from foster care to reunification with 
parents or other caretakers after a placement setting of a trial home 
visit during any of the six report periods used for the indicator, any 
time in that trial home visit that exceeds 30 days is discounted from 
the length of stay in foster care. In other words, the actual date of 
discharge to permanency could occur at any time during the 3 years used 
to calculate this indicator, and the trial home visit would then be 
applied to see if it may result in a reduction in the length of time in 
foster care for the purposes of this data indicator.
    On pages 61244-61245, we explained that the trial home visit 
adjustment was also applied to the following indicators: Permanency in 
12 months for children in foster care 12 to 23 months and permanency in 
12 months for children in foster care 24 months or more. However, this 
is not accurate. We do not apply the trial home visit adjustment to 
these indicators because it has no impact on the outcomes for children 
in care on the first day and followed for only 12 months. This is 
because these indicators rely on only two AFCARS report periods (one 
year of data) and do not look beyond the 12-month period to see whether 
a child has discharged to permanency.

Revisions to Attachment A--Statewide Data Indicators

    Attachment A provided a summary of each final statewide data 
indicator including the numerators, denominators, risk adjustments, and 
data periods used to calculate the national standards.
    In describing the permanency in 12-months indicator for children 
entering foster care, we said that we used the AFCARS periods 2011B 
through 2013A for calculating the national standard for this indicator. 
This was a typographical error. We used six AFCARS report periods for a 
total of 3 years of data: 2011B through 2014A.
    Also, the applicable exclusions and notes were partly in error for 
the following indicators: Permanency in 12 months for children in 
foster care 12 to 23 months and permanency in 12 months for children in 
foster care 24 months. We carried forward the same error described in 
the previous section with regard to the trial home visits adjustment. 
We do not apply the trial home visit adjustment to these indicators.

Revisions to Attachment D--Data Quality Items, Limits, and Applicable 
Measures

    Attachment D provided information on the data quality limits 
applied in determining whether to include state data for calculating 
the indicators.
    Data quality limits are applied to avoid skewing results. There may 
be a number of reasons why a state's data exceeds a data quality limit, 
including outliers that exist in the data. Therefore, not all 
exclusions are necessarily the result of poor data quality. The data 
quality limits outlined in Attachment D are intended to be a guide to 
avoid misrepresenting state performance or national standards.
    Two listed data quality items had typographical errors that changed 
their meaning. The AFCARS Within-file data quality check, ``Percent of 
children on 1st removal,'' is applied to all indicators with the 
exception of recurrence of maltreatment. The limit noted was less than 
95 percent but it should read more than 95 percent. The NCANDS Cross 
File Check named ``Child IDs don't match across years'' should read 
``Child IDs match across years.'' This means that the state has not met 
the item limit if less than 1 percent of the Child IDs match across 
years, as we expect them to be based on patterns of recurrence.
    In addition, the term ``Dropped cases'' was used in the section on 
AFCARS Cross File Checks. This term refers to instances in which a 
child who is reported during one 6-month period is not reported in the 
next period, and there is no record that the child exited. However, 
this term is technically incorrect, as it is the record of the case 
that drops from the file. For clarity, this cross file check should 
instead be referred to as ``Dropped records.''

[[Page 27265]]

    For all NCANDS data quality items outlined in Attachment D, it 
should be noted that these data quality items were applied to victims 
only. This includes all NCANDS cross file and within-file checks.
    With regard to the data quality items applied to the indicator of 
maltreatment in foster care, the table indicates that we apply the 
NCANDS cross file check, ``Child IDs match across years, but dates of 
birth and sex do not match,'' to this indicator. We do not apply this 
check to the maltreatment in foster-care indicator because it requires 
only 1 year of data.
    Finally, for clarification, the NCANDS data quality item ``Some 
victims have AFCARS IDs'' was previously located in the ``NCANDS Data--
Cross File Checks'' section. It should be in the ``NCANDS Within file 
checks'' section, because it requires only the NCANDS child file and 
does not match with AFCARS.

Changes to National Standards and State Performance

    This section discusses the changes or clarifications in the methods 
of calculating the national standards and state performance that affect 
the national standards we provided in the original document.
    We made one change to the application of data quality items that 
has an implication for the calculation of national standards and state 
performance. There was an oversight in the application of the data 
quality items for the measure of permanency in 12 months for children 
entering foster care. For this indicator, we originally applied the 
data quality items only to the first four data periods, but upon 
further investigation we determined that the data quality items should 
be applied to all six periods used in the calculation of this measure.
    There was a slight modification made to several calculations that 
require the date of discharge. When calculating the length of stay in 
foster care, age at exit, or other variables that require the data of 
discharge, we previously used an imputed version of the date of 
discharge. An imputed date of discharge was used when the date of 
discharge was missing for a child in one report period, but in the 
subsequent 6-month period the child was reported as being in a new 
removal episode with a value for his or her date of discharge from the 
prior foster care episode. We are no longer using the date of discharge 
from the prior foster care episode to impute missing dates of discharge 
and are using only the date of discharge from foster care submitted to 
us by the state. If that date is missing, it is treated as a missing 
value and no attempt is made to impute the value using subsequent 
files.
    In determining the national standards and the state-by-state 
performance outlined in the workbook, we inadvertently did not use the 
most recent submission for all periods of data for three states. We 
have re-run the analysis and national standards to incorporate these 
resubmissions and all data are now current as of July 10, 2014.
    Due to the above noted changes, Table 1 on page 61249 should be 
replaced as follows:

                     Table 1--National Standards for CFSR Round 3 Statewide Data Indicators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      National standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statewide Data Indicators for Safety
 Outcome 1:
    Maltreatment in Foster Care............  8.50 victimizations per 100,000 days in foster care.
    Recurrence of Maltreatment.............  9.1 percent.
Statewide Data Indicators for Permanency
 Outcome 1:
    Permanency in 12 Months for Children     40.5 percent.
     Entering Foster Care.
    Permanency in 12 Months for Children in  43.6 percent.
     Foster Care 12 to 23 Months.
    Permanency in 12 Months for Children in  30.3 percent.
     Foster Care 24 Months or More.
    Re-Entry to Foster Care in 12 Months...  8.3 percent.
    Placement Stability....................  4.12 moves per 1,000 days in foster care.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On page 61254, we provided an overview of the number of states 
excluded from the national standards for each data indicator. Based on 
the changes noted here, these should be updated as follows:
     Permanency in 12 months for first day cohorts with 12-23 
months and 2 or more years prior time in care: Three states are now 
excluded instead of one.
     Permanency in 12 months for children entering foster care 
indicator: Four states are now excluded instead of three.
     Recurrence of maltreatment: Five states are now excluded 
instead of four.
    There was no change to the number of states excluded for the 
indicators of re-entry to foster care in 12 months, maltreatment in 
foster care, or placement stability.

Changes to Monitoring Statewide Data Indicators in Program Improvement 
Plans

    The changes noted in relation to the calculation of national 
standards also have relevance to the calculation of each state's 
observed and risk-standardized performance, as well as the improvement 
factors used to set program improvement plan goals. Revised state-level 
data, including changes to results indicating the need for a program 
improvement plan, are reflected in the revised workbook.
    The changes in the workbook regarding setting program improvement 
plan targets also reflect a revision to the bootstrapping process 
outlined in Technical Bulletin #8. We began with three observed values 
for 3 years of data, aggregated at the state level. From those three 
values, we averaged them in different combinations to get seven values. 
From those 7 values, a bootstrapping process was used to get 30 values. 
These 30 values were then resampled 1,000 times. After careful review, 
we have determined that we do not have justification for bootstrapping 
to 30 values. We have eliminated that step and are now bootstrapping 
the 7 values to get 1,000 resamples. This yields a grand mean and 
improvement factor that is very similar to the original set, but is 
more reflective of the true parameters.
    Because of these changes, Table 2 has also been revised. In 
addition, upon further reflection we believe that in order to avoid 
confusion, it is best to use the terminology of floors and caps versus 
minimum and maximum amounts of improvement. Using the terms of floors 
and caps is also consistent with the previously issued Technical 
Bulletin #8. All other references to minimum and maximum levels of 
improvement in the original Federal Register document should be

[[Page 27266]]

read as floors and caps. Table 2 should be replaced as follows:

Table 2--Caps and Floors on Program Improvement Plan Improvement Factors
                Relevant to the Statewide Data Indicators
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Floor            Cap
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statewide Data Indicators for Safety
 Outcome 1:
    Maltreatment in Foster Care.........           0.904           0.812
    Recurrence of Maltreatment..........           0.951           0.902
Statewide Data Indicators for Permanency
 Outcome 1:
    Permanency in 12 Months for Children           1.031           1.063
     Entering Foster care...............
    Permanency in 12 Months for Children           1.046           1.082
     in Foster Care 12 to 23 months.....
    Permanency in 12 Months for Children           1.042           1.091
     in Foster Care 24 Months or More...
    Re-Entry to Foster Care in 12 Months           0.891           0.834
    Placement Stability.................           0.959           0.904
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: May 5, 2015.
Mark H. Greenberg,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.
[FR Doc. 2015-11515 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4184-25-P