The Data Measures, Data Composites, and National Standards To Be Used in the Child and Family Services Reviews, 32969-32987 [06-5193]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
• Administration for Children and Families
• Children and Families Administration

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 7, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32969-32987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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 
John.Hargrove@acf.hhs.gov, (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