Chafee National Youth in Transition Database, 40346-40382 [06-6005]

Agencies

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

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 135 (Friday, July 14, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40346-40382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6005]



[[Page 40345]]

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

Part VII





Department of Health and Human Services





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



Administration for Children and Families



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



45 CFR Part 1356



Chafee National Youth in Transition Database; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 135 / Friday, July 14, 2006 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 40346]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families

45 CFR Part 1356

RIN 0970-AC21


Chafee National Youth in Transition Database

AGENCY: Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), 
Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health 
and Human Services (DHHS).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is 
proposing to add regulations at 45 CFR part 1356 to require States to 
collect and report data to ACF on youth who are receiving independent 
living services and the outcomes of certain youth who are in foster 
care or who age out of foster care. This proposed rule implements the 
data collection requirements of the Foster Care Independence Act of 
1999 (Public Law 106-169) as incorporated into the Social Security Act 
at section 477.

DATES: In order to be considered, we must receive written comments on 
this notice of proposed rulemaking on or before September 12, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding 
this proposed rule to Kathleen McHugh, Director, Division of Policy, 
Children's Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, 
Administration for Children and Families, 1250 Maryland Avenue, SW., 
8th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. You may also transmit comments via e-
mail to CBcomments@acf.hhs.gov or electronically via the Internet at 
https://www.regulations.acf.hhs.gov. We urge you to submit comments 
electronically to ensure that we receive them in a timely manner. To 
download an electronic version of the rule, you should access https://
www.regulations.gov/. Comments will be available for public inspection 
Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the above address by 
contacting Miranda Lynch at (202) 205-8138.
    Comments that concern information collection requirements must be 
sent to the Office of Management and Budget at the address listed in 
the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this preamble. A copy of these 
comments also may be sent to the Department representative listed 
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen McHugh, Director of Policy, 
Children's Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, 202/
401-5789 or by e-mail at kmchugh@acf.hhs.gov. Do not e-mail comments on 
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to this address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The preamble to this notice of proposed 
rulemaking is organized as follows:

I. Background

    A. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program Legislative History
    B. Statutory Requirement for a Data Collection System
II. Consultation Process
    A. Development of Outcomes
    B. Identification of Youth Characteristics and Services
    C. Data Reporting Methods and Procedures
    D. Comments on Alternative or Future Approaches
III. Overview of Proposed National Youth in Transition Database 
(NYTD)
    A. Summary of the NYTD
    B. The NYTD as a Separate Collection and Reporting Activity
IV. Section-by-Section Discussion of NPRM
V. Charts and Tables
    A. Chart 1: Outcomes and Relevant Data Elements
    B. Table 1: Example of State Sample Sizes
    C. Chart 2: Overview of Proposed NYTD
VI. Impact Analysis

I. Background

A. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program Legislative History

    Each year thousands of young people are discharged from State 
foster care systems because they reach the age at which they are no 
longer eligible for out-of-home placement services. During the early 
1980s, research and anecdotal evidence indicated that many young people 
who emancipated from foster care experienced numerous difficulties in 
their attempts to achieve self-sufficiency. Rather than making a 
successful transition to living on their own, a significant percentage 
of these youth experienced homelessness, unemployment, victimization, 
and dependence on various types of public assistance.
    In response to this problem, President Reagan signed into law the 
Title IV-E Independent Living Initiative (Public Law 99-272) in 1986. 
The law provided States with funding to make available independent 
living services to youth in foster care between the ages of 16 and 21. 
Although Public Law 99-272 increased the availability of independent 
living services for some youth in foster care, many child welfare 
researchers, practitioners, youth advocates, and policy makers at the 
Federal and State levels believed that more was necessary for youth to 
make a successful transition from foster care to self-sufficiency. To 
address these concerns, President Clinton signed the Foster Care 
Independence Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106-169) into law on December 14, 
1999, which established the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence 
Program (CFCIP) at section 477 of the Social Security Act (the Act). 
Compared to Public Law 99-272, the Foster Care Independence Act 
provides States with greater funding and flexibility to carry out 
programs to assist youth in making the transition from foster care to 
self-sufficiency. The legislation provides States with funding to 
identify and provide independent living services to youth who are 
likely to remain in foster care until at least age 18--thus removing 
the minimum age requirements for the receipt of independent living 
services. Public Law 106-169 also requires States to provide assistance 
and services to youth who age out of foster care, until age 21, and 
allows States to use part of their funding to provide room and board 
assistance to these youth.
    President Bush later signed the Promoting Safe and Stable Families 
Amendments of 2001 (Pub. L. 107-133) into law on January 17, 2002, 
which provides States with funding specifically for education and 
training vouchers for youth who are eligible for CFCIP services. 
Although the budget for the education and training vouchers is 
authorized and appropriated separately from the general CFCIP grants 
for independent living services, the education and training vouchers 
are integrated into the overall CFCIP program under section 477 of the 
Act.

B. Statutory Requirement for a Data Collection System

    The Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 requires ACF to develop a 
data collection system, in consultation with various stakeholders, to 
perform two functions: (1) track the independent living services States 
provide to youth; and, (2) develop outcome measures that may be used to 
assess State performance in operating their independent living 
programs. With regard to services, the Act requires us to identify data 
elements to track the number and characteristics of children receiving 
services under section 477 of the Act and the type and quantity of 
services States provide. With regard to outcomes, section 477(f)(1) of 
the Act requires that we develop outcome measures, including measures 
of educational attainment, receipt of a high school diploma, 
employment, avoidance of dependency, homelessness, non-marital 
childbirth,

[[Page 40347]]

incarceration, and high-risk behaviors, and the data elements to track 
States' performance on the outcome measures.
    The law also requires that ACF impose a penalty of between one and 
five percent of the State's annual allotment on any State that fails to 
comply with the reporting requirements. ACF must base a State's penalty 
amount on the degree of noncompliance (section 477(e)(2) and (3) of the 
Act).

II. Consultation Process

    To meet the statutory mandate, we consulted with a variety of 
stakeholders over several years and gathered useful information, helped 
frame this proposed rule for a data system which we are calling the 
National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD). ACF's consultation on the 
proposed NYTD had the following objectives: (1) To identify a range or 
variety of outcomes that demonstrate that youth are making a successful 
transition from foster care to living on their own; (2) to identify 
youth characteristics and the independent living services provided to 
youth; and (3) to identify data reporting methods and procedures. In 
addition, we invited several States to conduct a pilot test of draft 
data definitions and collection procedures suggested by the 
consultation groups.

A. Development of Outcomes

    The outcomes consultation process included national discussion 
groups on generally expected outcomes for youth leaving foster care and 
involved such participants as child welfare agency administrators and 
independent living coordinators at the State, Tribal, and local levels; 
public and private agency youth service providers; technical assistance 
providers; child welfare advocates; group home staff and 
administrators; and current and former foster youth and foster parents. 
The discussion groups took place in a variety of venues, mostly led by 
ACF, our contractors and resource centers, as well as the National 
Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators. We also sought 
information from a variety of stakeholders on specific outcomes and 
measures that could become a part of the NYTD.

B. Identification of Youth Characteristics and Services

    Independent of our outcomes consultation, we consulted widely to 
identify the characteristics of youth necessary to provide a clear 
picture of who is receiving independent living services from States, 
and the type and quantity of services they receive. We held conference 
calls with independent living coordinators and information technology 
managers from several States to determine the types of data related to 
independent living services and characteristics of youth that States 
currently collect. We also requested information on what data State 
staff considered necessary to describe accurately the youth served and 
the services received, and the data that could most easily be obtained 
or reported by States.
    In addition, we formed a data work group to analyze the results of 
a pilot test of the draft proposed data elements. The data work group 
consisted of child welfare directors, independent living coordinators, 
and information systems managers from seven States and one Tribe. 
Representatives of the American Public Human Services Association 
(APHSA) and three of the Children's Bureau's National Resource Centers 
for child welfare also participated in this data work group.
    The pilot test, which was conducted in August 2001, served as a 
field test of the draft data elements, definitions, and procedures and 
provided valuable information for assessment of the data collection 
burden on the States. In each of the seven pilot States, caseworkers 
collected data about several older youth, identified any unclear 
definitions, and described any difficulties encountered while 
collecting data. Each pilot State also was asked to report the amount 
of effort required to collect the information. We used these responses 
to assess the burden for workers, and to learn if the capacity to 
report data varied significantly across agencies or States.

C. Data Reporting Methods and Procedures

    As a final step we consulted with various stakeholders on how to 
develop reporting methods and procedures for the proposed NYTD. We 
interviewed more than 25 system developers, managers, and users of the 
Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS), the 
National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS), and the Runaway 
and Homeless Youth Management Information System (RHYMIS). This 
consultation focused on the reporting population, and how and when data 
should be collected at the State level and reported to ACF. These 
comments were important considerations in our proposals for reporting 
population, reporting frequency, and data content.

D. Comments on Alternative or Future Approaches

    As with all proposed rules, we are seeking to extend our 
consultation by requesting specific comments on what is proposed 
herein. However, throughout the preamble we have indicated some areas 
where we are interested in receiving comments on approaches that we 
have not proposed officially. We want to highlight those areas here to 
ensure that we receive sufficient comment on these issues:
     Conducting outcome data collection activities on young 
people ages 17, 19 and 21 years old (sections 1356.82 and 1356.83)
     Exploring how States can use Extensible Mark-Up Language 
(XML) to transmit data files to the NYTD (section 1356.83(h));
     Providing States with incentives to meet file submission 
and data standards in the form of a prospective penalty reduction for 
meeting certain data standards;
     Increasing the data standards for the State to obtain 
outcome information on youth over time (section 1356.85(b)(3)); and,
     Using `cross-file checks' as a factor of compliance in the 
NYTD (section 1356.85(c)).

III. Overview of the Proposed NYTD

A. Summary of the NYTD

    Please refer to the end of the preamble for a Chart 2 on the 
proposed NYTD that accompanies this section.
    As discussed in the section-by-section analysis later in the 
preamble, we are proposing that States report to NYTD four types of 
information about youth: their services, characteristics, outcomes, and 
basic demographics. In terms of services, we are proposing that States 
identify the type of independent living services or financial 
assistance that the State provides to youth. The State also will 
identify the characteristics of each youth receiving independent living 
services, such as their education level and tribal membership.
    In terms of outcomes, we are proposing that States gather and 
report information on youth who are or were in foster care that we can 
use to measure the collective outcomes of these youth and potentially 
assess the State's performance in this area. In particular, we are 
proposing that States survey young people for outcomes information who 
are or were previously in foster care, regardless of the independent 
living services they are receiving or received. States will collect 
information on these youth at three specific intervals: on or about the 
youth's 17th

[[Page 40348]]

birthday while the youth is in foster care; two years later on or about 
the youth's 19th birthday; and again on or about the youth's 21st 
birthday. States must report on 19- and 21-year-olds who participated 
in data collection at age 17 while in foster care, even if they are no 
longer in the State's foster care system or receiving independent 
living services at ages 19 and 21. States will collect outcome 
information on a new cohort of youth (17-year-olds in foster care) 
every three years.
    We are proposing that the State survey youth regarding six outcomes 
that came out of our consultation and are consistent with the law's 
mandate. Those six outcomes focus on the youth's financial self-
sufficiency, experience with homelessness, educational attainment, 
positive connections with adults, high-risk behavior, and access to 
health insurance. States will gather information on young people such 
as: whether the youth is employed; whether the youth is receiving 
public and/or other types of assistance; a youth's educational 
achievement levels; whether a youth has been incarcerated; and a 
youth's marital and parenting status. We will not use the data to 
assess the progress of individual youth; rather, we propose to use the 
information to assess the collective outcomes of youth and potentially 
evaluate State performance with regard to those outcomes.
    Finally, we also are proposing that States identify basic 
demographic information, such as sex and race of each youth in the 
reporting population.
    States will report all four types of information (services, 
characteristics, outcomes, and basic demographics) to the NYTD semi-
annually, on a Federal fiscal year basis. ACF will evaluate a State's 
data file against file submission and data compliance standards 
designed to ensure that we have quality data on our target reporting 
populations. States that fail to achieve any of the compliance 
standards for a reporting period will be given an opportunity to submit 
corrected data to us. If a State's corrected data does not comply with 
the data standards, the State will be subject to a penalty of between 
one and five percent of the State's annual CFCIP funding, depending on 
the level of noncompliance.
    Implementation of NYTD will be dependent on the issuance of a final 
rule. We anticipate giving States approximately one year from the 
publication of the final rule before we will require them to collect 
and report data. States may use their CFCIP funds to develop and 
support any changes to their information systems to collect and report 
information to NYTD. States with a Statewide Automated Child Welfare 
Information System (SACWIS) may claim appropriate costs under title IV-
E, if the changes to their SACWIS to meet NYTD requirements are 
consistent with an approved advanced planning document (APD) and cost 
allocation plan.
    Finally, we would like to note that we are not proposing 
performance standards for States in this NPRM. Rather we are proposing 
outcome measures and the data elements that will track those outcomes. 
While we have not decided definitively to develop standards, we believe 
that we can only develop standards once States begin to report data to 
the NYTD, thus giving us a basis for establishing standards.

B. The NYTD as a Separate Data Collection and Reporting Activity

    With this NPRM we are proposing a new Federal database of 
information on youth who are receiving independent living services and 
the outcomes of older youth who are in foster care and those that leave 
foster care. Although we considered the requests of some consultation 
participants to fold the data requirements for the CFCIP into one of 
ACF's existing child welfare national databases, we decided against 
doing so because: (1) The proposed NYTD reporting population is 
significantly different than the reporting populations of other 
databases; (2) we can link a youth's foster care experience with their 
independent living information between data systems without combining 
databases; (3) combining databases does not reduce the cost or burden 
on States or the Federal government; and (4) the different authorizing 
statutes and penalty structures do not lend themselves to combining the 
databases.
    States currently send data to two central, child welfare databases 
that are maintained by the Children's Bureau: the National Child Abuse 
and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) and the Adoption and Foster Care 
Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS). States report information 
voluntarily to NCANDS about reports of child abuse and neglect and the 
child protective services agency response to these allegations (see 
sections 103(c) and 106(d) of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment 
Act, as amended). A vast majority of children whom States report to 
NCANDS never enter foster care, or return home from foster care long 
before they are likely to age out of the foster care system. Because of 
the voluntary nature of NCANDS and the broader scope of the reporting 
population, we do not believe it is an appropriate mechanism to capture 
information on youth receiving independent living services or their 
outcomes.
    States are required by law and regulation to submit data to AFCARS 
on all children in foster care or adopted with the involvement of the 
State child welfare agency (see section 479 of the Act and 45 CFR 
1355.40). Nearly all youth who will receive independent living services 
are or once were in a State's foster care system (with the exception of 
some youth who may be served through an Indian tribe or privately 
operated foster care program), so the AFCARS population more closely 
tracks that of the proposed NYTD than does the NCANDS population. 
However, the population of older youth ages 19 and 21 on whom we are 
seeking independent living outcome information are not often reported 
in AFCARS, because States are required to report on only children in 
foster care who are typically youth under 18. Further, while States do 
provide ACF with information about these youths' foster care 
experiences and demographic information as part of their AFCARS 
submissions, AFCARS currently does not collect any information on 
independent living services or outcomes specific to these youth.
    Despite the disparate reporting populations, we considered whether 
adding an independent living component to AFCARS would prove beneficial 
to States and ACF. One purported benefit of a combined submission is 
that States would combine information on a youth's foster care 
experience, services and outcomes into a single report. However, we can 
achieve this goal with the separate database we propose here. This is 
because we are proposing that States identify youth reported to NYTD in 
the same way they do for AFCARS, so that we can associate information 
between the two databases. We expect, therefore, to lay the groundwork 
for analysis of a broader picture of the experiences that youth have in 
and after leaving foster care.
    Another potential benefit of a combined submission pointed out 
during consultation is that States would not have to repeat some of the 
basic demographic information for youth who are or were previously in 
their foster care system. Some believed that avoiding this kind of 
duplication would reduce the cost for States of this new data 
collection effort. However, although some of the proposed NYTD elements 
at first glance may appear to be identical to AFCARS elements, they are

[[Page 40349]]

in fact defined differently so that we can achieve the law's purpose of 
understanding a youth's services and independent living outcomes versus 
their foster care experience. Therefore, only three demographic 
elements (race, sex and date of birth) are duplicates. Since we 
understand that States store this demographic information in their 
information systems, the only duplicated effort is in the State 
compiling it into another report to ACF.
    Moreover, combining the reporting files does not substantially 
lower the amount of effort a State will expend to change its practices 
to gather the information we are proposing they collect. For example, 
requiring the State to send an additional file with information 
specific to independent living to AFCARS will not decrease the State's 
burden in changing its information systems to collect services 
information, training and requiring caseworkers or service providers to 
record information on youth services, and implementing a strategy to 
collect outcome information from older youth. Similarly, we do not 
believe that combining the databases saves the Federal government any 
costs to store or analyze the data, or conduct technical assistance and 
oversight activities.
    Finally, the authorizing statutes for AFCARS and the proposed NYTD 
are very different, requiring different approaches to compliance and 
penalties. Section 474(f) of the Act mandates that we penalize States a 
portion of their title IV-E administrative funds spent on foster care 
for not complying with AFCARS requirements, and requires us to continue 
to penalize a State for the period of the noncompliance. Section 477 of 
the Act requires us to penalize States that do not comply with the data 
collection effort in the amount of one and five percent of their annual 
Chafee funds, depending on the extent of noncompliance. Therefore, to 
meet these separate requirements and penalty schemes, AFCARS 
information would have to remain distinguishable from the independent 
living information to an extent that renders combining the two 
databases meaningless.
    We believe that keeping the information collected separate from 
AFCARS will help us highlight the experiences of youth transitioning 
into independent living and will not disrupt State and Federal efforts 
to improve the quality of AFCARS data. Furthermore, many State managers 
of the Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System, those 
individuals who would be tasked with developing a system that adheres 
to NYTD and AFCARS requirements in the State, preferred to send a 
separate data submission to ACF.

IV. Section-by-Section Discussion of NPRM

    We propose to add new sections 1356.80 to 1356.86 as follows:

Section 1356.80 Scope of the National Youth in Transition Database

    Under proposed section 1356.80, any State, the District of 
Columbia, or Territory that administers a Chafee Foster Care 
Independence Program (CFCIP) under section 477 of the Social Security 
Act must comply with the requirements for data collection and reporting 
as described in this proposed rule. Currently, all States, the District 
of Columbia and Puerto Rico operate CFCIP programs.

Section 1356.81 Reporting Population

    The NYTD reporting population is comprised of three groups of 
youth: the served, baseline and follow-up populations. They are defined 
further below.
    In paragraph (a), we identify the served population as those youth 
who have received any independent living services paid for or provided 
by the CFCIP agency during the reporting period. The CFCIP agency is 
the same agency as the title IV-B/IV-E agency in the State.
    We have chosen to include in the served population youth who 
receive services that the CFCIP agency makes available, rather than 
just those that are paid for with CFCIP funds specifically. Also 
included in this definition are youth who may obtain an independent 
living service from a source other than the CFCIP agency directly, if 
that service was paid for by the CFCIP agency. For example, the served 
population includes tribal youth who receive services through a tribal 
child welfare agency under a contract or agreement with the State CFCIP 
agency to provide independent living services. We realize that this 
definition is more expansive than that suggested by the statute (see 
section 477(f)(1)(B) of the Act). However, we believe that capturing 
information about all independent living services offered by the 
State's CFCIP agency gives a more complete picture of how each State 
supports youth transitioning into independent living. Moreover, we 
learned through consultations that while States may keep track of 
independent living services that are provided by the agency, many do 
not have systems in place to track a service back to a particular 
Federal funding source.
    We considered proposing that the served population include only 
those youth who are in the State's foster care system, or who have 
previously been in foster care, and are currently receiving independent 
living services from that same State. While most youth who receive 
independent living services from a State have been in foster care in 
that State, some have not. We originally believed that the advantage of 
including only youth who had been in the State's foster care system is 
that the State already would have a case record on these youth that 
included demographic and perhaps, service information. Upon further 
review, however, we grew concerned that we would exclude information 
about the independent living services of youth who were not in this 
limited population. In particular, this definition would not include an 
Indian tribal youth who was never in a State's foster care system, but 
who was receiving independent living services provided by the State's 
CFCIP agency through a contract or agreement with his or her Tribe. 
Since section 477(b)(3)(G) of the Act requires States to serve Indian 
children on the same basis as other youth in the State, we believe it 
is important to include them in the served population. Additionally, a 
limited definition of the served population would exclude youth who may 
move to another State after their tenure in foster care. Therefore, we 
kept the definition broad to better reflect the characteristics and 
number of youth receiving independent living services.
    We also considered requiring States to collect and report services 
information on any youth who is currently in a State's foster care 
system, regardless of whether he or she receives independent living 
services. In other words, States would report information that told us 
which youth are receiving services and what those services are as well 
as which youth are not receiving any services. We considered this 
option originally because it would give us information about the 
characteristics of those youth who were in foster care but were not 
receiving independent living services. Ultimately, we rejected this 
approach because the statute's mandates regarding service information 
are that States provide the number and characteristics of children 
receiving services only (section 477(f)(1)(B)(i) of the Act). As we 
refined the definition of the served population, we came to believe 
that requiring States to report services information on each youth in 
foster care went well beyond the statutory requirements and would pose 
an unnecessary burden on States.

[[Page 40350]]

    We also considered establishing a minimum age of 14 for the served 
population. This option was particularly applicable when we considered 
having a served population that included all youth currently in the 
State's foster care system, regardless of whether the youth received 
independent living services. Without a minimum age, this broad 
definition would have encompassed all youth who were in foster care, 
including very young children. Therefore, establishing this minimum 
would help keep State's data collection burden down. Once we revised 
the definition of the served population to include only those youth who 
receive independent living services, a minimum age was not necessary. 
We also did not see a justification to regulate beyond the requirements 
of the statute, which does not include a minimum age for receipt of 
CFCIP services.
    In paragraph (b), we identify the baseline population as all 17-
year-old youth in foster care during a Federal fiscal year for the 
purpose of collecting outcome information. We are referring to these 
youth as the baseline population because we intend to look at cohorts 
of older youth over time, beginning at the point that a cohort turns 
age 17 while in foster care. As such, the 17-year-olds represent the 
starting point or ``baseline'' of our information on youth's 
independent living outcomes and experiences. When we collect additional 
information on these youth as they age (at 19 and 21), we refer to them 
as the follow-up population, which we will describe further below. We 
are requiring that States collect outcome information on the baseline 
population, along with the follow-up population in response to the 
statutory requirement that we develop data elements that are needed to 
track State performance on youth outcomes. The statute's provisions on 
outcomes are quite broad, leaving the decisions on how and on which 
youth we collect outcomes information up to ACF in consultation with 
stakeholders. After our consultation, we believed that surveying the 
same youth over time would best meet our needs of understanding trends 
in youth outcomes and potentially assessing the effect that a State's 
independent living services have on those youth outcomes.
    We settled on proposing 17-year-olds in foster care for whom we 
would initially collect outcome information as the baseline population 
after considering a number of other proposals. We considered defining 
the initial outcome collection or baseline population as all youth who 
were discharged from foster care at age 16 or older. The primary reason 
for considering 16-year-olds or older youth at the point of discharge 
as the baseline population was so we could have information on how 
prepared youth are for independent living at the time they leave foster 
care. However, participants in the consultation process noted several 
difficulties with using the point of discharge. First, States 
emancipate youth at varying ages, ranging from 18 to 23 depending on 
State policy and the circumstances of the youth. Consequently, using 
the point of discharge for youth age 16 and older as a basis for 
defining our baseline population would result in a group of youth who 
ranged in age from 16 to 23 across the States. We determined that 
because some of the outcomes, such as educational attainment, are 
strongly influenced by age and developmental status, it was important 
to establish consistency by defining a baseline population that 
included youth of the same age. An additional difficulty with defining 
the baseline population in terms of the point of discharge is that 
``discharge'' is defined differently across States and it would be 
difficult to develop a single definition that would accommodate this 
variation. Also, some youth leave their placements before formal 
discharge, sometimes because they run away or are detained on 
delinquency charges, and thus are not available for discharge 
interviews. For these reasons, we decided to define the baseline 
population, in part, on a fixed age rather than a fluid measure such as 
the youth's exit from foster care.
    We also considered a baseline population that would be fixed at the 
youth's 17th birthday but required that the youth have been in foster 
care for a specific length of time, such as six months or 12 months. We 
thought that establishing a minimum time in foster care would ensure 
that youth were in foster care long enough to receive independent 
living services. However, we decided not to require a minimum length of 
time in foster care because that approach overly complicated the data 
collection without a measurable benefit or clear basis of the 
appropriate minimum length of time.
    Ultimately, we chose to look at the outcomes of all 17-year-old 
youth in foster care. We chose 17 as the age for our baseline 
population because it was close to the age when most youth leave foster 
care for independent living (between ages 17 and 19). We also chose to 
look at all 17-year-olds in foster care, as opposed to youth who 
actually had received independent living services. We are able to look 
at all 17-year-olds because the statute's provisions regarding outcome 
information do not limit us to those youth who are receiving 
independent living services. Moreover, we believe it is important to 
capture information on both youth who receive services and those who do 
not in determining youth outcomes and assessing State performance.
    In paragraph (c), we identify the follow-up population as young 
people who turn age 19 or 21 in a fiscal year and who participated in 
the State's data collection as part of the baseline population (i.e., 
at age 17). A youth is considered to have participated as part of the 
baseline population if the State collected and reported a valid 
response (i.e., a response other than ``declined'' and ``not 
applicable'') to any of the outcome-related elements (described later 
in 45 CFR 1356.83(g)(38) through (g)(60)). The follow-up population is 
not limited to youth who are still in foster care, or who are receiving 
independent living services in the State at those later ages.
    In establishing a follow-up population in order to look at 
outcomes, we first wanted to ensure that the follow-up population would 
include at least some young people who are no longer in foster care. 
Including young people who have been discharged from foster care is 
important because we must look at some outcomes required by the law, 
such as homelessness, that cannot be assessed until after youth have 
been discharged. We learned through the consultation process that 
stakeholders are interested in whether youth who remain in foster care 
fare better than their counterparts who have left foster care. We 
considered restricting the follow-up population for outcome information 
to youth who had been discharged from foster care and who were 
continuing to receive independent living services. Based on information 
from participants in the consultation process, however, we determined 
that this restriction was not appropriate because it was too limited to 
assess adequately the performance of the States in operating 
independent living programs.
    We then considered what would be reasonable points at which to 
evaluate how youth were progressing on the outcome measures that were 
most critical to a youth's successful transition to independent living, 
and also feasible for States to follow.
    We chose age 21 as the upper boundary for outcomes collection 
primarily because the Chafee law requires that States provide 
independent living services up to that age. Even though we also are 
capturing information on youth who may not necessarily benefit from 
Federal Chafee

[[Page 40351]]

funds, we expect that the Chafee funding will guide many of the 
services that States provide. Also, although age 18 is considered the 
age of majority in most States, many stakeholders pointed out that 
mainstream society often does not expect youth to be fully self-
sufficient until age 21 or later. We thought, therefore, that looking 
at youth at age 21 was a reasonable point to focus on final outcomes 
for our purposes, although we acknowledge that reaching adulthood is a 
process rather than an event that we expect to occur by a specific age. 
We considered an even later age such as age 23, since the education and 
training vouchers authorized under section 477 of the Act allow a State 
to continue to provide vouchers to that age in certain circumstances. 
However, we believe that for those young people who are not receiving 
vouchers, it is even more likely that at age 23, they will decline to 
participate in data collection than youth at age 19 or 21 who are not 
receiving services. Furthermore, with the passage of time the State 
agency will have lost contact with the youth after the youth's 
emancipation or last receipt of independent living services.
    After determining this upper boundary, we considered whether we 
needed another point in time to assess youth for outcomes. We believe 
that having an interim age for follow-up would allow States to preserve 
the sample by keeping in contact with youth who have aged out of foster 
care. More importantly, looking at outcomes at an interim age can give 
us further insight into youth's developmental pathways. In looking at 
youth outcomes at a variety of ages, we can better observe how youth 
are making the transition to adulthood and self-sufficiency. We chose 
age 19 in particular because it was halfway between the initial 
outcomes collection and the upper boundary, but also because it is an 
age when there are still some youth who are in foster care (there are 
over 10,000 youth age 19 and older according to AFCARS) or receiving 
independent living services from the State.

Section 1356.82 Data Collection Requirements

    In this section, we detail the proposed data collection 
requirements. As used here, data collection refers to the State's 
process for obtaining information that meets the data requirements for 
each youth in the reporting population.
    In paragraph (a)(1), we propose that a State collect information 
for the applicable data elements on each youth for each reporting 
period in which the youth receives independent living services. In 
other words, we are requiring that States collect detailed, client-
level data for as long as the youth receives independent living 
services.
    We chose to propose that States collect client-level data on 
services, rather than aggregate data because of the utility of client-
level data. Client-level data supports more sophisticated analysis of 
the services provided to youth and the characteristics of the youth who 
receive them. For example, with the client-level data proposed here we 
can analyze youth receiving employment services by age, gender and 
location. Aggregate- or program-level data provides only general totals 
of services and characteristics and descriptions of the States overall 
independent living program. While aggregate data often is less 
burdensome for States to collect, we do not believe that aggregate data 
will adequately assist us in meeting the law's objectives to develop 
outcome measures.
    Unlike data collection for a youth in the State's baseline or 
follow-up population, which is conducted at specific times according to 
a youth's age, we propose that the State's data collection for a youth 
in the served population will continue for as long as the youth 
receives services. We are mindful that each State must coordinate with 
service providers in order to track and collect information about youth 
receiving independent living services accurately. During consultation 
we heard from State participants that they had anticipated tracking 
independent living services on an ongoing basis in response to the law 
and their own State needs, and that this approach would not pose a 
significant additional burden.
    In paragraph (a)(2), we propose that the State collect outcomes 
information on the baseline population (17-year-olds in foster care) by 
surveying the youth. Again, we chose case-level data rather than 
aggregate data because case-level data better lends itself to analysis. 
We will require States to collect information on a new baseline 
population every three years. We chose this schedule, rather than 
annually in order to avoid imposing an unnecessary burden on States. 
Participants in the consultation process pointed out that youth 
outcomes generally do not change substantially from year to year, and 
collecting outcome data every three years should be sufficient to 
document trends and address the legislative requirements. We propose 
that States begin to collect outcomes data on the baseline population 
in the first fiscal year of implementation of the NYTD system in 
paragraph (a)(2)(i). As stated in paragraph (a)(2)(ii), States will 
then collect outcomes on a new baseline population every three years 
thereafter.
    We also are proposing that the State collect outcome information 
within 45 days following the youth's 17th birthday, but not before that 
birthday. We allow 45 days to collect the data, rather than requiring 
data collection on each youth's birthday, to reflect real-life tracking 
and scheduling constraints. We also want to impose this time frame to 
ensure that the youth are as close as possible to the same age--i.e., 
all have recently attained their 17th birthdays--to make them 
comparable on that characteristic. This is particularly important in 
understanding certain outcomes, such as the youth's highest educational 
certification level received which is age-sensitive. Finally, we want 
to make sure that States obtain outcome information on the greatest 
number of 17-year-olds in foster care possible, rather than leaving it 
until later in the year when the youth may leave foster care 
voluntarily or otherwise be engaged in a number of activities in 
preparation for discharge.
    We want to note that by giving States 45 days to collect 
information on 17-year-olds, we realize that States may not collect 
information on youth whose birthdays fall at the end of any given 
fiscal year (i.e., in September) at the same rates as youth with other 
birth dates. We acknowledge that this is not an ideal situation, but we 
believe that giving States a sufficient window of opportunity to 
collect information on youth is preferable to ensure that all 17-year-
old youth are captured.
    In paragraph (a)(2)(iii), we direct States to the survey in 
Appendix B of the proposed regulation that States are to administer to 
youth in the baseline population. We chose to regulate this survey to 
ensure that each youth is provided with standard questions and response 
options, which will improve the consistency of the information 
collected nationwide. We are not, however, regulating the manner in 
which States administer the survey. Therefore, States are free to 
administer the survey questions to youth in person or over the phone, 
through the mail or email, using automated-surveys over the internet, 
or via any other suitable method.
    In paragraph (a)(3), we propose that States collect information on 
each youth in the follow-up population during the reporting period that 
the youth turns ages 19 and 21. We chose the six-month reporting period 
time frame because we are interested in getting timely information on 
the older youth. We originally considered a 45-day time

[[Page 40352]]

frame for States to collect outcomes information on these older youth 
as well, but do not believe that education information collected on 
older youth is as time-sensitive as it is for 17-year-olds. Moreover, 
we believe that for those 19- and 21-year-olds who are no longer in 
foster care, we are likely to get more complete outcome information if 
we allow States adequate time to locate these youth. States will need 
to institute appropriate procedures to contact youth who may turn 19 
and 21 near the end of a reporting period early enough to ensure that 
the State is able to collect the outcomes information in the required 
time frame.
    Since the State collects information on a new baseline population 
every three years rather than every year, data collection on follow-up 
populations will occur only in years with no data collection on 
baseline populations. That is, in any given year, data collection for 
outcomes will occur on only one group of youth, as shown in the table 
below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Reporting population
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                    Implementation year                         Baseline                   Follow-up
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                                              17-year-olds      19-year-olds      21-year-olds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................................................         [bcheck]   ................  ................
2.........................................................  ................  ................  ................
3.........................................................  ................         [bcheck]   ................
4.........................................................         [bcheck]   ................  ................
5.........................................................  ................  ................         [bcheck]
6.........................................................  ................         [bcheck]   ................
7.........................................................         [bcheck]   ................  ................
8.........................................................  ................  ................         [bcheck]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated earlier, we considered a number of different options for 
collecting information on outcomes for older youth before proposing 
here that States gather outcome information on a wide range of youth, 
some of whom may no longer be in foster care or even receiving 
independent living services. We understand that this approach requires 
States to keep contact information on a youth before leaving foster 
care and develop various systems to track a youth's whereabouts once 
the youth no longer has regular contact with the child welfare/CFCIP 
agency. We expect that for many States this type of follow-up with 
youth who have left the system will be new and challenging. We are, 
therefore, publishing a draft technical assistance document on the 
Children's Bureau's Web site (https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb). We 
hope that this document will provide commenters with an understanding 
of the various methods that States can use to track youth and a sense 
of the effort that doing so entails. Further, we anticipate providing 
States with technical assistance to help them develop their tracking 
methods during implementation of the proposed NYTD.
    In paragraph (b), we propose to allow the State to select a sample 
of youth from the baseline population of 17-year-olds who participated 
in outcome data collection to track over time. The youth selected for 
the sample will then comprise the follow-up population of 19- and 21-
year-olds. The sampling procedures are discussed in section 1356.84. 
This proposal is in direct response to feedback during the consultation 
process that requested that any survey of outcomes for youth who had 
left foster care utilize sampling to mitigate the burden of tracking 
youth for most States.
    We welcome comments on the feasibility of collecting data on 17-, 
19- and 21-year old young people as outlined in this section.

Section 1356.83 Reporting Requirements and Data Elements

    Reporting periods and deadlines. In paragraph (a), we propose that 
each State must submit a data file containing a record for each youth 
in the reporting population on a semi-annual basis. The term ``data 
file'' refers to the entire package of information that a State reports 
to ACF each reporting period.
    We had considered a 12-month reporting period, but felt that a 
longer period may increase the risk of inaccurate or missing data. 
Further, since we want to preserve our ability to analyze NYTD data 
along with AFCARS data, we wanted comparable reporting periods. 
Finally, during consultation, States informed us that semi-annual 
reporting does not impose an undue burden on their resources, since the 
majority of the burden is in collecting services and outcomes 
information which remains an ongoing activity regardless of the length 
of the reporting period.
    In paragraph (a) we also propose that the NYTD reporting periods 
extend from October 1 to March 31 and from April 1 to September 30 of 
each Federal fiscal year. These periods are the same as the AFCARS 
reporting periods. We propose that a State must submit its NYTD file 
within 45 days of the end of the reporting period. We believe that 45 
days will give a State sufficient time to compile NYTD data for 
submission based on our experience with AFCARS which also has a 45-day 
submission period.
    Data elements for all youth. In paragraph (b), we propose that a 
State report 13 data elements (see paragraphs (g)(1) through (13)) for 
each youth in the reporting population, regardless of their status in 
the served, baseline, or follow-up subpopulations. These elements 
require States to gather information that identify the State, the 
youth, and provide basic youth demographics. Most of these data 
elements need only be collected once from a youth or extracted from the 
State's case management information system (e.g., date of birth, sex, 
race), but we propose that a State report these data to us in every 
reporting period during which the youth appears in the reporting 
population to ensure accurate records.
    Data elements for served youth. In paragraph (c), we propose that a 
State report 19 elements (see paragraphs (g)(14) through (g)(33)) for 
each youth in the served population. These elements are in addition to 
the basic demographic elements required in paragraph (b). The majority 
of these data elements relate to the actual services and assistance 
that the State provides to the youth. Some of these data elements, 
however, require a State to record additional characteristics of the 
youth who are receiving services, including the youth's special 
education status and educational level, and whether or not the youth 
has been adjudicated delinquent or belongs to an Indian tribe. We 
believe these additional characteristics will allow us to analyze any 
service or outcome differences for particular groups of youth.

[[Page 40353]]

    Data elements for baseline and follow-up youth. In paragraph (d), 
we propose to require the State to report the outcome-related data 
elements (see paragraphs (g)(34) through (g)(60)) on each youth in the 
baseline population. These elements are in addition to the basic 
demographic elements required in paragraph (b). These data elements 
pertain to the six outcomes that we have made the focus of this data 
collection activity. Similarly in paragraph (e), we propose these same 
outcome-related elements for each youth in the follow-up population.
    Single youth record. In paragraph (f), we propose that a State 
report to us all applicable data elements for a youth in a single 
record per reporting period. The term ``record'' is used to represent 
all the data associated with a single youth that is submitted in the 
State's data file. The file will contain one record for each youth who 
is in at least one of the three NYTD subpopulations: served, baseline, 
or follow-up population. For example, if a youth is in the served 
population in a reporting period, then the State's data file would 
contain a record for this youth that reports the basic demographic, 
characteristics and service data elements (i.e., the record would 
contain valid responses for the elements described in paragraphs (g)(1) 
through (g)(33) and contain no responses for the elements described in 
paragraphs (g)(34) through (60)). In the next reporting period, if the 
same youth is still in the served population, but now is also in the 
baseline population, the State's file would contain one record for this 
youth that reports all data elements (paragraphs (g)(1) through 
(g)(60)).
    Data element descriptions. Paragraph (g) describes all of the data 
elements. The definitions of each element include the acceptable values 
or valid response options.
    State. In paragraph (g)(1), we request information on the State 
that is reporting the youth to the NYTD. The State must use the numeric 
Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) code to identify 
itself. We use the FIPS code because it is a standard issued by the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to ensure uniform 
identification of geographic entities through all Federal government 
agencies. The State is also required to use this standard for AFCARS 
reporting purposes.
    Report Date. In paragraph (g)(2), we propose that a State indicate 
the reporting period date. Specifically, States are to report to us the 
last day of the month that corresponds with the end of the reporting 
period, which will always be either March 31 or September 30 of any 
given year. This information allows us to identify all youth records 
for the same reporting period.
    Record Number. In paragraph (g)(3), we propose that a State report 
the youth's record number, which is a unique, encrypted person 
identification number. The State must apply and retain the same 
encryption routine or method for the person identification number 
across all reporting periods. The State's encryption methodology will 
need to meet any ACF specifications we prescribe through policy.
    Encryption will ensure that the youth's identity is kept 
confidential. Although encryption is one of a number of methodologies 
that a State can use to code confidential information, we are requiring 
encryption as opposed to other methods of ensuring the confidentiality 
of the identity of the children, such as sequential numbering, because 
it is secure and easier than other methods for States to cross-
reference records for identification at a later date. For example, 
encryption protects a child's sensitive information by masking the 
State or local agency's person identification number from Federal 
staff, researchers or other persons who may come into contact with the 
data the State submits to ACF. In practice, a State encrypts a record 
number by applying a mathematical formula known as an algorithm to code 
the numbers. The State reveals the original person identification 
number by applying the reverse mathematical formula, a process known as 
decryption. The State ensures confidentiality by keeping the 
mathematical formula secure and limiting access to the formula to 
authorized persons only.
    Encryption also is more efficient than some other methods because 
the State need only safeguard the decryption key, not a whole list of 
numbers which cross walk between the masked identification number and 
the real record number. In addition, the vast majority of States use 
encryption methods already in reporting information to AFCARS. The few 
States that do not use encryption currently have indicated to ACF that 
they intend to use encryption in the near future. We believe, 
therefore, that requiring an encryption method will involve a minimal 
burden to States.
    In subparagraph (g)(3)(i), we require States to use the same person 
identification number for NYTD that they use for AFCARS when a youth 
has been in the State's foster care system. As discussed earlier, we 
believe that by requiring States to use the same person identification 
number for youth in foster care and those receiving independent living 
services, we will lay the groundwork for associating information 
between AFCARS and NYTD. We believe that States share our interest in 
having the capacity to analyze a youth's additional demographic 
information and placement history in AFCARS, where it exists, for the 
purposes of further understanding independent living services and 
outcomes.
    For these associations to be made, however, States must also use 
the same person identification number for youth regardless of whether 
or where the child is in foster care or receiving independent living 
services in the State and use the same number for every episode of 
foster care or service receipt. The consistency in assigning person 
identification numbers and the encryption method will allow States and 
ACF to make associations between a youth's experiences over time and 
will allow us to develop annual files from the two six-month reporting 
periods and perform case-level longitudinal cohort analyses.
    Although we are not requiring so here, we strongly encourage States 
to also use the same person identification number in the NYTD (and 
AFCARS) that they may use for NCANDS reporting purposes. Again, we 
believe that States will find that making associations across the 
various child welfare databases will increase their ability to analyze 
the data for program and policy purposes.
    In subparagraph (g)(3)(ii), we specify that for youth who were 
never in the State's foster care system, the State must assign a person 
identification number for the youth and use it consistently for as long 
as the youth receives independent living services. This would be the 
case for a youth who is in the served population currently, but who is 
(or was previously) in tribal or private foster care, or for a youth 
who moves across State lines after leaving foster care. We are not 
requiring States to seek out the original record number of a youth who 
was in foster care or received independent living services in another 
State or who was in the placement and care responsibility of a private 
or tribal foster care system. We believe that the burden and cost to 
States of finding this information and working through the 
inconsistencies between States' number assignment, confidentiality 
policies and encryption methods is prohibitive and outweighs the 
usefulness of the data. As a result, States and the Department will be 
unable to associate information on youth's entire foster care and 
independent living experience when the child is served by more than one 
State or tribal child welfare agency.

[[Page 40354]]

    Date of birth. In paragraph (g)(4), we ask the State to report the 
youth's date of birth. This information will allow us to capture the 
youth's age and also determine whether the State collects outcome 
information for a youth within the required time frame (see section 
1356.85 on compliance for more information).
    Sex. In paragraph (g)(5), we ask States to report the gender of the 
youth. This information will help us analyze the services and outcomes 
for youth by gender.
    Race. Paragraphs (g)(6) through (g)(12) request information on the 
youth's race. The racial categories of American Indian or Alaska 
Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other 
Pacific Islander, and White listed in paragraphs (g)(6) through (g)(10) 
are consistent with the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) 
standards for collecting information on race (see OMB's Provisional 
Guidance on the Implementation of the 1997 Standards for Federal Data 
on Race and Ethnicity, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/re_
guidance2000update.pdf for more information). Each racial category is a 
separate data element to represent the fact that the State is required 
to allow the youth to identify with more than one race. Consistent with 
the OMB standards, self-reporting or self-identification is the 
preferred method for collecting data on race and ethnicity. This means 
that States are to allow a youth or his/her parent(s) to determine the 
youth's race.
    If the youth's race is unknown, the State is to indicate so as 
outlined in paragraph (g)(11). It is acceptable for the youth or parent 
to indicate that the youth identifies with more than one race, but does 
not know one of those races. In such cases, the State must indicate the 
racial categories that apply and also indicate that a race is unknown. 
Finally, if the youth or parent declines to identify the youth's race, 
the State must indicate that this information was declined as outlined 
in paragraph (g)(12).
    Ethnicity. In paragraph (g)(13), we propose that a State report the 
Hispanic or Latino ethnicity of the youth. Similar to race, these 
definitions are consistent with the OMB race and ethnicity standards. 
Also, the State may report whether the youth's ethnicity is unknown or 
whether the youth has declined to provide this information.
    In the group of data elements in paragraphs (g)(14) through 
(g)(33), we propose that a State report information on the 
characteristics of youth and services provided by the State for the 
served subpopulation (as defined in section 1356.81).
    Foster care status--services. In paragraph (g)(14) we propose that 
a State indicate whether a youth receiving services was in foster care 
at any point during the reporting period, consistent with our 
programmatic definition of foster care in the regulations at 45 CFR 
1355.20. For the purposes of this element, a youth is in foster care if 
the State title IV-B/IV-E agency had placement and care responsibility 
for the youth and the youth was in 24-hour substitute care away from 
his or her parents or guardians at any point during the reporting 
period. This element will aid our analysis of how States provide youth 
in foster care with services versus those that have left foster care.
    Local agency. In paragraph (g)(15), we propose that a State report 
the data element local agency. For youth in foster care, States must 
report the county or equivalent jurisdictional unit that has primary 
responsibility for the youth's placement and care. If the youth is not 
in foster care, a State must report the county with primary 
responsibility for providing services to the youth. A State may report 
multiple local agencies if more than one agency meets this element 
description. If a centralized unit is