Chafee National Youth in Transition Database, 10338-10378 [E8-3050]

Agencies

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

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 26, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10338-10378]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-3050]



[[Page 10337]]

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

Part II





Department of Health and Human Services





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



Administration for Children and Families



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



45 CFR Part 1356



Chafee National Youth in Transition Database; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2008 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 10338]]


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

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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule adds new regulations to require States to 
collect and report data to ACF on youth who are receiving independent 
living services and on the outcomes of certain youth who are in foster 
care or who age out of foster care. The final rule implements the data 
collection requirements of the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 
(Pub. L. 106-169) as incorporated into the Social Security Act.

DATES: Effective Date: April 28, 2008.
    Compliance Date: A State must implement and comply with this rule 
no later than October 1, 2010.

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 kathleen.mchugh@acf.hhs.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The preamble to this final rule is organized 
as follows:

I. Background
    A. Legislative History
    B. Rule Development
II. The National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD)
    A. Overview of Changes and Regulatory Provisions
    B. Implementation Timeframes
    C. Discussion of Non-Regulated Issues
III. Section-by-Section Discussion of Final Rule
IV. Impact Analysis

I. Background

A. 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, in 1986 President Reagan signed into 
law the Title IV-E Independent Living Initiative (Pub. L. 99-272). The 
law provided States with funding to make independent living services 
available to youth in foster care between the ages of 16 and 21. 
Several improvements were made to this law by the Foster Care 
Independence Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106-169) signed by President Clinton 
on December 14, 1999. This law 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 make available 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. On January 17, 2002, 
President Bush signed into law the Promoting Safe and Stable Families 
Amendments of 2001 (Pub. L. 107-133), which provided States with 
funding specifically for post-secondary education and training vouchers 
for youth who are eligible for CFCIP services.
    The Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 requires ACF to develop 
and implement 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, 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 in an 
amount that ranges from one to 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).

B. Rule Development

    In developing the rule we engaged in an extensive consultation 
process on the information that would comprise the NYTD. Our 
consultation included national discussion groups with 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. We also held conference calls with 
independent living coordinators and information technology managers 
from several States. Finally, we conducted a pilot test of the draft 
data elements in seven States and one Indian Tribe and formed a work 
group of national associations, resource centers and State and Tribal 
representatives to analyze the results of the pilot test.
    After gathering the information from consultation and conducting 
further internal deliberations, we published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) on July 14, 2006 (71 FR 40346-40382) that outlined 
the National Youth in Transition Database proposal. During the 60-day 
comment period, we received 67 substantive and unduplicated letters 
containing approximately 225 comments and questions on the proposal. 
The commenters included representatives from 38 State child welfare 
agencies and 14 national child welfare organizations, associations or 
advocacy groups, among others.
    We received widespread support for many of the general concepts of 
the NYTD, particularly the variety of service and outcomes data 
elements. Commenters had a number of suggestions for minor 
modifications or clarifications that they believed would enhance the 
rule and the NYTD. Commenters also raised a number of questions on 
matters that are beyond the scope of the NYTD proposal and final

[[Page 10339]]

rule. Most concerns from commenters centered around the timeframe for 
implementing the NYTD, the parameters of the reporting populations, 
cost and burden issues generally and particularly with regard to 
tracking youth who are no longer in foster care and the effect of 
penalties on State services and youth.

II. The National Youth in Transition Database

A. Overview of Changes and Regulatory Provisions

    We did not significantly change the final NYTD from the proposal in 
most areas. Although many of the thoughtful comments led us to 
reconsider aspects of our proposals and make numerous technical 
revisions, we found compelling reasons to retain key elements of the 
NYTD. We were convinced to make changes in two major areas: (1) To 
extend the time States have to develop their information systems and 
internal procedures to be able to collect and report data to the NYTD, 
and (2) to exclude education and training vouchers from the Federal 
funds that are subject to a penalty if a State does not comply with the 
NYTD requirements. These major changes, along with all other changes, 
are discussed in more detail throughout the preamble. A final overview 
of the NYTD follows.
    States will report to NYTD four types of information about youth: 
services provided to youth, youth characteristics, outcomes, and basic 
demographics. In terms of services, States will identify the type of 
independent living services or financial assistance that the State 
provides to youth. There are 11 broad service categories:
     Independent living needs assessment.
     Academic support.
     Post-secondary educational support.
     Career preparation.
     Employment programs or vocational training.
     Budget and financial management.
     Housing education and home management training.
     Health education and risk prevention.
     Family support and healthy marriage education.
     Mentoring.
     Supervised independent living.
    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, States must collect 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. We will collect data on six general outcomes:
     Increase youth financial self-sufficiency.
     Improve youth educational (academic or vocational) 
attainment.
     Increase youth connections with adults.
     Reduce homelessness among youth.
     Reduce high-risk behavior among youth.
     Improve youth access to health insurance.
    The States must survey young people who are or were previously in 
foster care regarding their outcomes information. States will collect 
information on these youth at three specific intervals: On or about the 
youth's 17th 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 baseline population of youth (17-year-olds 
in foster care) every three years.
    Finally, States will identify basic demographic information, such 
as sex and race of each youth in each of the reporting populations.
    States will report all four types of information (services, 
characteristics, outcomes if applicable in that year, 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 
youth. States that fail to achieve any of the compliance standards for 
a reporting period will be given an opportunity to submit to us 
corrected data. If a State's corrected data does not comply with the 
data standards, the State will be subject to a penalty in an amount 
that ranges from one to five percent of the State's annual CFCIP 
funding, depending on the level of noncompliance. The funds subject to 
a penalty will not include the State's education and training voucher 
allotment.

B. Implementation Timeframe

    Implementation of the NYTD will occur on October 1, 2010. This 
means that a State must begin to collect data on October 1, 2010 
(Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2011) and submit the first report period 
data to us by May 15, 2011, in accordance with the NYTD requirements in 
this final rule. This later implementation date is in direct response 
to comments raised by stakeholders in response to the NPRM.
    In the NPRM preamble, we indicated that States would have at least 
a year between issuance of a final rule and the implementation date of 
the NYTD. We did not establish a specific implementation date at that 
time. However, a large number of commenters who represented the 
perspectives of States, advocates and other stakeholders, believed that 
a year was not enough time to comply with the NYTD requirements for a 
number of reasons. We carefully considered the information provided to 
us through comment, and reviewed our rationale for the one-year 
implementation timeframe. We found that the commenters raised issues to 
us that we had not fully considered in developing our original 
estimates of how long States would need to comply with this rule and we 
agree that a change is warranted.
    Most commenters stated that implementing the NYTD would require 
changes to a State's Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information 
System (SACWIS). These changes would take more time than we originally 
suggested because the NYTD provisions which relate to youth who are 
still in foster care or who are receiving independent living services 
must be incorporated into a State's SACWIS in accordance with existing 
SACWIS rules in 45 CFR 1355.53(b)(5)(iii) and ACF-OISM-001 (1995). 
Forty-four States are in some stage of SACWIS development or operation 
and would thus need to make these changes in their SACWIS.
    SACWIS changes often require a State to develop and award contracts 
to implement new programming and design features and secure new 
funding. The commenters pointed out that tight State budgets and long 
lead times needed to secure State appropriations mean that States are 
not guaranteed funding or legislative approval to implement the NYTD 
quickly. These combined issues can lead to a protracted period before 
the State has in hand final approval to even start developing a system, 
let alone begin the work required to change data systems to accommodate 
the new data requirements. We agree with these points as our own 
experiences interacting with States that are attempting to secure 
funding for SACWIS confirm that internal State processes for obtaining 
funding for

[[Page 10340]]

information system changes, and then implementing system changes take a 
significant amount of time.
    In addition to concerns about SACWIS or development of other 
information system capability, commenters registered significant 
uncertainty about States' ability to comply with the outcomes component 
of the NYTD in the suggested timeframe. This was of particular concern 
to States, given their inexperience with administering an outcomes 
survey over an extended time to youth who have left foster care. We 
have acknowledged throughout the NPRM and final rule process that the 
outcomes component is one of the most challenging aspects of the NYTD. 
As such, we believe that we must give States a sufficient opportunity 
to conduct planning activities and take advantage of technical 
assistance.
    Most commenters suggested that a two to three year implementation 
timeframe is more reasonable. We agree that a minimum of two years to 
implement the requirements of the NYTD is justified and have set the 
compliance date as October 1, 2010 accordingly. Providing less time 
than two years will not serve us or the States well in our mutual goals 
to understand and serve youth better. The later implementation date is 
designed to ensure that States are prepared and able to submit quality 
data on youth independent living services and youth outcomes. In the 
first year of start-up activities, ACF plans to provide intensive 
technical assistance to support States as they assess their system 
design and development needs. During the second year of start-up 
activities, we plan to continue technical assistance, release technical 
documents on file and transmission procedures, and support States as 
they conduct voluntary tests of their systems.
    All compliance standards and the associated penalties will take 
effect during the first year of implementation and will not be delayed 
further as some commenters suggested. We do, however, hope to encourage 
States to submit data to us voluntarily prior to the required 
implementation date. Doing so could mean that States are able to test 
their systems prior to the compliance date, and we in turn can begin 
providing technical assistance based on States' actual experiences. We 
intend to issue guidance on whether and how we may be able to accept 
voluntary data submissions prior to the compliance date.

C. Discussion of Non-Regulated Issues

    We received a number of comments and questions on topics that are 
outside the scope of this rulemaking. Such comments addressed general 
topics such as technical assistance requests, performance standards, 
ongoing consultation between various stakeholders on the CFCIP program 
and NYTD, technical questions about modifying SACWIS and strategies for 
tracking youth. The proper forum for these requests is through the ACF 
regional offices and our technical assistance providers.

III. Section-by-Section Discussion of Final Rule

Section 1356.80 Scope

    This section requires the State agency that administers or 
supervises the administration of the Chafee Foster Care Independence 
Program under section 477 of the Social Security Act to comply with the 
data collection and reporting requirements in this final rule. We did 
not receive comments on this section. We made a minor modification to 
the section to include State agencies that ``supervise the 
administration'' of the CFCIP in addition to those that directly 
administer the program in the scope of these NYTD requirements. This 
modification brings the scope statement in line with the statutory 
requirements for an administrating or supervisory State agency in 
section 477(b)(2) of the Act.

Section 1356.81 Reporting Population

    This section describes the three reporting populations of youth on 
whom States must obtain services and outcomes information to report to 
the NYTD: The served, baseline and follow-up populations.
Served Population
    In paragraph (a), we describe the served population as youth who 
receive an independent living service paid for or provided by the State 
agency during a six-month report period.
    Comment: A number of commenters sought clarity on which youth 
comprise the served population and asked whether specific subgroups 
were a part of the population. Specifically, commenters asked whether 
tribal youth, youth involved with the juvenile justice system, youth 
who receive services through the staff of a group home or child care 
institution, and youth no longer in foster care would fall within the 
served population.
    Response: In general, a youth is in the served population if during 
the report period, the youth received at least one independent living 
service paid for or provided by the State agency. We are making a minor 
amendment to the final rule to remove the reference to ``services'' as 
only one independent living service is required during the report 
period for the youth to be a part of the served population. An 
independent living service is provided by the State agency if it is 
delivered by State agency staff or an agent of the State, including a 
foster parent, group home staff, child care institution staff or the 
service is provided pursuant to a contract between the State agency and 
a provider, agency or any other entity regardless of whether the 
contract includes funding for the particular service. Independent 
living services that are paid for or provided by the State agency can 
be delivered in a variety of formats. The served population is not 
limited on the Federal level by age, foster care status or placement 
type, although State eligibility rules for their independent living 
programs may restrict which youth receive independent living services. 
Therefore, tribal youth, youth involved with the juvenile justice 
system, youth who receive services through foster care providers and 
youth no longer in foster care are a part of the served population if 
they receive an independent living service paid for or provided by the 
State agency during the report period.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested that we gather data in some way 
on youth who do not receive independent living services. Some 
commenters suggested that we require States to identify and explain why 
subgroups of youth do not receive services, such as youth who were 
eligible for independent living services in the State and/or youth who 
are referred to independent living. Other commenters suggested that we 
capture information on youth who do not receive independent living 
services outside of the NYTD.
    Response: In developing the NPRM, we considered and rejected an 
approach to require States to identify and explain why youth do not 
receive independent living services. We explained in the NPRM that the 
statute's mandate is limited to collecting data on independent living 
services that youth receive (section 477(f)(1)(B)(i) of the Act). We 
believe that gathering information on why youth do not receive 
independent living services is better suited to research or evaluation 
activities and therefore we are not making a change to the final rule 
in this regard. We want to be clear, however, that we have designed the 
outcomes component of the NYTD to look at the outcomes of youth whether 
or not they receive independent living services that are paid for or 
provided by the State

[[Page 10341]]

agency. This outcomes information can be used in conjunction with 
information from the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting 
System (AFCARS) to tell us more about youth who do not receive 
independent living services and how they fare.
    Comment: Some commenters urged us to expand the served population 
to include youth who receive independent living services that are 
brokered or arranged by the State agency through an agreement with 
other public or private agencies, rather than just those independent 
living services that are paid for or provided by the State agency. 
Commenters believed that broadening the scope of the served population 
would be in keeping with CFCIP State plan requirements to coordinate 
services with other Federal, State and local programs serving youth. 
Further, commenters suggested that including services that are 
arranged, brokered, or offered through collaboration would better 
reflect the range of independent living services youth may receive.
    Response: We carefully considered the issues raised by commenters 
but are not convinced that the suggestions to expand the served 
population, for example, to include those youth served through 
collaborations, agreements or other State agency arrangements that are 
neither paid for nor provided by the State agency, offers a significant 
improvement to the NYTD. We recognize that States collaborate with 
community partners in a variety of ways to benefit youth as required 
under the CFCIP State plan. However, including youth served as a result 
of those collaborations or otherwise arranged or brokered by the State 
agency in the served population is too far removed from the statutory 
mandate to collect data on youth served under the CFCIP. Further, we 
believe that expanding the served population to include youth who 
receive independent living services in their community that are neither 
paid for nor provided by the State agency would distort what we can 
learn about the services provided under the CFCIP.
    Rather, we are interested in a State collecting and reporting 
information on youth who receive an independent living service due to 
the State agency's commitment of funds or resources to provide the 
service. Therefore, an independent living service is provided by the 
State agency if it is delivered by State agency staff or an agent of 
the State, including a foster parent, group home staff, or child care 
institution staff. The service is also provided by the State agency if 
it is provided to the youth pursuant to a contract for such services 
between the State agency and a provider, public or private agency or 
any other entity, regardless of whether the contract includes funding 
for the particular service. Services that are paid for directly or 
indirectly by the State agency are included as well. We believe this 
definition of the served population is sufficiently broad, and, as 
such, are retaining the served population description as stated in the 
NPRM.
    Comment: A commenter thought the served population definition was 
too broad and suggested that we limit it to foster care youth and 
former foster care youth who are 17 years old and receiving independent 
living services.
    Response: As we discussed in the NPRM, the statute is clear that we 
are to collect data on all youth who receive independent living 
services under the CFCIP and does not carve out youth in foster care or 
former foster care youth of a certain age. Further, narrowing the 
reporting population in such a way may limit the information we can 
learn about how States are serving youth through the CFCIP. As such, we 
are not making the suggested change to the served population.
    Comment: Several commenters sought clarification on how the served 
population was distinct from or related to the baseline and follow-up 
population.
    Response: The NYTD has two separate but related components: 
independent living services and youth outcomes. The reporting 
populations are separate for each component, although not mutually 
exclusive.
    States are to collect and report independent living services 
information on youth who fall within the served population. The served 
population is made up of youth who have received at least one 
independent living service that is paid for or provided by the State 
agency during a six-month report period. The youth's age and foster 
care status is not relevant to whether he or she is in the served 
population.
    States are to collect and report outcomes information on youth who 
are in the baseline and follow-up populations. The baseline population 
is comprised of all 17-year-olds in foster care during a year in which 
such outcomes data is due (beginning in FFY 2011), regardless of 
whether the youth receives any services. The follow-up population is a 
subgroup of the baseline population: Youth who participated in the 
outcomes data collection when they were 17 years old, but who are now 
19 or 21 years old. A few simple examples (that do not address 
sampling) illustrate how the reporting populations may overlap or 
diverge:
     Example 1. In December 2010, a youth turns 17 years old 
while in foster care and takes a budgeting class that is paid for by 
the State agency in January 2011. This youth would be part of the 
served population for the first report period of FFY 2011 (October 1, 
2010 through March 31, 2011) and reported as receiving the ``budget and 
financial management'' service. The same youth would also be a part of 
the baseline population for whom the State must administer the outcomes 
survey. This is because FFY 2011 is a year in which the States must 
collect data on the baseline population, which is comprised of those 
youth in foster care who reach their 17th birthday in the FFY.
     Example 2. In November 2011, a different 17-year-old in 
foster care takes a budgeting class that is paid for by the State 
agency. This youth would be part of the served population for the first 
report period of FFY 2012. However there is no outcomes data collection 
due in FFY 2012, therefore, the youth is not in the baseline 
population.
     Example 3. In December 2012, the same youth from example 1 
reaches 19 years old. By the end of March 2013, this youth had not 
received any independent living services that were paid for or provided 
by the State agency during the first report period (October 1, 2012 
through March 31, 2013), so the youth is not a part of the served 
population. However, two years ago, this youth completed the outcomes 
survey as part of the baseline population. Therefore, the youth is a 
part of the follow-up population and the State is required to collect 
and report outcomes data for this youth.
Baseline Population
    In paragraph (b), we describe the baseline population for the 
purpose of collecting outcome information as a youth who is in foster 
care as defined in 45 CFR 1355.20 and reaches his or her 17th birthday 
in FFY 2011, or reaches 17 in every third fiscal year following FFY 
2011.
    Comment: Some commenters raised questions and concerns about the 
lack of clarity in the description of the baseline population. 
Commenters requested specific guidance on whether the baseline 
population included youth in juvenile justice facilities, youth in 
placements of a short duration, youth placed in shelter care, youth in 
tribal custody, youth on trial home visits, youth in unlicensed, 
unapproved or unpaid placements, and youth who have run away from their 
foster care settings.
    Response: We defined the baseline population as 17-year-olds in 
foster care

[[Page 10342]]

consistent with our regulatory definition of foster care in 45 CFR 
1355.20 during a Federal fiscal year in which such data is required 
based on the implementation schedule. This means, that a youth will be 
in the baseline population if the youth is in foster care and 17 years 
old in FFYs 2011, or is in foster care and 17 years old in each third 
fiscal year following FFY 2011 (i.e., 2014, 2017, etc.). We made a 
minor change to the rule to specify the beginning fiscal year in which 
this data is required and the timetable upon which data on a new cohort 
of youth is due.
    The baseline population includes 17-year-old youth who are in 24-
hour substitute care under the State's placement and care 
responsibility who are in foster family homes (whether the foster 
parents are relatives of or unrelated to the child), group homes, 
shelter care and child care institutions, regardless of whether such 
homes or institutions are licensed, approved or paid. The baseline 
population includes children who may have run away from their foster 
care setting but who are still in the State agency's placement and care 
responsibility. The baseline population also includes youth who receive 
title IV-E foster care maintenance payments in the placement and care 
of another public agency (e.g., a juvenile justice agency or tribal 
agency) pursuant to a title IV-E agreement under section 
472(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act.
    The baseline population excludes youth in detention facilities, 
forestry camps, training schools and facilities primarily for the 
detention of youth adjudicated delinquent. The definition also excludes 
youth who are in the placement and care responsibility of a tribal 
agency unless the conditions specified above regarding title IV-E 
agreements apply. Youth who are at home but in the placement and care 
responsibility of the State agency also are excluded from the baseline 
reporting population, whether the State considers this a trial home 
visit, at-home supervision, after care or some other status. Since 
these youth are excluded from the baseline population, they are not in 
the follow-up population either.
    We anticipate providing more detail through technical assistance 
and other guidance documents on how States may ensure that they are 
accurately including children in the baseline population.
    Comment: Some commenters requested consistency between the NYTD 
baseline reporting population and the AFCARS foster care reporting 
population. One such commenter was concerned that an inconsistency 
would diminish our ability to analyze data across the two databases.
    Response: We do not believe that complete consistency between the 
NYTD baseline reporting population and the AFCARS foster care reporting 
population is necessary. AFCARS exists for a purpose separate and 
distinct from the NYTD. The AFCARS reporting population includes all 
children in foster care as defined in 45 CFR 1355.20 as does the NYTD, 
but extends slightly broader in specific circumstances, such as youth 
in detention and youth that are at home temporarily (see the ACF Child 
Welfare Policy Manual Section 2.7 at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/
cb). We are staying consistent with the definition of foster care for 
the NYTD to reflect part of the population of youth a State must serve 
under its CFCIP: Youth in foster care who are likely to age out of 
foster care. Further, one of the original reasons we chose the baseline 
reporting population was because it represents a readily accessible 
population of youth to whom States can administer the survey.
    Finally, we do not agree that the slight differences between the 
AFCARS foster care and the NYTD baseline reporting populations diminish 
the analytic value of the NYTD. Since every youth reported in the 
baseline population will also be reported to AFCARS and the youth will 
be identified in the same way in both databases, we will have the 
necessary foundation for analysis of the foster care experiences of 
youth who are reported for their outcomes in the NYTD.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that we specify that in order to 
be included in the baseline population a youth must have been in foster 
care for a minimum length of time to ensure that the youth had 
benefited from available independent living services.
    Response: As we stated in the preamble to the NPRM, 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 a clear basis on which to determine the appropriate minimum 
length of time. We did not receive information that convinced us to 
change our approach and have not made this change to the final rule.
    Comment: A commenter asked whether youth had to be in foster care 
on their 17th birthday to be included in the baseline population.
    Response: A youth does not need to have his or her 17th birthday 
while in foster care, but consistent with the data collection rule in 
section 1356.82(a)(2), the youth must have been in foster care within 
45 days following his or her 17th birthday during the specified 
reporting year. More detailed guidance on the reporting populations 
will be forthcoming in technical assistance and policy documents, as 
needed.
Follow-up Population
    Paragraph (c) defines the follow-up population as youth who turn 19 
or 21 years old in a certain fiscal year who participated in the 
State's outcomes data collection as part of the baseline population at 
17 years old.
    Comment: Some commenters requested more clarity regarding the 
follow-up population or made statements that indicated their confusion 
about who was included in the population. A few other commenters asked 
specifically whether youth who remained in foster care at ages 19 and 
21 would be in the follow-up population. Other commenters asked whether 
youth in the follow-up population at age 19 had to have participated in 
the outcomes data collection to be a part of the follow-up population 
at age 21.
    Response: The follow-up population is comprised solely of youth who 
are either 19 or 21 years old who participated in the outcomes data 
collection as part of the baseline population at age 17. A youth is 
considered to have participated at age 17 if he or she provided at 
least one valid answer to a question in the outcomes survey. A youth 
who participated in the data collection at age 17, but not at age 19 
for a reason other than being deceased remains a part of the follow-up 
population at age 21. A youth is in the follow-up population as 
described regardless of the youth's foster care status at ages 19 or 21 
and regardless of whether the youth ever received independent living 
services.
    Comment: A number of commenters wanted outcomes data collection to 
continue beyond age 21 to age 23 or older for a number of reasons. 
These commenters were concerned that we will get an incomplete view of 
college attendance and educational attainment, employment, marriage and 
other outcomes that are influenced by age if we stop collecting data at 
age 21. Alternatively, a commenter urged us not to extend the follow-up 
population of youth to age 23 unless there was demonstrable evidence 
that collecting such data was feasible.
    Response: We appreciate the arguments in favor of an extended 
follow-up data collection activity and acknowledge that the system as 
designed may result in limited information on some of the more age-
sensitive outcomes. However, as we

[[Page 10343]]

stated in the NPRM, we believe that adults who are 23 years old are 
even more likely to decline to participate in data collection and 
States are more likely to lose contact with much older youth. We 
received many comments that echoed these same concerns for 19- and 21-
year olds. We believe that requiring States to collect outcomes 
information on an even older population is unreasonable and better 
suited for research or evaluation activities. Therefore, we are not 
adding an older follow-up population to the final rule.

Section 1356.82 Data Collection Requirements

    This section specifies the data collection requirements for the 
served, baseline and follow-up populations.
    In paragraph (a)(1), we require the State agency to collect 
information for the data elements specified in section 1356.83(b) and 
(c) for youth in the served population for as long as the youth 
receives services.
    Comment: A couple of commenters supported the ongoing collection of 
client-level data on youth who receive independent living services.
    Response: We agree that this is a valuable feature of the NYTD and 
are not making changes to the final rule.
    In paragraph (a)(2), we require the State agency to collect 
information for the data elements specified in section 1356.83(b) and 
(d) for the baseline population. The State agency must collect this 
information on a new baseline population every three years and must 
collect this data within certain timeframes using specific survey 
questions.
    Comment: A number of commenters supported the general concept of 
collecting outcomes information based on a staggered schedule with a 
new cohort of the baseline population (17-year-olds in foster care) 
beginning every three years. Two commenters suggested that we require 
States to reduce the time between the new cohorts of youth. Their 
concern was that the three-year span would lead to gaps in the data and 
would not be representative of youth receiving services or aging out of 
foster care.
    Response: As we stated in the preamble to the NPRM, we chose this 
schedule in order to avoid imposing an unnecessary burden on States. 
Participants in the consultation process pointed out that youth 
outcomes generally do not change sufficiently to justify collecting the 
data annually, and collecting outcome data every three years should be 
sufficient to document trends and address the statutory requirements. 
As such, no changes to the final rule are warranted.
    Comment: A few commenters disagreed with the requirement to collect 
information on youth in the baseline population within 45 days 
following the youth's 17th birthday as required by section 
1356.82(a)(2)(i) and (ii). One such commenter believed more time was 
needed to engage youth who may be resistant, who had run away, were 
institutionalized or incarcerated at the time of their 17th birthday. 
The commenters requested either a 90-day timeframe or the entire six-
month report period to obtain the outcomes data from the youth.
    Response: As stated in the preamble to the NPRM, we chose the 45-
day timeframe as a compromise between requiring data collection to 
occur on the youth's 17th birthday and a longer timeframe which could 
lead to a less comparable baseline population. We still believe that 
the 45-day timeframe is responsive to the real-life scheduling 
constraints and does not create an unreasonable burden. We are, 
therefore, retaining the 45-day timeframe.
    We would like to note, however, that youth who are incarcerated or 
are institutionalized in a psychiatric facility or hospital would not 
be a part of the baseline population because they are not in foster 
care according to the definition in 45 CFR 1355.20 (see earlier 
discussion on the baseline population). Youth who have run away from 
their foster care setting for the 45-day time span following their 17th 
birthday would be a part of the baseline population, but a State could 
report the youth as having run away in the outcomes reporting status 
element (section 1356.83(g)(34)) to explain why that youth's 
information was not collected.
    In paragraph (a)(3), we require the State agency to collect 
information for the data elements specified in section 1356.83(b) and 
(e) for the follow-up population of 19- and 21-year-olds.
    Comment: A number of commenters suggested that ACF should collect 
the outcome data and track the older youth rather than the States. In 
their view, this approach would resolve other concerns raised related 
to the State's burden to collect data and penalties for State non-
compliance with the data collection, and could create consistency in 
outcomes data collection across the country.
    Response: The statute mandates that we develop data collection 
requirements and impose penalties on States that do not comply with 
those requirements (section 477(e)(2) and (f) of the Act). As such, the 
statute creates an obligation for States to meet the data collection 
requirements and not the Federal government.
    Comment: A number of commenters asked practical questions about 
obtaining contact information for older youth. Specific inquiries 
included how to contact older youth who move out of State, using 
administrative databases to locate youth, or who would be the best 
individuals to administer the outcomes survey.
    Response: We will provide States with policy guidance and/or 
technical assistance to address these issues. We do not believe that it 
is appropriate to address these concerns in regulation.
    Comment: Some commenters were concerned that we did not regulate 
the method by which States must administer the outcomes survey to youth 
(e.g., in person, via the internet or over the phone). The concern was 
that this variability could impede data quality and limit the 
conclusions we could draw from the data.
    Response: We acknowledge that the method a survey is administered 
may impact the quality of the data. However, we believe that States are 
too different to offer a single approach to this data collection and we 
are not in a position to regulate the best way to gather the data at 
this time. Further, we have set file and data standards for the data, 
including standards for youth participation, such that States will have 
an incentive to gather the best data possible (see discussion in 
section 1356.85). We hope to overcome any remaining challenges 
associated with survey variability through technical assistance rather 
than prescriptive rules. For these reasons, we are not regulating a 
specific data collection methodology in response to these comments.
    Comment: A commenter was concerned about privacy rights or 
confidentiality issues that will make it difficult to track youth over 
time to complete the survey. Although information may be available 
about the youth through other systems, e.g., child support, the 
commenter asserts that the State cannot access that information because 
of confidentiality restrictions. The commenter requested that we 
address these issues.
    Response: We do not believe that there are privacy or 
confidentiality concerns raised by the NYTD. The youth outcome survey 
is voluntary for the youth to complete, and it is up to the youth how 
much detailed contact information he or she will provide in order to be 
located upon exit from foster care. We understand that there may be 
information available to a State to locate the youth that can only be 
accessed with

[[Page 10344]]

the youth's permission. We will provide technical assistance to States 
to assist them in developing appropriate methods to track youth and 
garner youth participation.
    In paragraph (b), we permit States to select a sample of 17-year-
olds who participated in the outcomes data collection as a part of the 
baseline population to follow over time rather than the entire baseline 
population of youth who participated in the data collection in that 
State. When a State samples youth at age 17, the sample becomes the 
follow-up population and no further sampling of this population at ages 
19 or 21 is permitted. Also in this paragraph we require a State to 
identify those youth in the follow-up population who are not in the 
sample.
    Comment: A commenter believed that States should not use sampling 
but attempt to gather outcomes data from all 19- and 21-year-olds in 
the follow-up population. The commenter believed that this was a 
reasonable suggestion given that States were required to collect 
outcomes data on a staggered schedule.
    Response: As stated in the preamble to the NPRM, we are providing 
States the option to sample in direct response to feedback we received 
during the consultation process. States requested that any outcomes 
survey of youth who had left foster care utilize sampling to mitigate 
the burden of tracking these youth. Nothing in the NYTD prohibits 
States that could track a subgroup of their follow-up population 
through sampling from collecting outcomes information on more youth or 
on the entire follow-up population. We are not making any changes to 
the final rule in response to this comment, however, we have made a 
change in paragraph 1356.82(b) to require States that sample to 
identify youth at age 19 who are not selected in the sample. This 
change is explained further in the discussion on section 1356.83(e).

Section 1356.83 Reporting Requirements and Data Elements

    This section specifies the NYTD report periods, deadlines for 
reporting data to ACF and the data elements.
    In paragraph (a), we require a State to submit the required data 
file to ACF on a semi-annual basis, within 45 days of the end of each 
report period.
    Comment: A number of commenters offered alternative deadlines for 
submitting a data file to ACF that ranged from 60 to 90 days after the 
end of each report period. Some commenters cited concerns about having 
the same State workers prepare data files for the NYTD and 
simultaneously for AFCARS. A couple of commenters believed that in 
order to generate a common identifier for youth reported to both AFCARS 
and the NYTD that a State would need to report their data to AFCARS 
first.
    Response: Our experience has shown that States can meet the 45-day 
requirement for AFCARS and we expect States can meet it for the NYTD as 
well. We understand that States may use the same workers to extract 
files for AFCARS and the NYTD, but believe that 45 days is sufficient 
time to do both activities. Timely data is important so that ACF can 
conduct the analysis to share with the States and other stakeholders.
    We do not believe the concern about common identifiers has merit. 
Although we are requiring a State to submit an identifier for a youth 
to the NYTD that is the same as the one submitted to AFCARS in certain 
circumstances, the way this is accomplished is through a standard 
encryption routine. When applied to a State identifier, the routine 
will generate the same encrypted result (i.e., the common identifier) 
each time. The act of submitting data to AFCARS or the NYTD is not what 
generates the common identifier so whether the data is submitted to 
AFCARS or the NTYD first is inconsequential. We are not making changes 
in response to this comment.
    Comment: While one commenter supported the twice yearly reporting 
cycle, a number of other commenters suggested moving to an annual 
reporting cycle to reduce the burden on States. Some commenters 
believed that an annual report period would ease the burden of 
reporting data for States and ease penalty and outcome calculations for 
Federal officials. To keep the reporting cycles consistent with AFCARS, 
some commenters suggested moving AFCARS to an annual report period as 
well.
    Response: As stated in the preamble to the NPRM, we considered a 
12-month reporting period, but believed that a longer period increases 
the risk of inaccurate or missing data. Further, since we want to 
preserve our ability to analyze NYTD data along with AFCARS data, we 
want comparable reporting periods. The six-month report period for 
AFCARS is integral to a number of ACF priorities and legislative 
requirements.
    Comment: A commenter suggested that local providers be allowed to 
report data directly to ACF without the involvement of the State agency 
in an effort to create additional efficiencies for States.
    Response: We disagree with the suggestion to permit local providers 
to report a youth's data directly to the Federal government, leaving 
out the State agency's involvement, for a number of reasons. The State 
agency is responsible for ensuring compliance with the NYTD 
requirements and standards under the risk of fiscal sanctions and, 
therefore, must be the responsible party for submitting data to ACF. 
Further, we do not believe that individual providers could ensure that 
all information on a youth (i.e., demographics, characteristics, 
services and outcomes, if applicable) could be reported in a single 
youth record as required by section 1356.83(f) if multiple providers 
have engaged a youth in a report period. Also, we do not see that such 
a process would be efficient for the State as it would have to maintain 
oversight of one or more entities that would submit information to ACF. 
However, States are not prohibited from contracting or otherwise 
working with private agencies to compile the information that States 
will ultimately submit to ACF. We are not changing the final rule to 
permit any entity other than the State agency to submit NYTD data to 
ACF.
    In paragraphs (b) through (e), we require the State agency to 
report certain data elements for each youth depending on whether the 
youth is a part of the served, baseline, or follow-up populations.
    We did not receive comments on these paragraphs. However, we are 
making a technical change to the reporting requirements for 19-year old 
youth in the follow-up population for those States that sample. In 
paragraph (e), we have amended the final rule to require a State that 
samples to identify the 19-year-old youth who participated in the 
outcomes data collection as part of the baseline population at age 17, 
who are not in the sample. This information is required so that we can 
determine whether the State meets the outcomes universe and 
participation rate standards (section 1356.85(b)). A State must 
identify such youth in the two semi-annual report periods for the 
Federal fiscal year in which the State reports actual outcomes 
information on 19-year-old youth who are in the sample (section 
1356.83(g)(34)). States will not report information on non-sampled 
youth again when the youth reach the age of 21 years old.
    This requirement stands in contrast to our proposal as described in 
the NPRM for a State to identify youth who will be in the follow-up 
sample at age 17. We proposed that States would report that information 
in a separate data element entitled ``sampling status'' for the semi-
annual report periods in which baseline outcomes data is due on the 17-
year-

[[Page 10345]]

olds (71 FR 40359 and 40361-2). However, the proposal was not viable 
because the sampling procedures in section 1356.84 require the State to 
select a sample based on a universe of all youth in a fiscal year who 
participate in the State's outcome data collection at age 17. 
Therefore, we erred in proposing that a State identify a sample at the 
end of each report period before the State could identify the 
appropriate and complete sampling frame of youth. The final rule 
provision for identifying youth who are not in the follow-up sample 
when such youth are aged 19 corrects this error. We don't expect this 
revision to be a concern to States as it will permit States more time 
to decide whether and how to sample.
    In paragraph (f), we require the State agency to report all 
applicable data elements for an individual youth in a single record per 
report period. We did not receive comments on this paragraph and are 
not making changes to the final rule.
Data Element Descriptions
    Paragraph (g) includes all of the data element descriptions for the 
NYTD.
State
    In paragraph (g)(1), we request information on the State that 
reports the youth to the NYTD. We received no comments on this data 
element description and are not making any changes in the final rule.
Report Date
    Paragraph (g)(2) describes the report date of the NYTD file which 
indicates the six-month period that the file encompasses. The report 
date is the month and year that corresponds with the end of the report 
period, which will always end on either March 31 or September 30 of any 
given year. We received no comments on this data element description 
and are not making any changes in the final rule.
Record Number
    In paragraph (g)(3), we describe the record number as a unique, 
encrypted person identification number that the State must retain for 
the youth across all reporting periods. The State must use a consistent 
number for reporting the same youth to AFCARS and the NYTD.
    Comment: A commenter noted that not all youth in the reporting 
populations will have an established common identifier. The commenter 
asserted that a State may need to conduct a labor-intensive and manual 
matching process to avoid identifying the same youth in multiple ways, 
particularly for youth from the juvenile justice system.
    Response: The State is required to use the same unique identifier 
for a NYTD youth as is used for AFCARS if that youth is or was in 
foster care in the State. The State is not required to use the same 
identifier used for the youth in other youth-serving systems. As we 
stated in the NPRM, this requirement is intended to allow us to perform 
case-level longitudinal cohort analysis. We believe the benefits of the 
usefulness of this data outweigh the burden on States to establish 
rules for a common identifier for youth across the NYTD and AFCARS data 
sets.
Date of Birth
    In paragraph (g)(4), we require that a State report the youth's 
date of birth. We received no comments on this data element description 
and are not making any changes in the final rule.
Sex
    In paragraph (g)(5), the State is to report the youth's sex.
    Comment: Several commenters suggested that we not limit the data 
element on ``sex'' to male or female biology but permit youth to 
identify their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. These 
commenters believed that we should track youth services and outcomes 
for youth who identify themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual, 
transgendered, or in some other way because such youth may be 
overrepresented in foster care, have unique service needs and be at 
increased risk for poor outcomes. Finally, a couple of commenters 
disagreed with our description of a youth's sex as his or her gender 
and recommended that we have an element that focuses on the youth's 
gender as a matter of identity separate from the youth's biological 
sex.
    Response: We agree with the commenters that the words ``sex'' and 
``gender'' are not synonymous. We are amending the regulation text to 
eliminate references to the youth's gender and instead refer to a 
youth's ``sex'' in reference to this element. However, we are not 
amending the data element to incorporate matters of gender identity or 
sexual orientation. This data element is for basic demographic purposes 
and we expect States to cull this information from its existing child 
welfare information system. The element is not intended to elicit from 
youth very personal information on sexual orientation, gender 
characteristics or sex development.
Race
    In paragraphs (g)(6) through (g)(12) we describe the data elements 
in which a State must report the youth's race. These are separate 
elements that permit data collection and reporting on multiple races.
    We received no comments on the race categories of Asian, Black or 
African American, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and White 
and are making no changes to the final rule for those elements.
    Comment: A couple of commenters noted that the description of 
American Indian or Alaska Native was the only race category that 
includes a condition of community affiliation. The commenters 
recommended that this condition be removed or that we provide 
additional guidance on categorizing persons who do not maintain tribal 
affiliation or community attachments but would otherwise consider 
themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native.
    Response: We are not making a change to this element because it 
reflects the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) definition of 
American Indian or Alaska Native (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) and is consistent with the AFCARS race 
category. Since race information is self-selected by the individual or 
the individual's parent, the person may choose the race category he/she 
believes best represents him/her.
    Comment: A couple of commenters sought clarity on whether the race 
category of American Indian or Alaska Native includes youth who have an 
attachment or affiliation with a non-federally recognized tribe.
    Response: The race category does include youth who identify with an 
American Indian or Alaska Native tribe regardless of whether that tribe 
is recognized by the Federal government. Because this race category is 
reflective of the OMB definition, we do not believe a change in the 
regulation text is warranted.
    Comment: Several commenters were concerned that we proposed a race 
category of ``declined'' when there is not a comparable race category 
in either AFCARS or the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System 
(NCANDS). These commenters noted that State child welfare information 
systems may not be programmed to record this information currently. The 
commenters also asked technical questions about

[[Page 10346]]

how they should report declined race information to AFCARS and NCANDS 
if they must make changes to their information systems.
    Response: We have proposed a comparable change to the race 
categories in an NPRM on AFCARS published in the Federal Register on 
January 11, 2008. The changes to the AFCARS child race elements are 
described at 73 FR 2092 and 2130. NCANDS data is beyond the scope of 
this regulation.
    Comment: A commenter noted that AFCARS does not permit a State to 
indicate that a person identifies with multiple races, including one 
which the person does not know and questioned whether there needed to 
be consistency for States reporting information across the data sets.
    Response: As noted above, we have proposed regulatory changes to 
the AFCARS race elements to make this information comparable across the 
two data sets.
    In reviewing this element, we noted the need to modify the final 
rule to remove the parenthetical remark that a youth or parent may be 
unable to communicate the youth's race ``due to age, disability or 
abandonment.'' The phrasing of the parenthetical remark was unclear as 
to whom the conditions of age, disability or abandonment applied. 
Further, we believe that the statement confused the issue of self-
identification of race information because it suggested that youth who 
were abandoned as infants or who were of a certain age would not be 
able to identify a race for themselves. Instead, we want to reaffirm 
that self-reporting or self-identification is the preferred method for 
a State to collect data on race and ethnicity. If this information is 
not available in a State's child welfare information system (i.e., 
collected for foster care purposes), the State should first solicit 
this information from a youth. If the youth is not able to communicate 
this information because of a severe disability or some other reason, 
the State should solicit race information from a parent. Once these 
avenues have been exhausted and these individuals have not been able to 
provide a response, the State may report the youth race as ``unknown.'' 
Finally, we also modified the name of this element to be solely 
``unknown,'' as opposed to ``unknown/unable to determine'' to avoid 
confusion.
Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity
    In paragraph (g)(13), we describe a youth of Hispanic or Latino 
ethnicity as a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central 
American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.
    Comment: A couple of commenters raised a concern about reporting 
declined ethnicity information for the NYTD similar to their concerns 
regarding the race declined category.
    Response: In the same AFCARS NPRM we mentioned above, we have 
proposed a comparable change to the ethnicity data. See the proposed 
changes at 73 FR 2092 and 2130.
Foster Care Status--Services
    In paragraph (g)(14), we require a State to indicate whether a 
youth within the served population is in foster care consistent with 
the definition in 45 CFR 1355.20 at any point during the report period.
    Comment: A commenter noted that some of the measures of permanency 
used in the Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs) are calculated 
based on the experiences of children who have been in foster care for 
eight or more days (71 FR 32969-32987, June 7, 2006 and 72 FR 2881-
2890, January 23, 2007). The commenter requested that we consider using 
similar selection criteria for determining whether a youth in the 
served population is considered to be in foster care for NYTD purposes.
    Response: We do not believe that the data selection rules we use 
for the purposes of calculating whether States achieve certain CFSR 
outcomes are appropriate for defining the parameters of the NYTD. We 
apply the 8-day exclusion for the purpose of the CFSR permanency 
measure and not as a condition for which children must be reported to 
AFCARS. For the NYTD we are requiring States to report data on a 
youth's receipt of independent living services and foster care status 
to permit us to determine appropriate performance measures at a later 
date which may or may not include selection rules. In other words, the 
data must be broad so that we have options for how to interpret and use 
the data.
    We are not making any changes to this element description in the 
final rule. We would like to clarify here, however, that a youth is in 
foster care consistent with the definition of foster care in 45 CFR 
1355.20, only if the youth has not yet reached the State's age of 
majority.
Local Agency
    In paragraph (g)(15), we require a State to report either: (1) The 
county or equivalent jurisdictional unit that has primary 
responsibility for placement and care of a youth who is in foster care, 
or (2) the county with primary responsibility for providing services to 
a youth who is not in foster care. We received no comments on this data 
element and are making only minor modifications to the language and 
adding a cross-reference to the definition of foster care in 45 CFR 
1355.20.
Federally Recognized Tribe
    In paragraph (g)(16), the State must report whether a youth is 
enrolled in or eligible for membership in a federally recognized tribe.
    Comment: A few commenters requested more clarity on this element. 
In particular, commenters requested infor