The following performance measures and national standards were used as part of the assessment of a State's substantial conformity with CFSR Permanency Outcome 1Children will have permanency and stability in their living situations:

Recommendation To Develop Data Composites

ACF views the CFSR as a dynamic process and has made ongoing improvements in the process in response to lessons learned in the field [[Page 67480]]
and to recommendations from State child welfare agency administrators. After completion of the first round of CFSRs in FY 2004, ACF contracted with a consultant to study the CFSR and make further recommendations regarding strategies for improvement. To assist them in this task, the consultant convened a CFSR workgroup of State child welfare agency administrators and child welfare researchers and, based on input from this workgroup, produced a set of recommendations for ACF. One recommendation was to replace the existing CFSR single data measures for which national standards were established with data composites that incorporate a wider range of performance areas relevant to a particular child welfare domain. ACF proposes to implement this recommendation for the following reasons:

Although the methodology for calculating the scores for the data composites has not been finalized, the following describes the approach that is under consideration:

Possible composite methodology: Six data composites are under consideration (these are described in the section below), with each composite pertaining to a different domain of child welfare practice (i.e., recurrence of maltreatment, maltreatment of children in foster care, timeliness of reunifications, timeliness of adoptions, placement stability, and achieving permanency). It is expected that each composite will incorporate two or more performance areas, with a specific measure developed for each performance area. The final performance areas to be included in each data composite will depend upon the following: (1) Input from the field in response to this announcement, and (2) the results of principle components analyses regarding the viability of inclusion of specific performance areas in a particular domain. The principle components analyses also will permit a determination of the relative contribution of each performance area to the overall domain represented by the data composite. Once the performance areas and measures are identified, a score will be calculated for each State for each data composite based on the appropriate weighting (as determined from the analyses) of a State's performance in each of the performance areas.

For each data composite, ACF is considering using the distribution of scores across States to establish a national standard (the methodology to be used to set the standard has not yet been determined). This will result in six separate standards, one for each domain. Because the primary purpose of a data composite is to capture overall performance in a particular domain, ACF will not establish a national standard for the individual performance areas incorporated in the composites. Therefore, States will not be expected to meet a standard for any individual performance area but to achieve an overall performance level in a particular domain related to safety or permanency. However, ACF will provide States with information regarding each performance area with regard to the mean, median, and range of scores across States to enable a State to identify the performance areas within a composite where improvements may be needed.

ACF proposes to use the national standards developed for the data composites as part of the assessment of State performance in the second round of CFSRs. These will be used in conjunction with findings from the CFSR onsite case reviews in the overall determination of a State's substantial conformity with specific outcomes.

Proposed Data Composites and Performance Areas

A table providing a comparison of the existing CFSR data measures and the proposed data composites and performance areas is provided in attachment B. Additional information regarding the data composites and performance areas is presented below. The criteria for selection of measures for each performance area are the following: (1) They must be measurable using data available from AFCARS and NCANDS, and (2) they must be measurable within the CFSR timeframes for assessing State improvement in performance.
CFSR Safety Outcome 1: Children are First and Foremost Protected From Abuse and Neglect

Safety Composite 1: Recurrence of Maltreatment

Performance on Safety Composite 1Recurrence of maltreatmentwill be part of the assessment of a State's substantial conformity with CFSR Safety Outcome 1Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect. Safety Composite 1 reflects the responsibility of a State child welfare system to ensure the ongoing safety of children who come into contact with the system through a maltreatment allegation.

The following performance areas are under consideration for this data composite:

Justification for inclusion: This performance area provides an assessment of a child welfare agency's effectiveness in responding to the safety of children who are found to be victims of abuse or neglect.\1\ It addresses the question of whether the agency took the necessary actions to ensure that the children do not experience abuse or neglect again.
\1\ InChild Maltreatment 2003, a child victim is defined as a child for whom an incident of abuse or neglect has been
substantiated or indicated by an investigation or assessment.

Possible measure: Of all children who were victims of substantiated or indicated child abuse and/or neglect during the first 6 months of the reporting period, what percentage had another substantiated or indicated report within a 6month period? This is the measure that was used during the first round of CFSRs to assess maltreatment recurrence.

Relevant issues: This measure focuses on recurrence within a 6 month period because it is not possible to link children reported to the NCANDS Child File across years. In support of the measure, research findings suggest that the incidence of occurrence of a substantiated maltreatment report within 12 months of a prior substantiated report is not significantly greater than the incidence of recurrence within 6 months.\2\
\2\ Fluke, J. et al. (1999). Recurrence of maltreatment: An application of the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System. Child Abuse and Neglect, 23 (7), 633650. DePanfilis, D., and Zuravin, S. (1998). Rates, patterns, and frequency of child maltreatment recurrences among families known to CPS. Child Maltreatment, 3 (1), 2742.

Some CFSR workgroup participants recommended that the CFSR include measures designed to identify the types of maltreatment that recur and the characteristics (such as age and race/ethnicity) of children who are the victims of maltreatment recurrence. ACF determined that, although these measures address important research questions about maltreatment recurrence and are appropriate for a research initiative, they are beyond the scope of the CFSR, which is intended to provide a general assessment of State performance in particular domains. However, ACF encourages States to examine their own data to identify the factors associated with maltreatment recurrence.
Safety Composite 1Performance Area 2: Multiple Unsubstantiated Maltreatment Reports

Justification for inclusion: ACF is seeking input from the field regarding the feasibility of capturing as part of Safety Composite 1 the child safety issues relevant to multiple ``unsubstantiated'' maltreatment reports. (The term ``unsubstantiated report'' does not include maltreatment allegations that are not accepted for investigation [i.e., are ``screened out], those that are investigated and found to be ``intentionally false,'' or those that are ``closed without a finding.\3\'') Research findings indicate the following: (1) Children who are the subject of unsubstantiated maltreatment reports are highly likely to have experienced abuse or neglect, (2) there is extensive variation across States regarding the criteria used to make a substantiation determination, and (3) the decision as to whether a maltreatment report is substantiated or unsubstantiated often is not based on consistent criteria even within a State.\4\ In addition, a recent finding of the federally funded study entitled Longitudinal Studies of Child Abuse and Neglect, found no differences in the behavioral and developmental outcomes of 8yearold children with unsubstantiated and substantiated maltreatment reports filed when the children were between the ages of 4 and 8.\5\
\3\ The major NCANDS disposition categories are defined in Child Maltreatment, 2002, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families.
\4\ Drake, B. (1996). Unraveling ``unsubstantiated.'' Child Maltreatment, 1 (3), 261271. English et al. (2002). Causes and consequences of the substantiation decision in Washington State Child Protective Services. Children and Youth Services Review, 24 (11), 817851. Leiter et al. (1994). Substantiated and
unsubstantiated cases of child maltreatment: Do their consequences differ? Social Work Research, 18 (2), 6782.
\5\ Hussey, J. et al. (2005). Defining maltreatment according to substantiation: Distinction without a difference? Presentation at the 15th National Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect, Boston, MA: April, 2005.

Possible measure: ACF welcomes comments from the field regarding possible measures for this performance area. Although research findings suggest that a child who is the subject of multiple unsubstantiated maltreatment reports is likely to be experiencing maltreatment recurrence, ACF is concerned that a measure developed for this performance area may result in unintended consequences. For example, States that have a practice of monitoring families in which a child is the subject of an unsubstantiated report or of providing services to these families may be discouraged from implementing these practices if the ongoing surveillance of the family increases the likelihood that a subsequent maltreatment allegation (either substantiated or unsubstantiated) may occur. ACF also wants to ensure that the measure will, for the most part, exclude maltreatment allegations that are without merit.

Relevant issues: Although several participants in the CFSR workgroup recommended that a measure of recurrence of unsubstantiated reports should be incorporated into the CFSR safety assessment, a few were not in accord with this recommendation. Those that were opposed to the recommendation expressed the concerns identified above. Safety Outcome 1Performance Area 3: Timeliness of Initiating Investigations of Child Maltreatment Reports

Justification for inclusion: NCANDS defines the initial investigation as beginning when the child protective services (CPS) agency has facetoface contact with, or attempts to have facetoface contact with, the alleged victim. If facetoface contact with the alleged victim is not possible, the initial investigation is considered as beginning when CPS first contacts any party who can provide information essential to the investigation or assessment. ACF's proposal to include timeliness of initiating investigations as a performance area for Safety Composite 1 is based on the following assumptions:

Possible measures: Two measures of this performance area are under consideration and are provided for review and comment.

[[Page 67482]]

Within 1 day (24 hours)?This timeframe is conceptualized as a ``timely response.''

After 7 days?This timeframe is conceptualized as one that did not adequately address the safety of the child.

Relevant issues: Because ACF believes that the ongoing risk of harm to a child is most effectively assessed through facetoface contact with the child and family, and that this contact should take place quickly after a report is received, the proposed measures do not address variation across States with regard to required timeframes for responding to a maltreatment report, which range from a few hours to a few weeks (with a few States having no time requirements). The measures also do not take into account the ``priority'' systems established by many States that result in assigning different timeframes to different reports based on perceived risk of harm to the child. These timeframes also range from a few hours to a few weeks.

Some States have established an ``alternative response'' (also called a differential response) to maltreatment reports. Under this approach, a maltreatment report may be referred for an assessment of the family rather than for an investigation to determine whether child maltreatment did or did not occur. Usually, reports are referred for an assessment when a CPS agency determines that the risk of harm to the child is low. ACF has not yet decided whether the timeliness of initiating alternative response assessments will be included in the proposed measure. A concern is that not all States that implement an alternative response approach report these activities to the NCANDS Child File. ACF welcomes comment and suggestions from the field regarding this issue.
Safety Composite 1Performance Area 4: Timeliness of Dispositions of Child Maltreatment Reports

Justification for inclusion: This performance area is included in Safety Composite 1 for the following reasons.

Possible measures: The following two measures are under consideration.

ACF welcomes comments on the decision to begin the ``disposition timeframe'' with the receipt of the maltreatment report rather than with the initiation of the investigation.

Relevant issues: The proposed measures do not include information pertaining to assessments made as a result of an alternative response. Many States that implement an alternative response do not reach a disposition in these situations, even when the decision is made to open a case for services. Although the NCANDS Child File includes disposition categories of ``Alternative Response Victim'' and ``Alternative Response Nonvictim,'' only three States report Alternative Response Victims, and only nine report Alternative Response Nonvictims.
CFSR Safety Outcome 2: Children Are Safely Maintained in Their Homes Whenever Possible and Approrpriate
Safety Composite 2: Maltreatment of Children in Foster Care

Performance on Safety Composite 2 will be part of the assessment of a State's substantial conformity with CFSR Safety Outcome 2Children are safely maintained in their own homes whenever possible and appropriate. Although the wording of CFSR Safety Outcome 2 specifies the safety of children maintained in their own homes, the outcome also applies to maintaining children safely while they are in the ``homes'' in which they are placed by the child welfare agency, including licensed foster family homes, relative homes, group homes, or institutions. The composite reflects the primary responsibility of a child welfare system to ensure that children are not victims of maltreatment while they are under the care and placement responsibility of the State.

The following two performance areas are under consideration for this composite:

Justification for inclusion: ACF, and the public in general, expect State child welfare agencies to ensure that Stateappointed caregivers of children in foster care do not abuse or neglect the children placed in their care.

Possible measure: Of all children who were in foster care during the reporting period, what percent was the subject of substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff member?

Relevant issues: This measure was used to assess maltreatment of children in foster care during the first round of CFSRs. Some concern was expressed by the field that the measure inadvertently includes children who were maltreated by foster care providers or facility staff members but who were not in foster care with the State child welfare system at the time of the maltreatment (i.e., the children were in another system or they were in private foster or facility care). A recent requirement that all children in an NCANDS Child File have an AFCARS identification number will permit an identification of these children so that they can be excluded from the measure.

Some CFSR workgroup participants recommended that there be separate measures for maltreatment of children in foster care by a foster parents and maltreatment by a facility staff member. However, a review of the data found that the incidence of maltreatment by these ``perpetrator types'' taken separately is too small to constitute meaningful measures.

Some CFSR workgroup participants also recommended that ACF develop a measure that identifies the extent of maltreatment of children who are placed by the State with relatives as foster caregivers, including relatives who are licensed foster parents and relatives who are not licensed foster parents. At present, the NCANDS Child File does not allow for this level of detail regarding relative perpetrators. [[Page 67483]]
Although a relative may be identified in NCANDS as a perpetrator, it is not possible to determine whether the relative also was the child's Stateappointed caretaker. Similarly, a licensed foster parent may be identified as the perpetrator, but it is not possible to determine whether the licensed foster parent also is a relative.
Safety Outcome 2Performance Area 2: Maltreatment of Children in Foster Care by Their Parents

Justification for inclusion: State child welfare agencies are responsible for ensuring that any safety concerns regarding parental contacts with a child in foster care are appropriately addressed. An analysis of NCANDS Child File data using matching AFCARS identification numbers found that in FY 2003, a substantial number of children who were the victims of maltreatment by a parent were in foster care for at least 30 days before the date of the maltreatment report. In most States, the number of these children was considerably larger than the number of children who were victims of maltreatment by foster parents or facility staff.

Possible measure: Of all children who were in foster care for longer than 30 days during the reporting year, what percent were the subject of a substantiated or indicated maltreatment report in which the perpetrator was the parent and the report was received after the child had been in foster care for at least 30 days?

Relevant issues: The proposed measure uses the maltreatment report date as a ``proxy'' for the date of the maltreatment itself. Because children entering foster care sometimes report maltreatment events that occurred prior to entry, the measure excludes maltreatment reports involving parent perpetrators that were received during the first 30 days that the child was in foster care. The 30day ``exclusion'' is based on analysis of NCANDS data demonstrating a substantial decline in the number of children in foster care reported as being maltreated by a parent after the first 7 days the child is in foster care, a more moderate decline in this number from 8 to 30 days after entry into foster care, and then a leveling off after 30 days.

Although the most recent version of the NCANDS Child File includes a data element pertaining to the date of the maltreatment incident, States are not yet consistently reporting this new data element. When States report information pertaining to the maltreatment incident date in a consistent manner, the measure of maltreatment of children in foster care by their parents can be revised to incorporate the incident date and it will no longer be necessary to incorporate a 30day exclusion.
CFSR Permanency Outcome 1: Children Have Permanency and Stability in Their Living Situations
Permanency Composite 1: Timeliness and Permanency of Reunifications

Performance on Permanency Composite 1 will be part of the determination of a State's substantial conformity with CFSR Permanency Outcome 1Children will have permanency and stability in their living situations. The composite addresses State child welfare system's performance with regard to promoting a safe, timely, and permanent family reunification by assisting families to resolve the problems that resulted in the children being removed from the home. The performance areas under consideration for the composite are the following:

Reunifications of Children Exiting Foster Care

Justification for inclusion: Exits from foster care represent the outcomes experienced by children in foster care, and exits to reunification reflect an agency's success with regard to its function of promoting the reintegration of the family. A primary goal of ACF and the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA) is to ensure that children do not remain in foster care any longer than is necessary to achieve permanency. Information about the timeliness of children exiting foster care to reunification provides a basis for assessing State performance in achieving this goal.

Possible measures: A number of measures are under consideration for this performance area, with each addressing a particular variation in State practices and policies pertaining to reunification. For each measure, we are proposing two possible approaches to assessing timeliness to reunification. One approach that was used in the first round of the CFSR reflects an expectation that 12 months is a sufficient amount of time to bring about a reunification for most children. The second approach examines timeliness to reunification as a function of a State's median length of stay in foster care for all children exiting foster care to reunification, with the expectation that the distribution of these median across States would be used to set a performance expectation. Both approaches are included in each of the following measures and ACF welcomes input from the field regarding these approaches.

Relevant issues: Although the measures are presented separately for review and comment, ACF is considering the possibility of combining some of the variables of concern into one measure. For example, the measure incorporating children in a trial home visit also could include a requirement that the child be in foster care for more than 30 days. Permanency Composite 1Performance Area 2: Timeliness of
Reunifications for Children Entering Foster Care in a Given Fiscal Year

Justification for inclusion: Assessment of the timeliness of reunifications of children who enter foster care in a given timeframe (i.e., an entry cohort) will allow ACF to capture the success of recently implemented State efforts to reunify children in a timely manner.

Possible measures: Two measures are under consideration. Neither one include an approach involving the assessment of median length of stay in foster care because it may be several years before all, or even a substantial percentage, of the children in a particular cohort will have exited foster care.

Relevant issues: ACF believes that the assessment of timeliness to reunification of children entering foster care in a given year is an important component of assessing State performance in this domain. However, because not all children in a given entry cohort are destined to be reunified with their families, the denominator for the entry cohort measure often includes children for whom reunification is not the outcome. Because the percentage of those children will vary across States and over time, the measure must be interpreted with caution and should be used in conjunction with an assessment of timeliness to reunification of an exit cohort.
Permanency Composite 1Performance Area 3: Permanency of

Reunifications

Justification for inclusion: The permanency of reunifications may be assessed by the extent of a State's reentries into foster care. A reunification, even if it occurs in a timely manner, cannot be considered as ``permanent'' if the child reenters foster care within a 12month period after the reunification. A consistent finding over the years, as reported in the Report to Congress on Child Welfare Outcomes, is that States with a relatively high percentage of children reunified within 12 months also tend to have a relatively high percentage of children reentering foster care within 12 months of a prior episode, although this is not the case for all States.

Possible measure: Of all children who exit foster care to reunification (including living with a relative) in a fiscal year, what percent reenter foster care within 12 months of the time of exit?

Relevant issues: This measure is a revision of the one used to assess foster care reentry during the first round of the CFSR. At the time the original measure was developed, it was not feasible through AFCARS to consistently and reliably link children across years for every State. Consequently the existing reentry measure focused on the percentage of children entering foster care who were reported to be re entering foster care and whose reentry occurred within 12 months of a prior episode. Because it is now possible to link children across years in AFCARS and to capture children reentering foster care by an AFCARS identification number, the measure has been changed to one that is conceptually more meaningful.

Permanency Composite 2: Timeliness of Adoptions

Performance on Permanency Composite 2 will be a part of the determination of a State's substantial conformity with CFSR Permanency Outcome 1Children will have permanency and stability in their living situations. The composite reflects ACF's emphasis on promoting timely adoptions for those children in foster care who cannot be reunified with their families. The composite also reflects the requirement of ASFA that States pursue TPR for children who have been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months, unless the child is placed with relatives, the State agency has not provided necessary services, or there are documented compelling reasons for not seeking TPR.

The following performance areas are under consideration for Permanency Composite 2:

Although CFSR workgroup participants recommended that ACF assess timeliness to adoption using an entry cohort (i.e., children who enter foster care in a particular time period), the results of our analyses indicated that an entry cohort approach to assessing the timeliness of adoptions is not feasible for the CFSR. The key results were the following:

Some researchers in the field using an entry cohort to assess a State's performance with regard to the timeliness of adoptions have addressed the problems noted above by employing statistical methods to estimate the ``likelihood'' of children who enter foster care in a given year being adopted within particular timeframes. ACF determined that because the CFSR is a monitoring system and not a research initiative, the use of estimates is not appropriate. A monitoring system, particularly one that has financial penalties associated with it, should be based on actual performance rather than on estimates of the likelihood of particular events occurring within a particular timeframe.

Although we have decided that an entry cohort analysis is not appropriate for Permanency Composite 2, some of the performance areas proposed for this composite involve longitudinal assessments of progress toward adoption of a group of children that may be considered a cohort (i.e., all children who have been in foster care for 17 months or longer at the end of a fiscal year; or all children whose TPR occurs during a given fiscal year).
Permanency Composite 2Performance Area 1: Timeliness of Adoptions of Children Discharged From Foster Care to a Finalized Adoption

Justification for inclusion: Exits to adoption reflect the success of a child welfare agency in achieving permanency for those children who cannot be returned to their families. A primary goal of ACF is to ensure that children who are adopted do not remain in foster care any longer than is necessary to achieve a finalized adoption. Information about the percentage of children exiting foster care to a finalized adoption who exit in a timely manner as well as about the percentage of children who are adopted, but not in a timely manner, provides a means of assessing State performance with regard to achieving this goal.

Possible measures: The following three measures are under consideration for this performance area:

Relevant issues: Some CFSR workgroup participants recommended that the CFSR assessment include measures that examine timeliness of adoptions for children of different age groups and different races/ ethnicities. Although ACF has determined that this level of analysis is beyond the scope of the CFSR, States are encouraged to examine their own adoption data in order to understand the relationships between these factors and adoption timeliness. States vary considerably with regard to the distribution of ages and races/ethnicity among their foster care populations, and therefore the relationships between these factors and adoption timeliness also may vary.
Permanency Composite 2Performance Area 2: Timeliness of Adoptions of Children Who Are in Foster Care for 17 Months or Longer at the Start of a Fiscal Year

Justification for inclusion: This performance area assesses progress toward adoption of a cohort of children who have been in foster care for 17 months or longer. ASFA requires State child welfare agencies to pursue adoption as a permanency goal for a child who has been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months, except in limited circumstances. A 17month rather than a 15month timeframe was chosen for the performance area because, in accordance with ASFA, a child is considered to have ``entered foster care'' (for purposes of starting the clock for 15 of 22 months) on the earlier of:
(1) The first judicial finding that the child has been subjected to abuse and neglect, or
(2) The date that is 60 days after the date on which the child is removed from home.

The 17 months in the performance area reflects the latter timeframe for defining entry into foster care because AFCARS does not collect information pertaining to the date of the first judicial finding.

Possible measure: Of all children in foster care on the first day of a given fiscal year who were in foster care for 17 continuous months or longer, what percent were adopted before the end of the fiscal year.

Relevant issues: The proposed measure is based on the assumption that children who have been in foster care for 17 months or longer represent a somewhat stable denominator. (However, even after 17 months in foster care the denominator is not entirely stable because many children in the cohort will exit to reunification.) Although it would be preferable to include in the measure only those children in foster care for 17 months or longer who have a case goal of adoption, States do not consistently report case goal information to AFCARS and AFCARS does not have a data element pertaining to the date that a case goal is established. Also, in some States, the goal of adoption is not formally established until TPR has been achieved although adoption may be the goal that the agency is working toward.
Permanency Composite 1Performance Area 3: Timeliness of Adoptions of Children for Whom Parental Rights Have Been Terminated

Justification for inclusion: The two timeframes that are critical to the timeliness of adoptions are (1) the timeframe between entry into foster care and TPR, and (2) the timeframe between TPR and adoption finalization. This performance area addresses the latter timeframe and reflects ACF's expectation that a finalized adoption should occur quickly after TPR is granted. An analysis of AFCARS data indicated that, nationally, from FY 1998 to FY 2003, the average time from TPR to adoption has remained consistent at about 16 months.

Possible measure: Of all children for whom a TPR was granted during a given fiscal year, what percent were adopted within 12 months of the TPR?

Relevant issues: An analysis of existing data relevant to this measure resulted in the identification of the following data issues: (1) In their submissions to the AFCARS Foster Care File, some States are reporting a substantial number of TPR dates after the reporting period in which they
[[Page 67486]]
actually occurred, and (2) in FY 2003, States did not provide TPR dates in their AFCARS Foster Care File submissions for over onefifth of the children whose discharge reason was adoption. Although these data problems do not appear in the data submitted to the AFCARS Adoption File, because the AFCARS Foster Care File will be used to calculate the measure for this performance area, it is important that States are more diligent, timely, and consistent in their reporting of the AFCARS Foster Care File data elements pertaining to TPR.
Permanency Composite 2Performance Area 4: Timeliness of TPR for Children Who Have Been in Foster Care for 17 Months or Longer at the Start of a Fiscal Year

Justification for inclusion: This performance area pertains to the timeframe required to achieve a TPR for children in foster care for 17 months or longer. The performance area is consistent with the ASFA requirement that TPR should be sought for children who have been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months, except in limited circumstances.

Possible measure: Of all children in foster care for 17 months or longer on the first day of the fiscal year who did not have a TPR, what percentage of those who remained in foster care for the next 6 months had a TPR within that timeframe?

Relevant issues: National data regarding time to adoption indicates that the time span between the time of entry into foster care and the finalization of a TPR petition has decreased from FY 1998 to FY 2003 by an average of 10 months. Inclusion of this performance area in Permanency Composite 2 will permit an assessment of an individual State's performance with regard to this timeframe.

Permanency Composite 3: Placement Stability

Performance on Permanency Composite 3 will be one component of the determination of a State's substantial conformity with CFSR Permanency Outcome 1Children will have permanency and stability in their living situations. The composite reflects the obligation of a State child welfare system to ensure that children who are removed from their homes by the State experience stable placements during their time in foster care. The following performance areas are under consideration for Permanency Composite 3:

Justification for inclusion: This performance area addresses the issue of achieving placement stability for children as quickly as possible after entry into foster care.

Possible measure: During the reporting period, of all children who have been in foster care for less than 12 months from the time of the latest removal from home, what percent have had no more than 2 placement settings?

Relevant issues: Some CFSR workgroup participants suggested that this measure does not take into account variations in time in care within the 12month period or consider some States' practices of routinely placing children in foster care for short periods of time. To address this concern, ACF examined the data for this measure in the following ways: (1) Excluding children who had been in foster care for only 1 month, and (2) excluding children who had been in care for only 3 months. The correlations between State performance on the measure of placement stability within 12 months, and performance on this measure using the 1month and 3month exclusion exceeded +0.95, indicating little variation among the measures. As a result, ACF decided that the existing measure was adequate to reflect variation in State performance regarding placement stability during the first 12 months in foster care.
Permanency Composite 3Performance Area 2: Stability of Children's Placement Experience for Children in Care for Longer Than 12 Months

Justification for inclusion: ACF believes that children should experience placement stability throughout their stay in foster care. However, analyses of the AFCARS data indicated that in most States, the percentage of children who experience no more than 2 placement settings declines considerably (in some States by half) when children have been in foster care for at least 12 months but less than 24 months, and continues to exhibit a substantial decline for those children in foster care for 24 months or longer.

Possible measure: Two measures are under consideration for this performance area.

Permanency Composite 4: Achieving Permanency for Children

Performance on Permanency Composite 4 will be part of the determination of a State's substantial conformity with CFSR Permanency Outcome 1Children will have permanency and stability in their living situations. The composite reflects the responsibility of the State child welfare systems to engage in concerted efforts to find permanent homes for children so that extended stays in foster care are avoided and children do not ``age out'' of the system. The following performance areas are under consideration for Permanency Composite 4:

Justification for inclusion: This performance area addresses the question of State effectiveness with regard to ensuring that children do not ``languish'' in foster carei.e., entering foster care at a relatively young age and exiting foster care only when they have reached the age at which the State will not longer provide for their care.

Possible measure: Of all children who were emancipated from foster care prior to age 18 or who reached their 18th birthday while in foster care, what percent entered foster care when they were age 12 or younger and remained in foster care continuously since that entry?

Relevant issues: This measure is a modification of a measure that is part of the Report to Congress on Child Welfare Outcomes. The modification adds to the measure children who reached their 18th birthday while in foster care. The modification was established because Several States currently allow children to remain in foster care beyond age 18, often to complete school or college. The modification will ensure that these children are included in the measure if
[[Page 67487]]
they entered foster care when they were age 12 or younger even if they have not yet exited foster care.
Permanency Composite 4Performance Area 2: Timeliness of Establishing Permanency Goals

Justification for inclusion: A key factor in moving a child toward permanency is the establishment of a permanency goal. The permanency goal is the basis for developing a case plan delineating the services to be provided and the objectives to be achieved to reach the goal. A Federal requirement is that a case plan be established for every child who is in foster care for longer than 60 days and that the case plan includes the agency's plan for achieving permanency for the child.

Possible measure: Of all children in foster care for longer than 12 months, what percentage is reported to AFCARS as ``Not Yet Determined'' with regard to the case goal?

Relevant issues: An analysis of data relevant to this measure indicated that there are a number of States that have a relatively high percentage of children for whom the data element regarding case goal is reported as ``not yet determined.''
Permanency Composite 4Permanency Area 3: Exits to Families of Children With TPR

Justification for inclusion: This performance area is an important component of Permanency Composite 4 because it addresses the issue of whether seeking TPR for children results in children becoming ``legal orphans'' (i.e., children with TPR who are not placed for adoption or guardianship or placed with relatives and eventually emancipate from foster care). TPR is a costly process, both financially and, for the child, emotionally. To engage in that process with the end result that a child does not exit foster care to a family would be contrary to the best interests of the child in most situations.

Possible measure: Of all children exiting foster care with a TPR, what percentage exited to a permanent family? (A permanent family includes living with a parent, relative, guardian, or adoptive parents.)

Relevant issues: Although in most States, the vast majority of children with TPR exit foster care to a permanent family, there are several States in which 15 to 20 percent of these children do not exit to a family. This suggests that the child welfare agency in those States may not be making sufficient efforts to ensure that children with TPR achieve permanency.

Dated: October 31, 2005.
Joan E. Ohl,
Commissioner, Administration on Children, Youth and Families. Attachment A: Outcomes and Measures Developed for the Annual Report to Congress on Child Welfare Outcomes and the Outcomes and Items Assessed by the Child and Family Services Review

The outcomes and measures presented in the report to Congress are the following:
Child Welfare Outcome 1

Reduce Recurrence of Child Abuse and/or Neglect

Measure 1.1: Of all children who were victims of substantiated or indicated child abuse and/or neglect during the first 6 months of the reporting period, what percentage had another substantiated or indicated report within a 6month period?
Child Welfare Outcome 2
Reduce the Incidence of Child Abuse and/or Neglect in Foster Care

Measure 2.1: Of all children who were in foster care during the reporting period, what percentage was the subject of substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff? Child Welfare Outcome 3

Increase Permanency for Children in Foster Care

Measure 3.1: For all children who exited foster care, what percentage left either to reunification, adoption, or legal guardianship?

Measure 3.2: For children who exited foster care and were identified as having a diagnosed disability, what percentage left either to reunification, adoption, or legal guardianship?

Measure 3.3: For children who exited foster care and were older than age 12 at the time of their most recent entry into care, what percentage left either to reunification, adoption, or legal guardianship?

Measure 3.4: Of all children exiting foster care to emancipation, what percentage was age 12 or younger at the time of entry into care?

Measure 3.5: For all children who exited foster care, what percentage by racial/ethnic category left either to reunification, adoption, or legal guardianship?
Child Welfare Outcome 4
Reduce Time in Foster Care to Reunification Without Increasing Reentry

Measure 4.1: Of all children who were reunified with their parents or caretakers at the time of discharge from foster care, what percentage was reunified in the following time periods?
(1) Less than 12 months from the time of latest removal from home (2) At least 12 months, but less than 24 months
(3) At least 24 months, but less than 36 months
(4) At least 36 months, but less than 48 months

(5) 48 or more months

Measure 4.2: Of all children who entered foster care during the reporting period, what percentage reentered care:
(1) Within 12 months of a prior foster care episode?
(2) More than 12 months after a prior foster care episode? Child Welfare Outcome 5

Reduce Time in Foster Care to Adoption

Measure 5.1: Of all children who exited foster care to a finalized adoption, what percentage exited care in the following time periods? (1) Less than 12 months from the time of latest removal from home (2) At least 12 months, but less than 24 months
(3) At least 24 months, but less than 36 months
(4) At least 36 months, but less than 48 months
(5) 48 or more months
Child Welfare Outcome 6

Increase Placement Stability

Measure 6.1: Of all children served who had been in foster care for the time periods listed below, what percentage had no more than two placement settings during that time period?
(1) Less than 12 months from the time of latest removal from home (2) At least 12 months, but less than 24 months
(3) At least 24 months, but less than 36 months
(4) At least 36 months, but less than 48 months
(5) 48 or more months
Child Welfare Outcome 7
Reduce Placements of Young Children in Group Homes or Institutions

Measure 7.1: For all children who entered foster care during the reporting period and were age 12 or younger at the time of their most recent placement, what percentage was placed in a group home or an institution?

[[Page 67488]]

The outcomes and systemic factors assessed through the Child and Family Services Review are the following:

Child and Family Outcomes

Safety Outcome 1: Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect.

Safety Outcome 2: Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate.

Permanency Outcome 1: Children have permanency and stability in their living situations.

Permanency Outcome 2: The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children.

Child and Family Wellbeing Outcome 1: Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children's needs.

Child and Family Wellbeing Outcome 2: Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs.

Child and Family Wellbeing Outcome 3: Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs.
Systemic Factors
Statewide Information System
Case Review System
Quality Assurance System
Training (for child welfare agency staff and foster and adoptive parents)
Service Array
Agency Responsiveness to the Community
Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment, and Retention Attachment B: Comparison of CFSR Measures Used in Round 1, and Proposed CFSR Data Composites for the Next Round
CFSR Safety Outcome 1
Proposed composite to be Current CFSR data measures and standard associated with CFSR Safety associated with CFSR Safety Outcome 1 Outcome 1 Recurrence of maltreatment: Measure and Safety Composite 1: Recurrence national standard: Of all children who of maltreatment. A national were victims of a substantiated or standard will be established indicated child maltreatment report from the data composite scores during the first 6 months, 6.1 percent resulting from States' of fewer were victims of another performance on the areas substantiated or indicated report incorporated in the composite. within a 6month period. Some possible performance areas to be included in the composite are:

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT John Hargrove, 202-205-8634.