Form 1 Statewide Assessment

The Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs) are designed to support a stronger Federal-State partnership for improving the outcomes of child welfare services to children and families. The reviews seek to achieve this goal by linking an initial review of State child welfare services with a program improvement process and subsequent reviews that measure progress toward those improvements. Moreover, the CFSR process is intended to be coordinated with other Federal child welfare requirements, such as the planning and monitoring of the Child and Family Services Plan (CFSP). The reviews were authorized by the 1994 Amendments to the Social Security Act (SSA), and are administered by the Children’s Bureau, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Specifically, the CFSRs assess how well States perform in achieving positive outcomes in the following three domains for children and families engaged in child welfare services: child safety, child permanency, and child and family well-being. The CFSRs also examine seven State and local child welfare agency systemic factors that affect the achievement of positive outcomes by the children and families that agencies serve. The systemic factors assessed during the CFSRs are based on the requirements in the title IV-B and IV-E regulations, and States are rated on (1) the extent to which they have met those requirements through systems, policies, procedures, or training, (2) how those systems are operating in day-to-day practice in the field, as demonstrated through data or stakeholder input, and (3) the effectiveness of the State with regard to the systemic factors in achieving positive outcomes for children and families.

The CFSR Process

The CFSR is a two-phase process. The first phase is a Statewide Assessment conducted by a State child welfare agency in collaboration with the agency’s external partners or stakeholders and the Children’s Bureau Central and Regional Office staff. The Statewide Assessment Team completes the Statewide Assessment Instrument.

The second phase of the review process is an onsite review, conducted by a team of Federal representatives (including consultant reviewers) and State representatives (including external partners). The onsite process includes case record reviews, case-related interviews, and stakeholder interviews. The Onsite Review Team uses the Onsite Review Instrument and Instructions to rate cases, and the Stakeholder Interview Guide to guide and document the results of the stakeholder interviews.

Information from both the Statewide Assessment and the onsite review then is used to determine the State’s conformity with the State plan requirements for child protective services, foster care, adoption, and family preservation and support services. States found out of conformity are required to develop a Program Improvement Plan (PIP) to address the identified areas needing improvement. States participate in subsequent reviews at intervals related to their achievement of conformity. (For more information about the CFSRs, see the Child and Family Services Reviews

Procedures Manual at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/tools_guide/
proce_manual.htm.)

The Statewide Assessment Instrument

The Statewide Assessment Instrument is intended as a tool for States to use in examining their capacity and performance in improving outcomes for children and families engaged in child welfare services. Each section, as outlined below, is designed to enable States to gather and document information that is critical to analyzing that capacity and performance during the Statewide Assessment phase of the CFSR process.

Section I of the Statewide Assessment Instrument requests general information about the State agency.

Section II contains data profiles for the safety and permanency outcomes. These include the data indicators, which are used, in part, to determine substantial conformity. Additional contextual data are provided that was not included in profiles during the first round. The data profiles are developed by the Children’s Bureau based on the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) and National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) data submitted by the State. The Children’s Bureau provides the profiles to the State upon initiation of the Statewide Assessment. (Note: If a State does not submit child-specific NCANDS data and requests to use an alternate source of safety data for the Statewide Assessment, that request must be made through the Children’s Bureau Regional Office prior to initiating the Statewide Assessment. States must provide sufficient documentation of the alternate source in the request for the Children’s Bureau data team to approve the use of such data; see the Child and Family Services Reviews Procedures Manual. Following approval of the alternate data source, the State also must produce the necessary data in time for inclusion in the data profiles and for timely initiation of the Statewide Assessment.)

Section III requires a narrative assessment of the seven outcome areas based on the data profiles in section II and new information on the State’s performance in these areas since the previous Statewide Assessment. In the narrative, States should use evaluative language to present changes in practice and performance, as measured by the State, that resulted from the implementation of the PIP. These might include changes highlighted through the State’s quality assurance system, or via other data generated by the State’s Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) or another automated information system.

Section IV focuses on State child welfare agency characteristics and requires narrative responses for each of the seven systemic factors. These responses are developed by analyzing data, to the extent that the data are available to the State, and using external stakeholders’ and partners’ input. In the narrative, States should use evaluative language to present changes in policy, practice, and performance since the previous Statewide Assessment that resulted from the implementation of the PIP and other strategies initiated by the State.

Section V requires the State to assess its strengths and challenges and identify issues and geographic locations requiring further examination during the onsite review. The State also should list here the stakeholders that it involved in developing the Statewide Assessment.

The Statewide Assessment Instrument is available electronically on the Children’s Bureau Web site at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/tools_guide/statewide.htm.

The Statewide Assessment Team

States must include broad representation from within and outside the child welfare agency in forming a team to conduct the Statewide Assessment. The Statewide Assessment Instrument must be completed in collaboration with State representatives who are not staff of the State child welfare agency (external partners or stakeholders), pursuant to 45 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1355.33 (b). Those individuals should represent the sources of consultation required of the State in developing its title IV-B State plan and may include, for example, tribal representatives; court personnel; youth; staff of other State and social service agencies serving children and families; and birth, foster, and adoptive parents or representatives of foster/adoptive parent associations. Moreover, States should consider including on the Statewide Assessment Team individuals who have the skills to serve as case record reviewers during the onsite review and to assist in developing the PIP, as needed. States must include a list of the names and affiliations of external representatives participating in the Statewide Assessment in section V of the Statewide Assessment Instrument.

How the Statewide Assessment Is Used

Information about the State child welfare agency compiled and analyzed through the Statewide Assessment process is used to support the CFSR process in a range of ways. The Statewide Assessment is used to do the following:

Guide site selection by the Children’s Bureau and the State for the onsite review

Provide an overview of the State child welfare agency’s organization, capacity, and performance for the Onsite Review Team

Facilitate identification of issues that need additional clarification before or during the onsite review

Serve as a key source of information for rating the CFSR systemic factors

Provide context for the outcome ratings

Enable States and their stakeholders to identify early in the CFSR process the areas potentially needing improvement and to begin developing their PIP approach

Inform the CFSP and Annual Progress and Services Report (APSR) processes

Educate stakeholders about State strengths and needs and enlist their support in developing and making program improvements

Inform stakeholders and the public about the improvements/progress the State has made since the previous Statewide Assessment

Openly share with stakeholders and the public the areas that the State child welfare agency has identified as continuing to need improvement

Further information about conducting the Statewide Assessment and developing the Statewide Assessment document is provided in the Instructions section of this instrument.

THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT OF 1995 (Pub. L. 10413)

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 240 hours for the initial review and 120 hours for subsequent reviews. This estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions, completing the assessment, and reviewing the collection of information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Instructions

While each State will adopt an approach to conducting the Statewide Assessment that best suits their unique circumstances, they should undertake the following steps in completing the Statewide Assessment process and instrument:

Develop a process for working with the designated Children’s Bureau Regional Office staff member regarding the development and review of the Statewide Assessment. The Regional Office staff are one of the State’s key external partners during the Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) process.

Identify key agency staff and community representatives or stakeholders to serve on the Statewide Assessment Team and/or to participate in the Statewide Assessment process (such as those who are serving on the Child and Family Services Plan [CFSP]/Annual Progress and Services Report [APSR] planning committee and those who are involved in the Court Improvement Program). States should select agency staff on the basis of their expertise in a specific area, such as quality assurance, child protection or safety, permanency planning, youth services, licensing, and foster care provider support. States should select a mix of external partners so that the Statewide Assessment process will include the representation of organizations, agencies, and individuals with (1) experience providing an array of service types and delivery mechanisms relevant to the needs of children and families, including relative and kinship care providers, (2) a range of perspectives on the State agency’s practice and performance, including cross-system collaborative efforts, and (3) expertise in the specific areas that the State has identified as priorities for making improvements.

Consolidate the process for developing the CFSP and Statewide Assessment to address common goals in the most efficient way possible. The development of the CFSP and the Statewide Assessment requires extensive consultation with a wide array of representatives of State, local, tribal, and judicial agencies and organizations. This includes both public and private community-based entities with experience in administering programs for infants, children, youth, adolescents, and families (this also may include faith-based organizations). The State also should consult with children, youth, and families who have received or are receiving child welfare services.

States are encouraged to use a variety of approaches in consulting with external partners and stakeholders. The agency might gather information, for example, through the following:

Initiating strategies for linking the Statewide Assessment with the ongoing consultation process used for CFSP/APSR development

Holding focus groups with stakeholders or consumer groups

Conducting surveys or interviews

Hosting joint planning forums in the State

Developing a Web site through which the State updates stakeholders about the status of the Statewide Assessment process and allows those stakeholders to share their experiences regarding State child welfare services and/or comment on drafts of the Statewide Assessment, as appropriate

Review the Statewide Assessment, Final Report, and Program Improvement Plan (PIP) progress reports from the previous CFSR to identify promising approaches, areas needing improvement, and progress made.

Review and use existing data sources, develop additional sources of information to inform the Statewide Assessment process, and continually assess how to further analyze the data provided through existing systems.

Examine existing State documents that provide evaluative information about State agency performance during the period under review and that might be useful in completing the Statewide Assessment. The review team, for example, would look for evaluative data in the (1) CFSP/APSR, (2) quality assurance reports, (3) management reports, (4) studies, (5) commission reports, (6) State auditor reports, (7) task force findings, (8) National Resource Center technical assistance and training reports, and (9) descriptions of new strategies and initiatives. Through these reports, the State can identify evaluative information, for example, about new policies, training, and practices that led to improvements in the outcomes and systemic factors.

Assess data and data collection methodologies used by the State to determine its performance on the CFSR outcomes and systemic factors. The sources of the data may include the State’s quality assurance systems, for example (1) CFSR-style case reviews, (2) surveys (such as client satisfaction surveys), (3) supervisor or administrative reviews, peer reviews, and other quality assurance system components, and (4) the results of efforts to analyze quality assurance system findings.

Use data from State child welfare management information systems (MIS), including the following:

Data profiles

Data addressing State performance on CFSR items (for example, data on timeliness of investigations, face-to-face contacts, and filing for termination of parental rights)

Results of efforts to further analyze information system data to more clearly pinpoint variations in performance (for example, analysis of performance based on case characteristics, such as age, type of case, or location)

Review internal and external partner and stakeholder input/feedback documented through the following:

Reports, plans, needs assessments, and data from interagency strategic planning efforts and other programs, such as the Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention (CBCAP), Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), Children’s Justice Act, Children’s Mental Health, and Chafee Foster Care Independent Living Program, to determine if they provide insight into the State’s practices in these areas (even if the CFSR does not specifically review for requirements in these programs).

Reassessments conducted under the Court Improvement Program (CIP) and the current State CIP strategic plan. The strategic plan must give priority to any legal and judicial issues identified in the PIPs developed as part of the State’s CFSR and title IV-E foster care eligibility reviews.

Reports and data from activities in response to lawsuits, consent decrees, and settlements

Surveys, focus groups, and Web sites through which the agency or other stakeholders or partner organizations, such as foster parent associations and provider agencies, collect data/input from stakeholders

Analyze the data profiles provided by the Children’s Bureau, using the following steps (including consulting with non-review team members, as appropriate):

Review and analyze the data related to each safety and permanency outcome in the Onsite Review Instrument and Instructions, and identify areas of strength or the need for further examination during the onsite review.

Compare the State’s performance on the data indicators with the national standards, where applicable. States will need to address in their PIP the indicators that fall below the national standards. It therefore is important for States to identify the factors affecting these indicators.

To the extent possible, examine other data and community or situational factors that may be affecting State data trends. These data analyses then can be used to lay the foundation for developing future PIP action strategies.

Consult with external partners or stakeholders regarding the data indicators. For example, the Statewide Assessment Team might talk with caseworkers, guardians ad litem, foster parents, youth in foster care, and group care providers to help identify the underlying causes of presenting data issues, such as the high number of placement settings experienced by children. States also will consult with stakeholders to obtain information that will be used to complete the narrative section on systemic factors in the Statewide Assessment Instrument.

States can use the exploratory issues that appear in the body of the Statewide Assessment Instrument to analyze key issues and to consult with stakeholders regarding the outcomes and systemic factors under review. Those simply are intended to provide States with guidance for managing the Statewide Assessment process; they are not intended to impose additional requirements on the States nor to limit their flexibility and creativity in managing that process or completing the Statewide Assessment Instrument. States also may access technical assistance, through the Children’s Bureau Regional Offices, on planning for and implementing the Statewide Assessment process.

National/State Data Presentation and Analysis

Data Analysis: States are encouraged to explore how they can broaden their data collection analysis by identifying which data might warrant further examination. To do so, they can ask questions such as the following:

Are there subject or functional areas in which quality assurance or MIS data could be further analyzed to provide more information on State strengths, needs, and barriers to performance?

Are there specific CFSR outcomes or items that might warrant further attention/ analysis, for example by reviewing additional cases or specific subsets of case types?

How could the existing data be further analyzed to provide information about local jurisdictions during site selection for the CFSR?

Data Presentation: For data referenced in the Statewide Assessment, States should provide information such as the period that the data address, and the sample size and type of cases. States might use the following language, for example, when describing the data: “A random statewide sample of 100 open foster care cases for the period from July 1, 2005, to December 31, 2005, indicated the following . . .”

In addition, for the data presented, States should fully describe each data methodology used, such as a CFSR-style case review or other performance measurement system. States also should explain how each system measures CFSR performance outcomes and any alternate data approaches used to provide additional perspective on State performance.

Finally, States should describe trends in the agency’s performance, for example, by comparing the quality assurance system results for each quarter across the previous CFSR, the previous PIP, and the current Statewide Assessment.

Production of the Statewide Assessment

States should use the Statewide Assessment Instrument to compile the information collected through their assessment process. States are encouraged to summarize key points from other related documents and to avoid attaching those, whenever possible. The Statewide Assessment should be approximately 75–85 pages and contain the following:

Brief description of the agency structure and programs

Information about the relationship between the outcome item description, the available data, and the State’s practices and policies

Changes since the previous Statewide Assessment, with an emphasis on changes resulting from PIP implementation

Information on the effectiveness of each systemic factor item being reviewed, including any quality assurance results, if available (See also the specific requirements by systemic factor below.)

Most recent State data profile and summary of State data provided by the Children’s Bureau that are relevant to the outcomes and systemic factors during the past 3 years

Trends or notable changes in the data over the past 3 years, including possible contributing factors affecting the trends

Effectiveness measures that demonstrate the State’s functioning for each item

For each systemic factor, the State should provide the following:

Overview of the system under review, including the requirements, structure, law, policy, and functions

Identification of areas in which the State agency relies on stakeholders or external partners to carry out some of these responsibilities through contracting or intergovernmental agreements, including those areas in which the State provides oversight of such activities.

Information on the effectiveness of the system, including strengths, gaps, needs, and usefulness

Information on how the State’s functioning in each systemic area affects the outcomes of safety, permanency, and well-being

Changes since the previous Statewide Assessment, with an emphasis on changes resulting from PIP implementation or other strategies or initiatives implemented by the State

Information on ongoing processes or mechanisms, such as the State’s quality assurance system, that routinely examine the effectiveness of the systemic factor and promote continuous improvement in that area

It is important that the completed Statewide Assessment clearly show an analysis of the relationship between State data and practice, and the quality/effectiveness of the system under review. If a State’s data show that children experience frequent re-entries into care following reunification, for example, the State should use the Statewide Assessment process to explore, and then document, the possible reasons that this is occurring. To do so, the State might examine the availability, accessibility, and quality of services to support family reunification. Or if the State’s data show that children wait long periods for permanent placements, the State might explore the case review system and its effectiveness in moving children to permanency in a timely manner.

Evaluative Language

States should present information in the Statewide Assessment using “evaluative language” whenever possible. Presenting information in this format requires the Statewide Assessment Team to focus on what their State’s data are showing about State practice and to present information about the quality and effectiveness of policies and practices, rather than simply describing those.

Evaluative language does the following: (1) presents judgments, (2) assesses status and outcomes, and (3) gauges, ranks, and rates performance. This type of language provides the reader of the Statewide Assessment with an understanding of how well the State agency is doing; it offers an analysis of the effectiveness of the agency’s policies and practices and the areas that require ongoing improvements to achieve positive outcomes. States should use evaluative language as frequently as possible throughout their Statewide Assessment. This is particularly important during the second and subsequent rounds of reviews, when the previous review findings and PIP measures provide a bar against which to evaluate the agency’s progress and current effectiveness and identify underlying strengths and challenges.

While some descriptive language may be necessary, it should be used only to present a brief overview of what the State agency does (policy and practice) and to provide context for the more critical information to follow: the assessment of the agency’s performance. Descriptive language does the following: (1) presents a picture, (2) shares a narrative story, and (3) outlines characteristics. In other words, States should use descriptive language sparingly to set the stage for their analysis of the child welfare agency’s ability to create positive outcomes for children and families.

Illustrative Examples of Descriptive and Evaluative Language

The following examples of descriptive versus evaluative language are designed to illustrate how States can share their CFSR-related findings in an evaluative manner. These examples should not be considered exhaustive with regard to how a State should address the child welfare practice issues shown in the examples.

Example 1: This example shows the difference between using descriptive versus evaluative language to present information about how the agency is monitoring the implementation of a new staff training program on managing caseworker face-to-face contacts with children during investigations of child abuse and neglect. The descriptive statement simply reiterates that the State is providing training to staff; the evaluative (preferred) language provides detailed information on who has been trained, how training participation is tracked, and the agency’s process for institutionalizing the training.

Descriptive: The State child welfare agency provided training last year to all of its supervisors and caseworkers on the required face-to-face contact with children during investigations of child abuse and neglect.

Evaluative: During fiscal year (FY) 2005, 80 percent of State child welfare agency supervisors and caseworkers were trained on State policy on face-to-face contact with children during investigations of child abuse and neglect. The remaining 20 percent of agency supervisors and caseworkers were trained during the first quarter of FY 2006. In addition, during the third quarter of FY 2005, the State incorporated the new training into the initial training that is conducted for all new child protection workers. Staff training is tracked through the State Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS), and supervisors receive a monthly report on the status of staff completion of agency-provided trainings.

*****

Example 2: This example shows the difference between using descriptive versus evaluative language to present information on the effectiveness of an agency’s PIP action step—training—in increasing caseworker face-to-face contact with children during investigations of child abuse and neglect. The descriptive statement does not provide supporting data about how the new training is affecting staff performance in this area; the evaluative (preferred) language does.

Descriptive: After participating in the training on managing face-to-face contact with children during investigations of child abuse and neglect, staff increased their compliance with the requirement to establish face-to-face contact within 24 hours of a report of abuse or neglect.

Evaluative: The Quality Assurance Team’s review of 100 cases during the first 2 quarters of FY 2006 showed that State child welfare agency staff increased face-to-face contact with a child within 24 hours of a report of abuse or neglect from 53 to 75 percent following staff participation in the training on this agency-required interaction.

To further assess the reasons that staff did not make face-to-face contact with a child following a report of abuse or neglect, the Quality Assurance Team reviewed the 25 percent of the cases in which this did not happen. They found that in 10 percent of the cases, the caseworker attempted to make contact but was unable to locate the family. In the other 15 percent of the cases, half were from offices located in rural areas in which staff must drive long distances to reach families and the other half were from offices with social worker vacancies.

Using the Statewide Assessment Checklist

At the end of this instrument is a Statewide Assessment Checklist that should be used by

State child welfare agency staff before beginning the Statewide Assessment process; the

checklist will help them to focus on the type of information that they need to collect and analyze.

Both the State and the Children’s Bureau Regional Office staff then can use the checklist to

review and comment on Statewide Assessment drafts.

Statewide Assessment Instrument

Section I – General Information

Name of State Agency

Period Under Review
Onsite Review Sample Period: _____________________________________ Period of AFCARS Data: _________________________________________ Period of NCANDS Data (or other approved source; please specify if alternative data source is used): ____________________________________
State Agency Contact Person for the Statewide Assessment
Name:
Title:
Address:


Phone:
Fax:
E-mail:

Section II – Safety and Permanency Data

For detailed information about the data profile including a Quick Reference Guide to the Child and Family Services Reviews State Data Profile Elements, a toolkit is available on the National Resource Center for Information Technology Web site at www.nrccwdt.org/cfsr/cfsr_toolkit.html.

State Data Profile Example

Child Safety Profile

Fiscal Year 2004

Fiscal Year 2005

Fiscal Year 2006

Reports

Duplic.

Chn.²

Unique

Chn.²

Reports

Duplic.

Chn.²

Unique

Chn.²

Reports

Duplic.

Chn.²

Unique

Chn.²

I. Total CA/N
Reports Disposed¹

II. Disposition of CA/N Reports³

Substantiated and Indicated

Unsubstantiated

Other

III. Child Cases Opened for
Services⁴

IV. Children Entering Care
Based on CA/N Report⁵

V. Child Fatalities⁶

STATEWIDE AGGREGATE DATA USED TO DETERMINE SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMITY

VI. Absence of Maltreatment Recurrence⁷ [Standard: 94.6% or more]

VII. Absence of Child Abuse

and/or Neglect in Foster
Care⁸ (12 months)
[Standard: 99.68% or
more]

The permanency data for the 12-month period ending September 30, 2006, were based on the annual file created. All CFSR round one safety results are on page 15; permanency round one results are on page 30.

ADDITIONAL SAFETY MEASURES FOR INFORMATION ONLY*

Fiscal Year 2004

Fiscal Year 2005

Fiscal Year 2006

Hours

Unique

Chn.²

Hours

Unique

Chn. ²

Hours

Unique

Chn.²

VIII. Median Time to Investigation in Hours (Child File)⁹

IX. Mean Time to Investigation in Hours (Child File)¹⁰

X. Mean Time to Investigation in Hours (Agency File)¹¹

XI. Children Maltreated by Parents While in Foster Care¹²

CFSR ROUND ONE SAFETY MEASURES TO DETERMINE SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMITY**

Fiscal Year 2004

Fiscal Year 2005

Fiscal Year 2006

Reports

Duplic.

Chn.²

Unique

Chn.²

Reports

Duplic.

Chn.²

Unique

Chn. ²

Reports

Duplic.

Chn.²

Unique

Chn.²

XII. Recurrence of
Maltreatment¹³[Standard:
6.1% or less]

XIII. Incidence of Child Abuse
and/or Neglect in Foster
Care¹⁴(9 months)
[Standard: 0.57% or less]

*There are no national standards associated with these measures.

**These measures are used primarily by States completing round one Program Improvement Plans, but States also may review them to compare to prior performance.

NCANDS DATA COMPLETENESS INFORMATION FOR THE CFSR
Description of Data Tests	Fiscal Year 2004	Fiscal Year 2005	Fiscal Year 2006
Percent of Duplicate Victims in the Submission [At least 1% of victims should be associated with multiple reports (same CHID). If not, the State would appear to have frequently entered different IDs for the same victim. This affects maltreatment recurrence.]
Percent of Victims With Perpetrator Reported [File must have at least 75% to reasonably calculate maltreatment in foster care.]
Percent of Perpetrators With Relationship to Victim Reported [File should have at least 75%.]
Percent of Records With Investigation Start Date Reported [Needed to compute mean and median time to investigation.]
Average Time to Investigation in the Agency File [PART measure.]
Percent of Records With AFCARS ID Reported in the Child File [Needed to calculate maltreatment in foster care by the parents; also, all Child File records should now have an AFCARS ID to allow ACF to link the NCANDS data with AFCARS. This is now an all-purpose unique child identifier and a child does not have to be in foster care to have this ID.]

Footnotes To Data Elements In Child Safety Profile

Each maltreatment allegation reported to NCANDS is associated with a disposition or finding that is used to derive the counts provided in this safety profile. The safety profile uses three categories. The various terms that are used in NCANDS reporting have been collapsed into these three groups.

Disposition Category	Safety Profile Disposition	NCANDS Maltreatment Level Codes Included
A	Substantiated or Indicated (Maltreatment Victim)	“Substantiated,” “Indicated,” and “Alternative Response Disposition Victim”
B	Unsubstantiated	“Unsubstantiated” and “Unsubstantiated Due to Intentionally False Reporting”
C	Other	“Closed — No Finding,” “Alternative Response Disposition — Not a Victim,” “Other,” “No Alleged Maltreatment,” and “Unknown or Missing”

“Alternative Response” was added starting with the 2000 data year. The two categories of “Unsubstantiated” were added starting with the 2000 data year. In earlier years, there was only the category of “Unsubstantiated.” The disposition of “No alleged maltreatment” was added for Federal FY 2003. It primarily refers to children who receive an investigation or assessment because there is an allegation concerning a sibling or other child in the household, but not themselves, and who are not found to be a victim of maltreatment. It applies as a Maltreatment Disposition Level but not as a Report Disposition code because the Report Disposition cannot have this value (there must have been a child who was found to be one of the other values).

Starting with Federal FY 2003, the data year is the fiscal year.

Starting with Federal FY 2004, the maltreatment levels for each child are used consistently to categorize children. While report dispositions are based on the field of report disposition in NCANDS, the dispositions for duplicate children and unique children are based on the maltreatment levels associated with each child. A child victim has at least one maltreatment level that is coded “substantiated,” “indicated,” or “alternative response victim.” A child classified as unsubstantiated has no maltreatment levels that are considered to be victim levels and at least one maltreatment level that is coded “unsubstantiated” or “unsubstantiated due to

intentionally false reporting.” A child classified as “other” has no maltreatment levels that are considered to be victim levels and none that are considered to be unsubstantiated levels. If a child has no maltreatments in the record, and the report has a victim disposition, the child is assigned to “other” disposition. If a child has no maltreatments in the record and the report has either an unsubstantiated disposition or an “other” disposition, the child is counted as having the same disposition as the report disposition.

The data element, “Total CA/N Reports Disposed,” is based on the reports received in the State that received a disposition in the reporting period under review. The number shown may include reports received during a previous year that received a disposition in the reporting year. Counts based on “reports,” “duplicated counts of children,” and “unique counts of children” are provided.

The duplicated count of children (report-child pairs) counts a child each time that (s)he was reported. The unique count of children counts a child only once during the reporting period, regardless of how many times the child was reported.

For the column labeled “Reports,” the data element, “Disposition of CA/N Reports,” is based on the highest disposition of any child who was the subject of an investigation in a particular report. For example, if a report investigated two children, and one child is found to be neglected and the other child found not to be maltreated, the report disposition will be substantiated (Group A). The disposition for each child is based on the specific finding related to the maltreatment(s). In other words, of the two children above, one is a victim and is counted under “substantiated” (Group A) and the other is not a victim and is counted under “unsubstantiated” (Group B). In determining the unique counts of children, the highest finding is given priority. If a child is found to be a victim in one report (Group A), but not a victim in a second report (Group B), the unique count of children includes the child only as a victim (Group A). The category of “other” (Group C) includes children whose report may have been “closed without a finding,” children for whom the allegation disposition is “unknown,” and other dispositions that a State is unable to code as substantiated, indicated, alternative response victim, or unsubstantiated.

The data element “Child Cases Opened for Services” is based on the number of victims (Group A) during the reporting period under review. “Opened for Services” refers to post-investigative services. The duplicated number counts each time a victim’s report is linked to ongoing services; the unique number counts a victim only once regardless of the number of times services are linked to reports of substantiated maltreatment.

The data element “Children Entering Care Based on CA/N Report” is based on the number of victims (Group A) during the reporting period under review. The duplicated number counts each time a victim’s report is linked to a foster care removal date. The unique number counts a victim only once regardless of the number of removals that may be reported.

The data element “Child Fatalities” counts the number of children reported to NCANDS as having died as a result of child abuse and/or neglect. Depending upon State practice, this number may count only those children for whom a case record has been opened either prior to or after the death, or may include a number of children whose deaths have been investigated as possibly related to child maltreatment. For example, some States include neglect-related deaths such as those caused by motor

vehicle or boating accidents, house fires or access to firearms, under certain circumstances. The percentage is based on a count of unique victims of maltreatment for the reporting period.

The data element “Absence of Recurrence of Maltreatment” is defined as follows: Of all children who were victims of a substantiated or indicated maltreatment allegation during the first 6 months of the reporting period, what percent were not victims of another substantiated or indicated maltreatment allegation within a 6-month period? This data element is used to determine the State’s substantial conformity with Safety Outcome #1.

The data element “Absence of Child Abuse/or Neglect in Foster Care” is defined as follows: Of all children in foster care during the reporting period, what percent were not victims of substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff member. This data element is used to determine the State’s substantial conformity with Safety Outcome #1. A child is counted as not having been maltreated in foster care if the perpetrator of the maltreatment was not identified as a foster parent or residential facility staff. Counts of children not maltreated in foster care are derived by subtracting NCANDS count of children maltreated by foster care providers from AFCARS count of children placed in foster care. The observation period for this measure is 12 months. The number of children not found to be maltreated in foster care and the percentage of all children in foster care are provided.

“Median Time to Investigation in Hours” is computed from the Child File records using the Report Date and the Investigation Start Date (currently reported in the Child File in mmddyyyy format). The result is converted to hours by multiplying by 24.

“Mean Time to Investigation in Hours” is computed from the Child File records using the Report Date and the Investigation Start Date (currently reported in the Child File in mmddyyyy format). The result is converted to hours by multiplying by 24. Zero days difference (both dates are on the same day) is reported as “under 24 hours,” one day difference (investigation date is the next day after report date) is reported as “at least 24 hours, but less than 48 hours,” two days difference is reported as “at least 48 hours, but less than 72 hours,” etc.

“Average Response Time in Hours Between Maltreatment Report and Investigation” is available through State NCANDS Agency or SDC File aggregate data. “Response time” is defined as the time from the receipt of a report to the time of the initial investigation or assessment. Note that many States calculate the initial investigation date as the first date of contact with the alleged victim, when this is appropriate, or with another person who can provide information essential to the disposition of the investigation or assessment.

The data element, “Children Maltreated by Parents While in Foster Care” is defined as follows: Of all children placed in foster care during the reporting period, what percent were victims of substantiated or indicated maltreatment by parent? This data element requires matching NCANDS and AFCARS records by AFCARS IDs. Only unique NCANDS children with substantiated or indicated maltreatments and perpetrator relationship “Parent” are selected for this match. NCANDS report date must fall within the removal period found in the matching AFCARS record.

The data element, “Recurrence of Maltreatment,” is defined as follows: Of all children associated with a “substantiated” or “indicated” finding of maltreatment during the first six months of the reporting period, what percentage had another “substantiated” or “indicated” finding of maltreatment within a 6-month period? The number of victims during the first six-month period and the number of these victims who were recurrent victims within six months are provided. This data element was used to determine the State’s substantial conformity with Safety Outcome #1 for CFSR round one.

The data element, “Incidence of Child Abuse and/or Neglect in Foster Care,” is defined as follows: Of all children who were served in foster care during the reporting period, what percentage were found to be victims of “substantiated” or “indicated” maltreatment? A child is counted as having been maltreated in foster care if the perpetrator of the maltreatment was identified as a foster parent or residential facility staff. Counts of children maltreated in foster care are derived from NCANDS, while counts of children placed in foster care are derived from AFCARS. The observation period for these measures is January-September because this is the reporting period that was jointly addressed by both NCANDS and AFCARS at the time when the NCANDS reporting period was a calendar year. The number of children found to be maltreated in foster care and the percentage of all children in foster care are provided. This data element was used to determine the State’s substantial conformity with Safety Outcome #1 for CFSR round one.

Additional Footnotes:

Point-In-Time Permanency Profile	Federal FY 2004 AB		Federal FY 2005 AB		Federal FY 2006 AB
Point-In-Time Permanency Profile	# of Children	% of Children	# of Children	% of Children	# of Children	% of Children
I. Foster Care Population Flow
Children in Foster Care on First Day of Year
Admissions During Year
Discharges During Year
Children Discharging from Foster Care in 7 days or less*
Children in Care on Last Day of Year
Net Change During Year

II. Placement Types for Children in Care
Pre-adoptive Homes
Foster Family Homes (Relative)
Foster Family Homes (Non-relative)
Group Homes
Institutions
Supervised Independent Living
Runaway
Trial Home Visit
Missing Placement Information
Not Applicable (Placement in Subsequent Year)

III. Permanency Goals for Children in Care
Reunification
Live With Other Relatives
Adoption
Long-Term Foster Care
Emancipation
Guardianship
Case Plan Goal Not Established
Missing Goal Information

* These cases are excluded from length of stay calculations in the composite measures.

Point-In-Time Permanency Profile	Federal FY 2004 AB		Federal FY 2005 AB		Federal FY 2006 AB
Point-In-Time Permanency Profile	# of Children	% of Children	# of Children	% of Children	# of Children	% of Children
IV. Number of Placement Settings in Current Episode
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six or More
Missing Placement Settings

V. Number of Removal Episodes
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six or More
Missing Removal Episodes

VI. Number of Children in Care 17 of the Most Recent 22 Months¹(Percent Based on Cases With Sufficient Information for Computation)
	Number of Months		Number of Months		Number of Months
VII. Median Length of Stay in Foster Care (of Children in Care on Last Day of FY)
VIII. Length of Time to Achieve Permanency Goal	# of Children Discharged	Median Months to Discharge	# of Children Discharged	Median Months to Discharge	# of Children Discharged	Median Months to Discharge
Reunification
Adoption
Guardianship
Other
Missing Discharge Reason²
Total Discharges (excluding those with problematic dates)
Dates Are Problematic³

STATEWIDE AGGREGATE DATA USED IN DETERMINING SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMITY: COMPOSITES 1 THROUGH 4
IX. Permanency Composite 1: Timeliness and Permanency of Reunification [Standard: 122.6 or Higher] Scaled scores for this composite incorporate two components.	FY 2004 AB	FY 2005 AB	FY 2006 AB
	State Score =	State Score =	State Score =
Component A: Timeliness of Reunification The timeliness component is composed of three timeliness individual measures.
Measure C1 - 1: Exits to reunification in less than 12 months: Of all children discharged from foster care (FC) to reunification in the target 12-month period, and who had been in FC for 8 days or longer, what percent was reunified in less than 12 months from the date of the latest removal from home? (Includes trial home visit adjustment) [National median = 69.9%, 75^th percentile = 75.2%]
Measure C1 - 2: Exits to reunification, median stay: Of all children discharged from foster care (FC) to reunification in the target 12-month period, and who had been in FC for 8 days or longer, what was the median length of stay (in months) from the date of the latest removal from home until the date of discharge to reunification? (This includes trial home visit adjustment) [National median = 6.5 months, 25^th percentile = 5.4 months (low is “good” in this measure)]
Measure C1 - 3: Entry cohort reunification in < 12 months: Of all children entering foster care (FC) for the first time in the 6-month period just prior to the target 12-month period, and who remained in FC for 8 days or longer, what percent was discharged from FC to reunification in less than 12 months from the date of the latest removal from home? (Includes trial home visit adjustment) [National median = 39.4%, 75^th percentile = 48.4%]
Component B: Permanency of Reunification. The permanency component has one measure.
Measure C1 - 4: Re-entries to foster care in less than 12 months: Of all children discharged from foster care (FC) to reunification in the 12-month period prior to the target 12-month period, what percent re-entered FC in less than 12 months from the date of discharge? [National median = 15.0%, 25^th percentile = 9.9% (low is “good” in this measure)]

STATEWIDE AGGREGATE DATA USED IN DETERMINING SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMITY: COMPOSITES 1 THROUGH 4
X. Permanency Composite 2: Timeliness of Adoptions [Standard: 106.4 or higher]. Scaled scores for this composite incorporate three components.	Federal FY 2004 AB	Federal FY 2005 AB	Federal FY 2006 AB
	State Score =	State Score =	State Score =
Component A: Timeliness of Adoptions of Children Discharged From Foster Care. There are two individual measures of this component. See below.
Measure C2 - 1: Exits to adoption in less than 24 months: Of all children who were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in the target 12-month period, what percent was discharged in less than 24 months from the date of the latest removal from home? [National median = 26.8%, 75^th percentile = 36.6%]
Measure C2 - 2: Exits to adoption, median length of stay: Of all children who were discharged from foster care (FC) to a finalized adoption in the target 12-month period, what was the median length of stay in FC (in months) from the date of the latest removal from home to the date of discharge to adoption? [National median = 32.4 months, 75^th percentile = 27.3 months]
Component B: Progress Toward Adoption for Children In Foster Care for 17 Months or Longer. There are two individual measures. See below.
Measure C2 - 3: Children in care 17+ months, adopted by the end of the year: Of all children in foster care (FC) on the first day of the target 12-month period, and who were in FC for 17 continuous months or longer (and who, by the last day of the year shown, were not discharged from FC with a discharge reason of live with relative, reunify, or guardianship), what percent was discharged from FC to a finalized adoption by the last day of the year shown? [National median = 20.2%, 25^th percentile = 22.7% (low is "good" for this measure)]
Measure C2 - 4: Children in care 17+ months achieving legal freedom within 6 months: Of all children in foster care (FC) on the first day of the target 12 month period, and who were in FC for 17 continuous months or longer, and were not legally free for adoption prior to that day, what percent became legally free for adoption during the first 6 months of the year shown? Legally free means that there was a parental rights termination date reported to AFCARS for both mother and father. This calculation excludes children who, by the end of the first 6 months of the year shown had discharged from FC to “reunification,” “live with relative,” or “guardianship.” [National median = 8.8, 75^th percentile = 10.9%]

STATEWIDE AGGREGATE DATA USED IN DETERMINING SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMITY: COMPOSITES 1 THROUGH 4
	Federal FY 2004 AB	Federal FY 2005 AB	Federal FY 2006 AB
Component C: Progress Toward Adoption of Children Who Are Legally Free for Adoption. There is one measure for this component. See below.
Measure C2 - 5: Legally free children adopted in less than 12 months: Of all children who became legally free for adoption in the 12-month period prior to the target 12 month period (i.e., there was a parental rights termination date reported to AFCARS for both mother and father), what percent was discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in less than 12 months of becoming legally free? [National median = 45.8%, 75^th percentile = 53.7%]
XI. Permanency Composite 3: Permanency for Children and Youth in Foster Care for Long Periods of Time [Standard: 121.7 or higher]. Scaled scores for this composite incorporate two components.	State Score =	State Score =	State Score = xx
Component A: Achieving Permanency for Children in Foster Care for Long Periods of Time. This component has two measures.
Measure C3 - 1: Exits to permanency prior to 18th birthday for children in care for 24 + months. Of all children in foster care for 24 months or longer on the first day of the target 12-month period, what percent was discharged to a permanent home prior to their 18th birthday and by the end of the fiscal year? A permanent home is defined as having a discharge reason of adoption, guardianship, or reunification. [National median 25.0%, 75^thpercentile = 29.1%]
Measure C3 - 2: Exits to permanency for children with TPR: Of all children who were discharged from foster care in the target 12-month period, and who were legally free for adoption at the time of discharge (i.e., there was a parental rights termination date reported to AFCARS for both mother and father), what percent was discharged to a permanent home prior to their 18th birthday? A permanent home is defined as having a discharge reason of adoption, guardianship, or reunification. [National median 96.8%, 75^thpercentile = 98.0%]
Component B: Growing Up in Foster Care. This component has one measure.
Measure C3 - 3: Children Emancipated Who Were in Foster Care for 3 Years or More. Of all children who, during the 12-month target period, either (1) were discharged from foster care prior to age 18 with a discharge reason of emancipation, or (2) reached their 18^th birthday while in foster care, what percent were in foster care for 3 years or longer? [National median 47.8%, 25^th percentile = 37.5 % (low is “good” for this measure)]

STATEWIDE AGGREGATE DATA USED IN DETERMINING SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMITY: COMPOSITES 1 THROUGH 4
	Federal FY 2004 AB	Federal FY 2005 AB	Federal FY 2006 AB
XII. Permanency Composite 4: Placement Stability [National standard: 101.5 or higher]. Scaled score for this composite incorporates no components but three individual measures (below).	State Score =	State Score =	State Score =
Measure C4 – 1: Two or fewer placement settings for children in care for less than 12 months: Of all children served in foster care (FC) during the 12-month target period and who were in FC for at least 8 days but less than 12 months, what percent had two or fewer placement settings? [National median = 83.3%, 75^th percentile = 86.0%]
Measure C4 – 2: Two or fewer placement settings for children in care for 12 to 24 months: Of all children served in foster care (FC) during the 12-month target period who were in FC for at least 12 months but less than 24 months, what percent had two or fewer placement settings? [National median = 59.9%, 75^th percentile = 65.4%]
Measure C4 – 3: Two or fewer placement settings for children in care for 24+ months: Of all children served in foster care (FC) during the 12-month target period who were in FC for at least 24 months, what percent had two or fewer placement settings? [National median = 33.9%, 75^th percentile = 41.8%]

Special Footnotes for Composite Measures:

In most cases, a high score is good on the individual measures. In these cases, you will see the 75th percentile listed to indicate that this would be considered a good score. However, in a few instance, a low score is good (shows desirable performance), such as re-entry to foster care. In these cases, the 25th percentile is displayed because that is the target direction for which States will want to strive.

Of course, in actual calculation of the total composite scores, these “low is good” scores on the individual measures are reversed so they can be combined with all the individual scores that are scored in a positive direction, where “high is good.”

This data profile is for illustrating the format and showing the national standards. Changes in the format may be made over time. The permanency data for the 12-month period ending September 30, 2006, were based on the annual file created. All CFSR round one safety results are on page 15; permanency round one results are on page 30.

Permanency Profile First-Time Entry Cohort Group	Federal FY 2004 AB		Federal FY 2005 AB		Federal FY 2006 AB
Permanency Profile First-Time Entry Cohort Group	# of Children	% of Children	# of Children	% of Children	# of Children	% of Children
I. Number of Children Entering Care for the First Time in Cohort Group (% = first-time entry of all entering within first 6 months)

II. Most Recent Placement Types
Pre-adoptive Homes
Foster Family Homes (Relative)
Foster Family Homes (Non-relative)
Group Homes
Institutions
Supervised Independent Living
Runaway
Trial Home Visit
Missing Placement Information
Not Applicable (Placement in Subsequent Year)

III. Most Recent Permanency Goal
Reunification
Live With Other Relatives
Adoption
Long-Term Foster Care
Emancipation
Guardianship
Case Plan Goal Not Established
Missing Goal Information

Permanency Profile First-Time-Entry Cohort Group	Federal FY 2004 AB		Federal FY 2005 AB		Federal FY 2006 AB
Permanency Profile First-Time-Entry Cohort Group	# of Children	% of Children	# of Children	% of Children	# of Children	% of Children
IV. Number of Placement Settings in Current Episode
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six or More
Missing Placement Settings

V. Reason for Discharge
Reunification/Relative Placement
Adoption
Guardianship
Other
Unknown (Missing Discharge Reason or NA)

	Number of Months		Number of Months		Number of Months
VI. Median Length of Stay in Foster Care

AFCARS DATA COMPLETENESS AND QUALITY INFORMATION*
	Federal FY 2004 AB		Federal FY 2005 AB		Federal FY 2006 AB
	N	As a Percent of Exits Reported	N	As a Percent of Exits Reported	N	As a Percent of Exits Reported
File Contains Children Who Appear to Have Been in Care Less Than 24 Hours
File Contains Children Who Appear to Have Exited Before They Entered
Missing Dates of Latest Removal
File Contains “Dropped Cases” Between Report Periods With No Indication as to Discharge
Missing Discharge Reasons

	N	As a Percent of Adoption Exits	N	As a Percent of Adoption Exits	N	As a Percent of Adoption Exits
File Submitted Lacks Data on Termination of Parental Rights for Finalized Adoptions
Foster Care File Has Different Count Than Adoption File of (Public Agency) Adoptions (N=Adoption Count Disparity)

	N	As a Percent of Cases Having Missing Data	N	As a Percent of Cases Having Missing Data	N	As a Percent of Cases Having Missing Data
File Submitted Lacks Count of Number of Placement Settings in Episode for Each Child

*2% or more is a warning sign.

PERMANENCY AGGREGATE DATA USED TO DETERMINE SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMITY IN ROUND ONE*
	Federal FY 2004 AB		Federal FY 2005 AB		Federal FY 2006 AB
	# of Children	% of Children	# of Children	% of Children	# of Children	% of Children
IX. Of all children who were reunified with their parents or caretakers at the time of discharge from foster care, what percentage was reunified in less than 12 months from the time of the latest removal from home? (4.1) [Standard: 76.2% or more]
X. Of all children who exited care to a finalized adoption, what percentage exited care in less than 24 months from the time of the latest removal from home? (5.1) [Standard: 32.0% or more]
XI. Of all children served who have been in foster care less than 12 months from the time of the latest removal from home, what percentage have had no more than two placement settings? (6.1) [Standard: 86.7% or more]
XII. Of all children who entered care during the year, what percentage re- entered foster care within 12 months of a prior foster care episode? (4.2) [Standard: 8.6% or less]

*These are CFSR round one permanency measures. They are intended to be used primarily by States completing round one Program Improvement Plans, but also could be useful to States in CFSR round two in comparing their current performance to that of prior years.

Footnotes to Data Elements in the Permanency Profile

We designated the indicator, 17 of the most recent 22 months, rather than the statutory time frame for initiating termination of Parental Rights proceedings at 15 of the most 22 months, since the AFCARS system cannot determine the date the child is considered to have entered foster care as defined in the regulation. We used the outside date for determining the date the child is considered to have entered foster care, which is 60 days from the actual removal date.

This countonly includes case records missing a discharge reason, but which have calculable lengths of stay. Records missing a discharge reason and with non-calculable lengths of stay are included in the cell “Dates are Problematic.”

The dates of removal and exit needed to calculate length of stay are problematic. Such problems include: 1) missing data, 2) faulty data (chronologically impossible), 3) a child was in care less than 1 day (length of stay = 0) so the child should not have been reported in foster care file, or 4) child's length of stay would equal 21 years or more. These cases are marked NA = Not Applicable because no length of stay can legitimately be calculated.

Section III – Narrative Assessment of Child and Family Outcomes

Instructions

To complete the narrative assessment for each outcome item, including the data analysis, State agencies should do the following:

Describe and compare any changes in data over time, specifically including changes since the previous Statewide Assessment and Program Improvement Plan (PIP), the reasons for those changes, the factors affecting the numbers, and the effect on the safety, permanency, and well-being outcomes.

Describe the additional data, case review, or interview results that could explain the reasons for the numbers or outcomes.

Discuss each item even if no change is detected, and describe whether or not the lack of change is a desirable outcome.

For the outcome items that are to be measured against the national standards and composite measures, discuss the State’s performance as indicated in the data profile provided for the Statewide Assessment, compare it with the national standard and individual data elements in the composite measure, and determine its level of conformity on the basis of the most recent year included in the profile. Describe the issues or factors that may have affected the item’s level of conformity, including changes since the first Statewide Assessment and PIP.

Use the exploratory issues to thoroughly address the factors that affect each item and to evaluate how effectively the State is performing with regard to each outcome.

A. Safety

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

Item 1: Timeliness of initiating investigations of reports of child maltreatment. How effective is the agency in responding to incoming reports of child maltreatment in a timely manner?