Annual Program Report

OMB Control No: 0970-0307
Expiration Date: 06/30/2012

ACF
Administration

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families
1. Log No: ACYF-CB-PI-12-02

2. Issuance Date: 01/11/2012

For Children

3. Originating Office: Children‟s Bureau

And Families

4. Key Words: State Court Improvement Program Basic, Data Collection and
Analysis and Training Grants

PROGRAM INSTRUCTION
TO:

Highest State Courts of Appeal

SUBJECT:

Instructions for State Courts Applying for Court Improvement Program
(CIP) Funds for Fiscal Years (FYs) 2012-2016.

REFERENCES:

Section 438 of the Social Security Act; Section 7401 of the Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005 (Public Law (P.L.) 109-171); titles IV-B and IV-E
of the Social Security Act (the Act). The Child and Family Services
Improvement and Innovation Act (P.L. 112-34).

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this Program Instruction (PI) is to set forth the eligibility
requirements and grant application procedures for CIP grants for FYs
2012 through 2016 and provide guidance on the requirements for State
courts to assess and improve the handling of proceedings related to foster
care and adoption, and engagement of the entire family in court processes
relating to child welfare, family preservation, family reunification and
adoption.

BACKGROUND:

The CIP funds three grants that the highest State court of each State can
apply for: a basic grant, a grant for data collection and analysis, and a
grant for training. The basic CIP grant was funded under the Promoting
Safe and Stable Families Program to enable State courts to conduct
assessments of the role, responsibilities and effectiveness of State courts in
carrying out State laws relating to foster care and adoption proceedings.
Improvements made under the grant are required to provide for the safety,
well-being, and permanence of children in foster care and assist in the
implementation of Program Improvement Plans (PIPs) jointly developed

by the State agency, courts and the Children‟s Bureau (CB) staff as a
result of the Child and Family Services and title IV-E Foster Care
Eligibility Reviews. The basic CIP grant was first enacted in 1993 and
reauthorized in 1997, 2001 and 2006.
The data and training grants were authorized for five years by the Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171) beginning in FY 2006. The data
grant was created to facilitate State court data collection and analysis and
promote data sharing between State courts and child welfare agencies.
The training grant was created to increase child welfare expertise within
the legal community and facilitate cross-training opportunities among
agencies, courts and other key stakeholders. The basic, training and data
grants all received continued funding for FY 2011 under a continuing
resolution.
On September 30, 2011, the President signed the Child and Family
Services Improvement and Innovation Act (P.L. 112-34) into law,
reauthorizing all three CIP grants through FY 2016. The Child and
Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act adds provisions
encouraging State courts to promote the use of concurrent planning and
increase and improve engagement of the entire family in court processes
relating to child welfare, family preservation, family reunification and
adoption. It also allocated one million dollars to establish a Tribal Court
Improvement Program. Awards for the Tribal CIP will be made on a
competitive basis. Information on the Tribal CIP Funding Opportunity
Announcement will be published separately.
INFORMATION: Organization of the Program Instruction:
Section I.
Section II.
Section III.
Section IV.
Section V.
Section VI.
Section VII.
I.

Instruction for State Courts
Programmatic Requirements for CIP Grants
Application Requirements
Strategic Plan Requirements
Data Collection and Reporting Requirements
Annual Program Assessment Report Requirements
Annual Fiscal Reporting Requirements

INSTRUCTION

This PI describes the application procedures and reporting requirements
for CIP grants for FYs 2012-2016 and explains how State courts must plan
for, implement, amend, update and report on the programs and activities
they support using grant funds. State courts must comply with the
requirements delineated in this PI as a prerequisite to receiving CIP funds.

2

Eligibility
The highest State court of each State that participates in the programs
funded under title IV-E of the Act is eligible to apply for CIP funds. The
term “highest State court” means the judicial tribunal that is the ultimate
court of appeals in the State and responsible for the implementation of the
CIP grants. Although the highest State court is the designated applicant
for the grant, the application must reflect meaningful and ongoing
collaboration among State and local courts, State and local child welfare
agencies and, where applicable, Indian Tribes.
A State court may apply for one, two or all three CIP grants. It is not
necessary for a State to receive the basic CIP grant to be eligible to receive
either the data or training grant.
Funding
Allotments: For each grant, each State court with an approved
application will be allotted $85,000 and, after the sum of all States‟
base amounts is subtracted from the total appropriation, a percentage
of the remainder based on the State‟s proportionate share of children
under age 21. (See Section 438(c) of the Act.) Estimated allotments
for FY 2012 are based on the FY 2011 allotments for each of the three
grants and included as Attachment E of this document. The
Administration for Children and Families (ACF) will issue estimated
allotments annually for FYs 2012-2016.
Project Period: Each State court must obligate its Federal funds by the
end of the following fiscal year, with an additional 90 days to liquidate
any outstanding obligations. ACF does not have the authority to grant
an extension of a program expenditure period. Any funds remaining
unobligated or un-liquidated by the respective deadlines will be
recouped by ACF and returned to the U.S. Treasury through the
issuance of a negative grant award.
Cost Sharing Requirement: A non-Federal share is required for each
CIP grant at the rate of 25 percent of the total budget (1/3 of the
Federal share). For example, a project totaling $100,000 would
require a State court contribution of $25,000 to receive Federal funds
totaling $75,000. Funds eligible to be used as non-Federal share must
meet the regulatory provisions of 45 CFR 92.24, which establishes the
rules for cost sharing.
In accordance with these provisions, funds eligible to be used as nonFederal share, among other things:

3

o Must not be Federal grant funds, unless specifically allowed by
Federal statute;
o Must not be used to match any other Federal grant;
o Must be used for costs that are otherwise allowable. (i.e. the nonFederal share, like the Federal share must also be used for the
purposes described in Section 438 of the Act and this program
instruction);
o May originate with a third party, public or non-public; and
o May be in-kind contributions of services, equipment, or property.
Indirect Costs: If a State court wishes to receive reimbursement for
indirect costs within its allotment as a part of a CIP grant, it must have
an approved indirect cost rate with the cognizant Federal agency. The
cognizant Federal agency is that Federal agency that provides the most
funds to the State court. If a State court has not been assigned a
cognizant agency, it should work with the Federal agency from which
it receives the largest amount of funds to negotiate and receive
approval of indirect cost proposals.
Drawdown of Funds from the Payment Management System: In
accordance with P.L. 101-510, any grant funds that have been
expended within the two-year program expenditure period must be
drawn down within five years from the fiscal year for which the funds
were awarded (e.g., FY 2012 funds must be drawn down by no later
than September 30, 2016). Requests for adjustments/revisions to the
Payment Management account after five years will not be approved.
II.

PROGRAMMATIC REQUIREMENTS FOR CIP GRANTS
a. Meaningful and Ongoing Collaboration

State courts are required to demonstrate “meaningful, ongoing
collaboration” among the courts in the State, the title IV-B/IV-E agency,
and where applicable, Indian Tribes in their CIP applications in order to
receive funding (Section 438(b)(1)(C) of the Act.) “Meaningful, ongoing
collaboration” means that the courts and title IV-B/IV-E agencies will
identify and work toward shared goals and activities to increase the safety,
permanency, and well-being of children in the child welfare system. To
satisfy this requirement, State courts must: (1) create a multi-disciplinary
statewide task force to guide CIP activities; and (2) describe how they will
work with the title IV-B/IV-E agency to meet grant requirements. Please
note that the creation of the Tribal CIP in no way diminishes the
requirement for ongoing and meaningful collaboration with the Tribes
under the basic, data collection and analysis and training grants.

4

i. Statewide Multidisciplinary Task Force
State courts must form a statewide multidisciplinary task force which
includes, State and local courts, the State title IV-B/IV-E agency, and
where applicable Indian Tribes. In addition to the mandatory task force
members, other suggested members include representatives of: parent‟s
counsel; children‟s attorneys or guardians ad litem; counsel for the title
IV-B/IV-E agency or State; Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA)
programs; the mental health/behavioral health treatment provider
community; the substance abuse treatment provider community; the State
department of education; other relevant State departments or agencies;
relevant county agencies; local school districts and, foster care alumni.
State courts must convene the task force at least annually and consult with
the task force in developing and implementing strategic plans and
monitoring progress toward outcomes to meet the requirements of this
program instruction.
ii. Collaboration with Title IV-B/IV-E Agency and
Tribes
State courts must demonstrate collaboration with the title IV-B/IV-E
agency in applications for CIP funding by describing how the title IVB/IV-E agency and Tribes, where applicable, are involved in:
identifying, defining and assessing outcomes;
developing the strategic plan; and
planning how the State court will respond to CFSR and title IV-E
Foster Care Eligibility Review findings and participate in PIP
activities related to court functioning and performance that relate
to the purposes of the Act within PIP timeframes.1
Collaboration should result in institutional and infrastructural changes that
lead to measurably improved outcomes for the children and families that
the State is serving. One example of the above is for the State court and
the title IV-B/IV-E agency to regularly meet to examine State Adoption
and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) data and
establish activities for both the court and agency to target for
improvement, such as improving placement stability or increasing the
number of children that achieve timely reunification, adoptions or
guardianships.

1

It is also important to note that there is a corresponding State agency requirement to demonstrate collaboration with
State courts. Specifically, the Act requires State child welfare agencies to demonstrate substantial, ongoing and
meaningful collaboration with State courts in the development and implementation of its State plans under titles IVB and IV-E and PIPs developed as a result of the Child and Family Services and IV-E Foster Care Eligibility
Reviews. See Section 422(b)(13) of the Act.

5

Another example of collaboration could include the formation of a work
group consisting of representatives from the State court, title IV-B/IV-E
agency and State and local departments of education. This work group
would meet regularly to examine data concerning educational stability and
educational outcomes for youth in care. Such a group could work to
enhance data sharing with the goal of ensuring that foster youth receive all
necessary and appropriate educational services and opportunities.
b. Assessment and Continuous Quality Improvement
Previous PIs for CIP grants required periodic assessments2 to prompt
examination of current law, policy and practice and to identify areas in
need of improvement to be addressed through CIP grant activity.
However, there were no requirements for assessment activities to continue
beyond the reporting period or for CIP activities to be explicitly linked to
assessment findings and recommendations. While the requirement led
many States to revisit and revise certain aspects of policy and practice and
make point-in-time interventions, few interventions were designed to
promote ongoing monitoring and assessment.
A significant body of research literature now highlights the importance of
using data to identify, inform and systematically monitor the
implementation and results of programs and interventions in an ongoing
fashion. Rather than one-time assessments and interventions, efforts to
implement Continuous Quality Improvement3 (CQI) have proven more
effective in achieving positive outcomes.
The Children‟s Bureau, in consultation with key stakeholders, determined
that CQI is critical to improving outcomes for children and families for
both title IV-B/IV-E agencies and State courts. Many State courts have
made significant progress in improving outcomes for children and families
through collaborative efforts with title IV-B/IV-E agencies, such as jointly
training staff, exchanging data, and working together to identify
challenges, promising practices and strategies for improvement.

2

The first PI in 1994 required an assessment of the functioning of the State court systems (see
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws_policies/policy/pi/1994/pi9412.htm). In 2004, State courts were required
to re-assess their earlier findings, particularly in light of ASFA and CIP reform efforts. State courts were also
directed to update the reports to address strengths and weaknesses discovered during the first round of CFSRs (see
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws_policies/policy/pi/2003/pi0304.htm#five). Finally, in 2007, State courts
were required to conduct an assessment of their effectiveness in carrying out laws related to the Safe and Timely
Interstate Placement of Foster Children Act, Public Law (P.L.) 109-239 (see:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws_policies/policy/pi/2007/pi0709.htm).
3
For purposes of this PI, „continuous quality improvement (CQI)” is used and defined in a general, programmatic
fashion to mean that data is used to identify, inform, monitor and improve progress toward outcomes in an ongoing
fashion. State courts may design systems and approaches to ensure continuous quality improvement that meet their
particular needs with available resources.

6

Consistent with CB‟s focus on continuous improvement, State courts
receiving CIP grants are now required to implement approaches for CQI to
ensure that proceedings related to child abuse and neglect promote:
(1) due process of law;
(2) timely, thorough and complete4 court hearings;
(3) high quality legal representation5 to parents, children and title IVB/IV-E agencies, both in and out of court, in an ongoing fashion;
and
(4) engagement of the entire family in court processes relating to child
welfare, family preservation, family reunification and adoption.
State courts must focus on incorporating CQI into CIP activities for each
grant by identifying:
the outcomes they intend to achieve;
measurable objectives to determine progress toward achieving
outcomes;
the data that will be necessary to monitor progress and measure
success;
how those data will be measured; and
who will be responsible for measuring and presenting the data.
State courts must develop activities to meet stated outcomes and
approaches that include the following components:
use of data to identify needs and shape the type of interventions
undertaken;
ongoing monitoring and data collection to measure and track the
progress of interventions and activities, including but not limited to
timeliness and quality indicators of hearings and legal
representation;

4

There are a number of indicators that may increase the likelihood that a quality hearing will or has occurred. Such
indicators provide evidence that the hearing was timely, thorough and complete including a meaningful review of
safety, case plans and permanency goals. A list of quality indicators is provided in Attachment A. For further
discussion of what constitutes quality court hearings see the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
(NCJFCJ) Resource Guidelines, http://www.ncjfcj.org/images/stories/dept/ppcd/pdf/resguide.pdf; see also the
National Center for State Courts (NCSC) Building a Better Court, http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgibin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/famct&CISOPTR=63.
5
Attachment B contains a list of indicators that may provide evidence that parties are receiving quality legal
representation. For further information on improving the quality of legal representation in dependency cases see the
Quality Improvement Center on the Legal Representation of Children in Child Welfare System website at:
http://www.improvechildrep.org. See also the ABA Parents Representation Project website at:
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/child_law/projects_initiatives/parentrepresentation.html.

7

a method for analyzing data on CIP interventions and activities,
including, but not limited to: timeliness and quality indicators of
hearings and legal representation; and
a feedback mechanism involving stakeholders for using data to
identify, inform, and implement midcourse adjustments and
modifications to improve CIP interventions and activities.
The scope of activities may vary among State courts based on the size of
the award received, structure of the court system, current court data
capacities, number of CIP staff and other available resources.
In addition to the activities identified and developed by the State court,
specific court-related issues or concerns identified in the CFSR and title
IV-E Foster Care Eligibility Review processes, and in particular issues
under court responsibility identified as in need of improvement, not in
substantial conformity, or in error, must be explicitly stated and addressed
in strategic plans and addressed to ensure continuous improvement.
c.

Outcome Focused CIP Activities

State courts must clearly identify the outcomes they seek to achieve with
CIP activities and develop measurable objectives to determine progress in
achieving those outcomes. While some CIP activities may tie exclusively
to one particular grant funding stream, most outcomes require
combinations of all three funding streams and a comprehensive,
coordinated approach.
Activities are required to fall into one or more of the following strategic
categories to help achieve measurable outcomes, each equally applicable
to all combinations of CIP grants.
Court Function Improvement (e.g., improving and monitoring
the timeliness and quality of court hearings and legal
representation, improving court orders, increasing and improving
the engagement of the entire family in court processes relating to
child welfare, family preservation, family reunification and
adoption; ensuring full participation of parties with limited English
proficiency in court processes; improving the handling of cases
involving the interstate placement of children; improving the
handling of cases involving Indian Children and the Indian Child
Welfare Act; incorporating trauma-informed services and
evidence-based practices into court and legal representation
practice).
Capacity Building (e.g., Increasing judicial and attorney
knowledge and expertise; cross-training with multidisciplinary
8

stakeholders; collecting data and developing data collection
infrastructure,6 sharing data with the title IV-B/IV-E child welfare
agency, State departments of education and other State agencies
responsible for child well-being (including automated efforts to
achieve interoperability with other systems through the use of a
national data exchange standard such as the National Information
Exchange Model (NIEM),7 and bi-directional interfaces with
Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information Systems
(SACWIS)8); improving and increasing the engagement of the
entire family in court processes; increasing collaborative work with
Tribes, incorporating trauma-informed services and evidencebased practices into court and legal representation practice, and
improving and monitoring dependency court emergency and
disaster preparedness9).
Systemic Reform (e.g., State legislative and law reform
initiatives, judicial leadership activities, CIP participation in
Statewide committees, work groups and other collaborative bodies;
collaboration with Tribes; efforts to encourage and promote
concurrent planning pursuant to ASFA, increasing and improving
the engagement of the entire family in court processes relating to
child welfare, family preservation, family reunification and
adoption; court involvement with title IV-E/IV-B agency CQI
activities; participation in the CFSR and title IV-E Foster Care
Eligibility Review processes).
6

Funds from the CIP data collection and analysis grant must be used to improve proceedings related to child abuse
and neglect cases. Funds cannot be used to build segments of a Management Information System (MIS) that are
intended for other types of cases (i.e., an MIS for the entire family court or for all juvenile court proceedings). State
courts are highly encouraged to use these funds to: pay for a proportionate share of the common architecture of a
larger specialized segment of the MIS (i.e., for family court or juvenile justice proceedings); pay for the child abuse
and neglect portion of the MIS or of a larger segment of the MIS; adapt or customize existing MIS systems
specifically for abuse and neglect; create abuse and neglect modules within the MIS system; pay for interfaces for
exchange of information with the child welfare agency (SACWIS) and others; and pay for projects to share data
with other entities.
7
The National Information Exchange Model (NIEM) enables information sharing among government agencies by
offering an XML standard, proven methodology, and a tool suite for developing data exchange specifications. The
NIEM exchange framework represents a collaborative partnership of agencies and organizations across all levels of
government (Federal, State, Tribal, and local) and with private industry. See https://www.niem.gov. NIEM training
and technical assistance are available to State Court Improvement Programs through CB‟s National Resource
Centers and other avenues.
8
State courts are highly encouraged to explore and discuss with the title IV-B/IV-E child welfare agency the
possibility of implementing information sharing interfaces with existing SACWIS systems that support the
calculation of court-specific performance measures, as such activity may be eligible for SACWIS funding.
9
The ABA Center on Children and the Law and National Council for Juvenile and Family Court Judges issued a
technical assistance bulletin especially for disaster planning in dependency court, which is available at:
http://www.ncjfcj.org/images/stories/dept/ppcd/pdf/katrina%20ta%20brief%20final.pdf. See also
https://www.ncsconline.org/What'sNew/NewsAlerts/NewsAlertHaveRecoveryPlan.html; and
http://www.icmeducation.org/katrina/content.html.

9

If a State court would like to pursue an activity with CIP funding that does
not fall within or directly connect to one of the above categories, prior
approval from the CB Regional Office is necessary.
III.

APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

A complete application including all of the requirements detailed below
will be due for FY 2012. New applications will not be required for States
that receive CIP grants in FY 2012 until the close of FY 2016. Continued
funding for interim years (2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016) will be contingent
upon successful demonstration of progress toward outcomes through
periodic review calls hosted by CB, annually updated strategic plans and
year-end program assessment reports. Annual letters of assurance from
the highest State court and the title IV-B/IV-E agency are required to
demonstrate continued commitment and satisfaction of CIP requirements.
State courts that elect not to apply for all of the CIP grants in FY 2012, but
wish to do so in a future year may apply for any of the CIP grants not
received in FY 2012 at the close of the interim Federal Fiscal Years
(FFYs). To receive funding, State courts applying in interim years must
submit applications meeting all of the requirements below.
Applications for FY 2012 CIP Grants
For FY 2012, State courts must submit a single application to the
appropriate CB Regional Office and Federal Project Officer clearly
identifying each type of CIP grant for which they wish to apply. Each
application must include the following components:
1.

A budget narrative;

2. A letter from the highest State court requesting funding for FY 2012,
specifying which CIP grants the State wishes to apply for including
assurances that:
a. the court has in effect a rule requiring State courts to ensure
that foster parents, pre-adoptive parents, and relative caregivers
of a child in foster care under the responsibility of the State are
notified of any proceeding held with respect to the child and
are afforded the right to be heard;
b. at least one representative per each CIP grant received (with a
maximum of six reps per State) will attend the annual CIP
Grantee Meeting each year funding is received;

10

3. A letter of support from the State agency administering the title IV-B
and IV-E programs that assures:
a. ongoing collaboration with the State court on CIP and PIP
activities;
b. invitation and inclusion of the State court or appointed
designees to participate in the CFSR, title IV-E Foster Care
Eligibility Review and program improvement processes;
c. ongoing engagement, consultation and coordination with the
State court on the Child and Family Services Plan (CFSP) and
Annual Progress and Services Report (APSR) as required by
45 CFR 1357.16.
d. ongoing administrative data sharing, including AFCARS and
SACWIS data with the State court.
4. A description clearly articulating why each individual grant for which
the State court is applying is necessary and how the funds specific to
each grant will be used to promote the identified objectives;
5. A description of how the State court will implement CQI approaches
to use data in identifying needs and desired outcomes and measuring
progress toward those outcomes;
6. A description of the collaboration (who and how) that has taken place
in preparing the grant application;
7. A list of the members of the statewide multidisciplinary taskforce
including the:
a. name of the member;
b. professional affiliation, and
c. title
8. A description of how the identified stakeholders will meaningfully
collaborate on the activities for which the grant funds will be used;
9. A proposed strategic plan that reflects use of all three grants for at
least two years and incorporates identified approaches to ensure
continuous quality improvement (State courts have discretion to plan
for up to five years); and

11

10. Certifications:
a. An Anti-Lobbying Certification and Disclosure Form must be
signed and submitted with the State‟s CIP application(s) pursuant
to 45 CFR Part 93; and
b. If applicable, a SF-LLL, which discloses lobbying payments, also
must be submitted.
The signature on the State court‟s CIP application by an authorized
official attests to the applicant‟s intent to comply with each of the
following certifications:10
o Certification Regarding Drug-Free Work Place;
o Debarment Certification; and
o Certification Regarding Environmental Tobacco Smoke.
Submitting an Application
State courts must submit applications in MS Word, electronically to the
appropriate CB Regional Office (See Attachment F) and David Kelly,
Federal Project Officer, at [email protected] via e-mail. CB will
approve applications that satisfy the requirements and purposes described
at Section 438 of the Act and the requirements described in this PI.
Applications for FY 2012 will be due on February 29, 2012.
Please note that the obligation period for FY 2012 grants began on
October 1, 2011.
For State courts that elect not to apply for all three CIP grants for FY
2012, applications will be due during interim years (FYs 2013-2016) on
August 30.
Annual letters of assurance as described in the application section of this
PI will be due on August 30 for each of the interim years for all States
applying for or receiving CIP grants.
IV.

STRATEGIC PLAN REQUIREMENTS

State courts are required to submit a single strategic plan for at least two
years that includes outcomes and activities for all CIP grants received.
Strategic plans are the primary way that State courts will communicate
their intended outcomes and objectives to CB. Strategic plans are living
documents that are required to be reviewed, updated and approved
annually to demonstrate progress toward objectives. Progress reported on
10

It is not necessary to include these certifications with the application.

12

the strategic plan will form the centerpiece of year-end program
assessment reports for interim years (FYs 2013-2016). Strategic plans
must incorporate approaches for CQI and accurately reflect:
anticipated outcomes for improved court functioning, family
improvement, and/or capacity building for the court;
measurable objectives and related activities to be conducted for
each anticipated outcome under each CIP grant received; and
use of data and findings in improving or retooling program
components.
CIP strategic plans are required to include specific plans for participation
in the CFSR and title IV-E Foster Care Eligibility Review processes
including efforts to assist in preparation for reviews, and participation in
and on:
review teams;
entrance and exit interviews; and
program improvement plan (PIP) teams.
State courts should provide performance, outcome and any additional
relevant data collected through required CIP activities to the teams
working on the CFSR and title IV-E Foster Care Eligibility Reviews.
CIP strategic plans and annual program assessment reports are required to
clearly demonstrate meaningful and ongoing collaboration among the
courts of the State, the title IV-B/IV-E agency and, where applicable,
Indian Tribes.
In an effort to strengthen the CIP and allow for enhanced appraisal of
overall program success, a new single, combined, Strategic Plan/Annual
Program Assessment Report template is included as Attachment C of this
document. The template is designed to enhance uniformity in reporting
and to ensure that the State court is utilizing CQI processes and accurately
addressing and reporting activities. The template serves as the central
component of the required annual program assessment report as it enables
users to easily provide chronological annual strategic plan and narrative
updates. State courts are strongly encouraged to utilize the template;
however, its use is not mandatory.
Regardless of whether the template is used, Strategic Plans must
provide the following information for each activity:
1. Need(s): Identify the issue(s) driving the implementation of the
activity and the data source that justifies or supports the need: How
was the need identified? What data was used to identify it? ( e.g., CIP
assessment or reassessment, CFSR report, title IV-E Foster Care
13

Eligibility Review report, focus group work, survey work, data review,
case file review, etc.).
2. Outcome(s): Specify the change in law, process, or practice or target
audience in terms of content, procedure, knowledge, skills, attitudes,
behaviors, capacity, or conditions the State court seeks to make.
3. Measurable Objective(s): Identify the measurable step(s) toward
accomplishing the outcome within a specified period of time.
4. Strategic Category: Classify the type of activities or projects (can be
more than one) necessary to reach the desired outcome (e.g. court
function improvement, capacity building, systemic reform).
5. Description of Activity or Project: Describe the specific actions or
projects that will be completed to produce specific outputs and
demonstrate progress toward the outcome.
6. CIP Funding Stream(s): Specify which CIP grant (basic, data,
training grant) will be used to fund the activity (can be more than one),
and any additional non-CIP funding being used that the court wishes to
identify.
7. Collaborative Partner(s): Identify the responsible parties and
partners involved in implementation of the activity.
8. Timeframe: Provide the proposed completion date or, if appropriate,
“ongoing”.
9. Anticipated Output(s) and Result(s) of the Activity: Identify,
define and describe what the State court intends to produce, provide or
accomplish through the activity. Measurable units of service provided,
or number of people served by a program or policy; or a count of
goods and services produced (e.g., training a certain number of judges,
creation of a bench book or curriculum, new legislative proposal,
establishment of an Memorandum of Understanding) are all examples
of acceptable quantifiable achievements.
10. Target Improvement(s): Indicate, where relevant and practicable,
the specific changes in data the State court intends to achieve (e.g., 95
percent of permanency hearings occurring on time, 50 percent increase
in the number of children and youth attending hearing).
11. Feedback Vehicle(s): Provide a brief description of the stakeholders
with whom the data will be shared and how it will be used to guide
improvement work (e.g., CIP multidisciplinary task force reviews,
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) review, judicial districts,
joint reviews with the title IV-B/IV-E agency).

14

V.

DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS

Given the critical role data play in promoting continuous improvement and
demonstrating progress, CB worked with stakeholders to identify specific
timeliness measures to assist courts in tracking and assessing compliance
with Federally required timelines. Four of the measures are taken from
Court Performance Measures in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases
(commonly known as the “Toolkit”). The Toolkit is a set of resources
developed by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
the National Center on State Courts, the National Council of Juvenile and
Family Court Judges and the American Bar Association‟s Center on
Children and the Law in 2008.11 One measure is an expansion of a
Toolkit Measure. The Toolkit Measures were selected based on
importance to court function, relevance of these data to CFSR and title
IV-E Foster Care Eligibility Reviews and the feasibility of courts
collecting the relevant data.
The timeliness measures that will be required for data collection and
reporting are:
1. Time to First Permanency Hearing (Toolkit Measure 4G): The
median time from the filing of the original petition to first permanency
hearing (how long it takes to complete the first permanency hearing).
2. Time to all Subsequent Permanency Hearings (No Toolkit
Measure Available): The median length of time in days between
each subsequent permanency hearing that occurs until final
permanency is achieved. For example, the number of days between
the first permanency hearing and the second permanency hearing, the
second permanency hearing and third, etc, for each hearing that occurs
while the child remains in care.
3. Time to Permanent Placement (Toolkit Measure 4A): The median
time from filing of the original petition to legal permanency (how long
it takes for children in abuse and neglect cases to achieve legal
permanency, following the filing of the original petition). “Legal
Permanency” means that there is a permanent and secure legal
relationship between the adult caregiver and the child, including
reunification, adoption, legal guardianship or placement with a fit and
willing relative.

11

http://www.ojjdp.gov/publications/courttoolkit.html.

15

4. Time to Termination of Parental Rights Petition (Toolkit Measure
4H): Where reunification has not been achieved, the median time from
filing of the original petition to filing the petition to terminate parental
rights (how long it takes from the date the original child abuse or
neglect petition is filed to the date the termination of parental rights
petition is filed).
5. Time to Termination of Parental Rights (Toolkit Measure 4I):
Where reunification has not been achieved, the median time from
filing of the original child abuse and neglect petition to the termination
of parental rights (how long it takes from the date the original child
abuse and neglect petition was filed to the date the termination of
parental rights proceeding is completed).
To meet the timeliness measures reporting requirement, States, at a
minimum, are required to develop a plan to implement and report on the
above the measures as part of the FY 2012 application. Submission of
data on each of the measures listed will be required annually beginning in
FY 2013. States that currently have the ability to report on these
measures, additional toolkit measures, or other data relevant to the CFSR
are strongly encouraged to do so.
Monitoring these data will provide courts a point to begin identifying
strengths and areas in need of improvement. For example, if hearings are
occurring timely, the court can monitor to ensure that they continue to be
so and begin examining the quality of those hearings. If hearings are not
timely, or stop being so, a flag is raised indicating possible system or
practice problems for which additional inquiry is necessary.
For State courts that do not currently have automated systems, or for
whom statewide court data are not available, alternative data collection
methods are required. State courts are required to indentify, explain and
report on the methods selected. Alternative options to consider include:
Data from local court databases, where available;
Data from State title IV-B/IV-E agency databases (e.g., SACWIS,
AFCARS);
Systematic or sampling methods to collect data on a county, pilot or
multiple county basis; and
Manual data collection activities:
o Periodic court observation using a standardized protocol;
o Periodic court file review using a standardized protocol;
o Judicial and attorney individual interviews, focus groups or
surveys;

16

o Agency and stakeholder interviews, focus groups or
surveys; and
o Other (State courts should describe).
Each of the above methods should be useful in meeting data reporting
requirements and helping to identify strengths and areas in need of
improvement in current processes and practice.
VI.

ANNUAL PROGRAM ASSESSMENT REPORT
REQUIREMENTS

State courts must submit a single, consolidated annual program assessment
report, in MS Word, covering all CIP grants received. Rather than simply
providing a catalog of activities undertaken, the report must demonstrate
how activities have advanced outcomes identified in the strategic plan.
The primary content required in the program assessment report can be
provided by updating the Strategic Plan /Annual Program Assessment
Report template to reflect progress made toward anticipated outcomes and
activities completed during the reporting period (for FY 2012 that would
mean from October 1, 2011 through September 30, 2012). The template is
included as Attachment C to this document and also available on the
National Child Welfare Resource Center for Legal and Judicial Issues
(NRCLJI) website and the CIP Community of Practice. State courts are
strongly encouraged to utilize the template; however, its use is not
mandatory.
All annual year-end program assessment reports must include the
following:
An accounting of the 11 required elements of the Strategic Plan as
detailed in section IV of these instructions, including results of
implemented activities;
For FY 2012, an analysis of collected and/or available data on
timeliness and quality indicators of hearings and legal representation;
An explanation of how the data have or will be used to identify,
inform, and implement necessary interventions and reforms to improve
the timeliness and quality of hearings and legal representation;
A description of improvements in data collection both in quantity and
quality;
Suggestions of how alternative or enhanced data collection (e.g. data
mining) may be possible and the creation of action plans towards that
end; and
Beginning with FY 2013, data to measure timeliness of hearings and
indicators of the quality of hearings and legal representation,
including:
17

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Time to first permanency hearing;
Time to subsequent permanency hearings;
Time to filing of termination of parental rights petition;
Time to termination of parental rights; and
Time to permanent placement.

Beginning with FY 2013, data on the above five timeliness measures must
be included in the program assessment report due December 29, 2013 (for
the period of October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2013). The data
report must include:
1. Initial baseline data at the beginning of the grant period;
2. The targeted or projected levels of improvement in the
measure;
3. The annual rate or level of performance after each year of
implementation;
4. The difference from the previous annual rate;
5. The difference from the baseline (starting after year two of
implementation); and
6. Identification of any of the above measures that were targeted
for improvement with CIP activities.
A template for the timeliness measures to guide State courts in reporting
the elements of these data for each measure is included in Attachment D.
Program assessment reports are due 90 days after the end of the fiscal year
(December 29). State courts must submit the reports to the appropriate
CB Regional Office and The Federal Project Officer, David Kelly at:
[email protected] electronically via email.
In addition a copy of the program assessment report must be submitted
concurrently to Alicia Davis of the National Resource Center for Legal
and Judicial Issues at the National Center for State Courts at:
[email protected] electronically via email.
CB will host individual calls with each State court to review State court
progress in meeting grant requirements, identified outcomes and to
provide guidance and support at least annually.
VII.

ANNUAL FISCAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

An interim financial report, covering the current fiscal year, must be
submitted no later than 90 days following the end of the current FFY. In
addition, and in accordance with Federal regulations at 45 CFR 92.23(b),
the final financial report, covering the entire obligation and liquidation
18

periods, must be submitted no later than the last day of the liquidation
period.
Expenditures under the basic, data collection and analysis grants and the
training grants must be reported on an SF-425 Financial Status Report. A
separate report is required for each grant received.
State courts are requested to file these reports electronically through the
ACF On-Line Data Collection (OLDC) system. OLDC requires electronic
signatures from the appropriate State official.12 When electronic reports
are completed and submitted, no paper submission is required.
For States that elect to submit paper copies of the required expenditure
reports, send one (1) copy with an original signature of each submission of
Form SF-425 to the financial office:
Administration for Children and Families
Office of Grants Management
Division of Mandatory Grants
Att'n: State Court Improvement Program
370 L‟Enfant Promenade, S.W., 6th Floor East
Washington, D.C. 20447
Send an additional copy of each submission to the appropriate CB
Regional Program Office identified in Attachment F.
Forms
The following forms are available electronically at:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofs/grants/form.htm.
SF-425
Anti-Lobbying Certification and Disclosure Form
Certification Regarding Drug-Free Work Place
Debarment Certification
Certification Regarding Environmental Tobacco Smoke
Resources for State Courts
For training and technical assistance regarding implementing programs
under these grants, including technical assistance in developing CQI
processes and strategic plans, State courts may contact CB‟s National
Child Welfare Resource Center on Legal and Judicial Issues (NRCLJI).13
12

See Action Transmittal OA-ACF-AT-01-05, issued January 24, 2005.
https://extranet.acf.hhs.gov/oldcdocs/materials.html.
13
See http://www.americanbar.org/groups/child_law/projects_initiatives/rclji.html.

19

The NRCLJI is composed of three organizations14 with long histories of
providing training and technical assistance to State courts. Training and
technical assistance on issues related to the new data reporting
requirements and developing CQI approaches is also available from CB‟s
National Resource Center for Child Welfare Data and Technology15 and
National Child Welfare Resource Center for Organizational
Improvement16.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-13), 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 Office of
Management and Budget Control Number. The public reporting burden
for each of the CIP grants covered under this PI is estimated to average 92
hours per response for States applying for all three CIP grants.
INQUIRIES TO: CB Regional Offices

Bryan Samuels
Commissioner
Administration on Children, Youth
and Families
Attachments:
A: Indicators of Quality Hearings
B: Indicators of Quality Legal Representation
C: Optional Strategic Plan/Annual Program Assessment Report Template
D: Optional Timeliness Measures Template
E: FY 2012 Tentative Allocations for Each Court Improvement Program Grants
F: CB Regional Office Program Manager Directory

14

The NRCLJI is currently composed of the American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law, The
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and the National Center for State Courts.
15
https://www.nrccwdt.org/index.html.
16
http://muskie.usm.maine.edu/helpkids/.

20