Form 1 Statewide Assessment
Title IV-E Foster Care Eligibility Reviews, Child and Family Services Reviews
Attachment A - CFSR_SA_R4_4-2021 30 Day FRN
Child and Family Services Review Statewide Assessment
OMB: 0970-0214
Child and Family Services Reviews
[insert date of submission]
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT OF 1995 (Pub. L. 10413) STATEMENT OF PUBLIC BURDEN: The purpose of this information collection is to review state child welfare systems’ performance related to child protective services, foster care, adoption, family preservation and independent living as well as their conformity to required child and family outcomes. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per grantee, including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and reviewing the collection of information. This is a mandatory collection of information (45 CFR 1355.33(b)). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB # is 09700214 and the expiration date is XX/XX/XXXX. If you have any comments on this collection of information, please contact the Children's Bureau at [email protected]
This page was intentionally left blank.
Table of Contents
Purpose of the Statewide Assessment 1
Capacity to Complete a Quality Statewide Assessment 3
Availability and Use of Quality Data and Information 4
The Statewide Assessment Template 5
Section I: General Information 8
Name of State Child Welfare Agency 8
State Child Welfare Contact Person(s) for the Statewide Assessment 8
List of Statewide Assessment Participants 9
Description of Stakeholder Involvement in Statewide Assessment Process 11
Section II: State Context Affecting Overall Performance 12
Section III: Assessment of Child and Family Outcomes 13
Section IV: Assessment of Systemic Factors 19
Appendix: CFSR State Data Profile 38
This page was intentionally left blank.
OMB Control Number: 0970-0214
Expiration
Date:
xxxx
Background
One of the ways in which the Children’s Bureau (CB) helps states achieve positive outcomes for children and families is monitoring state child welfare services through Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs). The CFSR process1 is designed to meet the statutory requirement to provide federal oversight of states’ compliance with title IV-B and IV-E plan requirements and to strengthen state child welfare programs and improve safety, permanency, and well-being outcomes for children and families served. The CFSR process enables CB to:
Ensure conformity with federal child welfare requirements
Determine what is happening to children and families receiving child welfare services
Assist states in enhancing their capacity to help children and families achieve positive outcomes related to safety, permanency, and well-being
For more information about the CFSRs, see the Child and Family Services Reviews at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb.
Purpose of the Statewide Assessment
The CFSR is a two-phase process. The first phase is a statewide assessment and is conducted by staff of the state child welfare agency in partnership with representatives with whom the agency was required to consult in the development of the state’s Child and Family Services Plan (CFSP) (45 CFR § 1355.33). These internal and external stakeholders are selected by the agency in collaboration with CB and may include other individuals, such as family and youth served by the state’s child welfare system and members of the judicial and legal communities.
The second phase of the review process is an onsite review. The onsite review includes case record reviews, case-related interviews for the purpose of determining outcome performance, and, as necessary, stakeholder interviews to further inform the assessment of systemic factors. Information from both the statewide assessment and the onsite review is used to determine whether the state is in substantial conformity with the seven outcomes and seven systemic factors. States determined not to be in substantial conformity with one or more of the seven outcomes and seven systemic factors are required to develop a Program Improvement Plan (PIP) to address all areas of nonconformity.
States are required to complete and document an assessment of the extent to which their federally funded child welfare system functions effectively to promote the safety, permanency, and well-being of children and families with whom they have contact. This process involves a state:
Using both quantitative and qualitative evidence (e.g., state administrative data, information management system reports, case record reviews, interviews with case participants and key stakeholders) to assess its performance on the outcomes and systemic factors
Analyzing and explaining its performance in meeting the national standards for the CFSR statewide data indicators
Providing supporting evidence of the state’s assessment of its child welfare system, program, practice strengths, opportunities for improvement, and results of data-driven problem exploration
1 Procedures for the review. 45 CFR § 1355.33.
Providing relevant and quality evidence for CB to determine substantial conformity with CFSR systemic factors
Communicating about the child welfare system’s performance with the communities the systems served
Demonstrating the engagement of child welfare system partners and stakeholders in the state’s CFSR assessment and in its continuous quality improvement (CQI) change and implementation process
Identifying priority areas of focus for further examination and to target improvement plans to strengthen systems and improve child and family outcomes
Describing progress to address practice, program, and systemic change, and needed adjustments, as applicable
Using assessment results to inform planning for the onsite review and to provide a foundation for the state PIP
Stakeholder Involvement
The statewide assessment is to be completed in collaboration with, and reflective of perspectives and feedback obtained from, state child welfare system partners and stakeholders pursuant to 45 CFR § 1355.33 (a–b). CB recommends that states assemble a diverse and representative statewide assessment team (as described below) while also consistently soliciting feedback and perspectives from key stakeholder groups, including parents, caregivers, and youth, throughout the CFSR process.
Individuals on the statewide assessment team need to include representatives from those with whom the child welfare agency was required to consult in developing its title IV-B state plan. The statewide assessment team members are selected by the child welfare agency in collaboration with CB. CB recommends that states ensure family and youth representation on the statewide assessment team, as well as other key partners (e.g., members of the legal and judicial communities, including state courts, the Court Improvement Project, and stakeholders). Examples of other partners and stakeholders who might serve on the statewide assessment team include frontline workers; foster, adoptive, and relative caregivers; the Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention (CBCAP) lead agency and other prevention partners, such as Children’s Trust Funds; the Children’s Justice Act grantee; service providers; faith-based and community organizations; and representatives of state and local agencies administering other federal or federally assisted programs serving children and families, such as Head Start, child care, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).
The statewide assessment team of internal and external stakeholders engage in the CFSR statewide assessment process by:
Empowering families and youth to participate in ongoing conversations about system- level improvement needs by recognizing and honoring their lived experiences and expertise, soliciting from them their perceptions and experiences, and acting on their recommendations about what families need to be strong and healthy2
2 As outlined in the CB Information Memorandum to states (ACYF-CB-IM-19-03), parent, family, and youth voice is critical to understanding how well the child welfare system is achieving its goals. States are encouraged to integrate parents and youth throughout the CFSR process as they have lived expertise that provides critical context and information to identify and make child welfare system improvements.
Collecting and analyzing data from selected partner and stakeholder groups through surveys, interviews, and/or focus groups
Using partners’ administrative data (may require data-sharing agreements with contracted service providers and other agencies providing services to the same populations) in the assessment process and to provide evidence of performance and systemic functioning
Involving stakeholders in the review and analysis of data to help identify contributing factors, underlying causes of performance challenges, and possible solutions
Discussing findings, recommended changes, and implications of proposed interventions, and obtaining stakeholder feedback regarding implemented solutions
Systematically providing feedback to stakeholders regarding whether and how their input was used to change policy, processes, practice, or service provision
Capacity to Complete a Quality Statewide Assessment
States are encouraged to consider the following questions as they prepare to complete the statewide assessment:
Does the statewide assessment team reflect the family and youth the system serves, as well as partners, stakeholders, and providers involved in the state child welfare system?
Are team members committed to remaining involved, and is there a process to support them throughout the statewide assessment process, potential involvement in the onsite review, and development, implementation, and evaluation of the PIP?
Do the state’s infrastructure and information systems provide needed administrative and case record review data? What data are already collected and can be used, and what new data may be needed (e.g., resource family surveys, staff training participation and feedback)?
To what extent do system partners collect data and make it available for the purposes of the statewide assessment? Are data-sharing agreements needed, and in place?
Do some team members have expertise and experience in quantitative and qualitative measurement, data collection, data analytics, and technical writing? Are team members able to communicate the results of quantitative and qualitative analyses effectively to the range of stakeholders and partners who are part of the statewide assessment team?
Do team members have knowledge and skills with the CQI change and implementation process (e.g., identifying root causes of performance challenges, developing and testing theories of change)?
In what way do organizational cultures and climates support the activities necessary for system partners to conduct and complete a quality assessment?
Are there recent or future organizational changes that may affect the state's child welfare system, programs, and/or service delivery (e.g., leadership change)?
Are there organizational resources and infrastructure in place to support the assessment process?
What changes in organizational capacity will be needed to complete a quality statewide assessment (i.e., resources, infrastructure, knowledge and skills, culture and climate, engagement and partnership)?
Availability and Use of Quality Data and Information
The statewide assessment represents a compilation of observations made about the state’s child welfare system that is grounded in evidence. “Evidence is information that is used to support an observation, claim, hypothesis, or decision. Evidence may be qualitative or quantitative and can be found in or derived from a number of sources.”3 Gathering and exploring data evidence begins during problem exploration and continues over the course of implementing, assessing, and sustaining change. The statewide assessment process entails looking at past, updated, and new data to strengthen the team’s understanding of state child welfare system performance and to identify the combination of data evidence used to determine:
Strengths and opportunities for improvement
Areas and factors influencing strong practice
Nature of the problem and affected populations
Variation in outcomes among populations of different races, ethnicities, cultures, sexual orientations, and socioeconomic levels that may experience bias, inequities, or underservice within their communities or by systems seeking to serve them
Contributing factors and underlying root cause(s) of the problem
This systematic development of evidence related to child welfare system performance may point to areas where change, innovation, and/or replication of certain practices, procedures, or policies may be warranted. This evidence then sets the stage for states to consider:
Hypotheses that are rooted in theories of change (predictions about how and why needed change(s) will achieve the desired outcome)
Selection of and lessons learned from implemented strategies/interventions
Reasons to continue, modify, or discontinue the selected intervention, or revisit the original understanding of the problem and the hypothesis for change
Data sources states should consider using, as available, for the statewide assessment process include but are not limited to:
CFSR state data profiles and supplemental context data; CFR 45 § 1355.33(b)(2)
State child welfare agency information system data (e.g., SACWIS/CCWIS)
Administrative data from partner agencies (public-, private-, and community-based)
Information included in the CFSP and Annual Progress and Services Report (APSR), e.g., National Youth in Transition Database
Annual Court Improvement Project reports, legal and judicial information systems, and other data collected by the courts (e.g., quality hearing observation data)
Case record reviews
Child welfare studies (research, evaluation reports)
Surveys, stakeholder interviews, focus groups
Effective CQI change and implementation processes rely on high-quality and reliable evidence from data to provide accurate information. Consider the following when assessing the quality of evidence used for the statewide assessment and note this information where relevant:
Data source (see examples in section above)
Methods used to generate measures and analyze data (e.g., application of sound measurement principles, process/individuals involved in analysis of data)
Relationship between the analysis produced and the questions asked (e.g., how results of analysis are responsive to questions raised about performance; how they raised more questions that are the focus of additional inquiry)
Scope of the data (e.g., geographic, population)
Representativeness of the population served or the subpopulation of interest (e.g., universe, random sample of records, selected sites or population, response rate)
Time period represented in the data, included in citations for the data source (e.g., CY2020, FFY2020; point in time (9/30/2020); or multiple years: CY2018–2020)
Completeness, accuracy, and reliability of the data (e.g., data quality tests performed and the accuracy of results confirmed; same measure used over time; results consistent with other data sources)
Other known limitation(s) of the data (e.g., an array of stakeholders reported data integrity concerns; measure adjusted over time)
Policy decisions/practices that affect the quality and consistency of the data (e.g., implementation of new information system; timeframes to respond to CPS reports changed; requirements for staff and/or provider training changed recently; new program recently implemented)
The Statewide Assessment Template
The statewide assessment is completed by states and submitted to CB at least 2 months before the case review (federal onsite or state-led review). The sections of the Statewide Assessment template are outlined below and used to provide the most current and relevant information for understanding state performance on child welfare outcomes assessed by the CFSR, and evidence required to demonstrate routine statewide functioning of systemic factors. Please see the CFSR Procedures Manual for additional information on completing the statewide assessment.
Section I: Provide general information about the state child welfare agency; a list of the stakeholders involved in completing the statewide assessment; and a description of how state child welfare leadership and staff from all levels of the agency, families and youth, the legal and judicial communities, Tribes, and key partners and stakeholders were actively engaged in the assessment of the state child welfare system.
Section II: Briefly describe the state’s vision and organizational structure for the state’s child welfare system, cross-cutting issues, factors affecting overall performance, and other statewide drivers (e.g., consent decrees, transformation projects) that are not addressed in the outcomes and systemic factor sections of this assessment.
Section III: Provide an updated assessment of state performance on safety, permanency, and well-being outcomes and supporting practices. Include recent performance data, highlights of strengths and opportunities for improvement, a brief summary of observations, priority focus areas and results of problem exploration, and related CQI change and implementation activities, as applicable.
Section IV: Provide a combination of the sources of evidence needed to determine whether the state is in substantial conformity with the seven systemic factors. The systemic factors encompass items associated with select CFSP requirements and seven systems within the state that have the capacity, if routinely functioning statewide, to support child safety, permanency, and well-being outcomes.
Appendix: Attach a copy of the CB-generated CFSR state data profile transmitted to the state to use in completing the statewide assessment.
The Statewide Assessment template is available electronically on the CB website at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb.
Preparation
As states prepare for the statewide assessment, CB recommends that states:
Review the CFSR Procedures Manual, “Statewide Assessment” section (available on the CB website at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb, which provides guiding principles and a framework for completing the statewide assessment.
Review the Capacity Building Center for States’ “Change and Implementation in Practice” series.4 The series is a collection of research-informed and user-friendly resources (e.g., briefs, guides, videos) to help agencies achieve meaningful changes in child welfare practice to improve outcomes and systemic functioning.
In collaboration with the CB Regional Office, identify and invite individuals to be members of the statewide assessment team. Review information on stakeholder involvement in the state’s assessment of the child welfare system.
Review the most recent versions of the following documents, which provide information and past assessments of state performance on child and family outcomes and supporting practices, and statewide routine functioning of the systemic factors:
PIP and PIP progress reports
CFSP and APSR
Court Improvement Project self-assessment and strategic plan
Review the following additional recent and relevant data:
Most recent CFSR state data profile and supplemental context information, providing performance information on the CFSR statewide data indicators
State administrative data and aggregate performance information and measures
Case record review results
Other available statewide data, e.g., learning management system reports,
4 Capacity Building Center for States’ “Change and Implementation in Practice” series, available at https://capacity.childwelfare.gov/states/focus-areas/cqi/change-implementation/
administrative data from partner agencies and contracted service providers, CIP data, research and evaluation reports, surveys, stakeholder interviews, focus groups
Review the CFSR Procedures Manual, “Capacity Building Collaborative Data Support Services” section, available on the CB website at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb, and determine the need for additional guidance and technical support with any step of the statewide assessment process, and request assistance as needed.
Instructions
State child welfare agencies, in collaboration with families and youth, the judicial and legal communities, Tribes, and other key partners and stakeholders, complete an updated statewide assessment of the state’s child welfare system and the state’s ability to achieve desired safety, permanency, and well-being outcomes.
Develop the set of questions that when answered will provide the necessary information to assess the state’s child welfare systems’ processes, programs, and practices.
Build on past work, including results of data exploration, progress made, lessons learned, and adjustments from development, implementation, and monitoring of the state’s most recent CFSR/PIP, CFSP/APSR, and CQI activities in completing this section.
Determine whether other relevant quality data are available and/or needed to provide a more recent and/or deeper understanding of state performance on the outcomes and systemic factor functioning. Use current (or the most recent available) data and/or information.
Assess the agency’s investment in the quality of programs and services to be delivered, the processes by which they are delivered, and the capacity of the agency to deliver them with fidelity.
Determine which quality data and information are the most compelling and why they provide the best evidence to support the state’s assessment of (a) strengths and areas needing improvement, and (b) statewide routine functioning of systemic factor items. Include data/measure descriptions, the sources of data and/or information used, time periods represented, and other information needed to understand the scope and quality of data used.
Summarize the results of the assessment by responding to the questions that are designed to solicit the most notable information about state performance, evidence of key strengths and areas needing improvement, observations, results of data exploration, and related CQI change and implementation activities, as applicable. CB recommends that states concisely articulate the state’s observations and supporting evidence in no more than 100 pages, beginning with Section I of this template.
Statewide Assessment Section I: General Information
Name of State Child Welfare Agency:
State Child Welfare Contact Person(s) for the Statewide Assessment
Name:
Title:
Address:
Phone:
E-mail:
List of Statewide Assessment Participants
Provide the names and affiliations of the individuals who participated in the statewide assessment process and identify their roles in the process. Identify individuals with lived experience by including an asterisk (*) after their name.
Name |
Affiliation |
Role in Statewide Assessment Process |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name |
Affiliation |
Role in Statewide Assessment Process |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Description of Stakeholder Involvement in Statewide Assessment Process
Describe how child welfare leadership and staff from all levels of the agency, families and youth, the legal and judicial communities, Tribes, and other key partners and stakeholders were actively engaged in the assessment of the state child welfare system.
Insert description:
Section II: State Context Affecting Overall Performance
In this section, describe the vision and core components of the child welfare system, and how the state is organized to produce the desired child welfare outcomes. Briefly outline cross- cutting issues not specifically addressed in the outcomes and systemic factor sections of the statewide assessment, and finally illustrate how current improvement initiatives provide opportunities to achieve desired outcomes and system change.
We encourage states to consider the experiences of populations within the state that may experience bias, inequities, or underservice―either in their communities or by the systems seeking to serve them―with a focus on variations in outcomes for members of those populations, and how their child welfare system processes, practices, and procedures may either exacerbate or seek to ameliorate any inequities.
We recommend dividing this brief summary into three parts:
Part 1: Vision and Tenets
Briefly describe the vision and core tenets of the state child welfare system (i.e., primary programs, including title IV-E prevention programs, as applicable; practice model; structure and approach to drive change) that are designed to produce desired child welfare outcomes and the routine statewide functioning of systemic factors.
Insert description:
Part 2: Cross-System Challenges
Briefly describe cross-cutting issues not specifically addressed in other sections of the statewide assessment that affect the system’s programs, practice, and performance (e.g., legislation, budget reductions, community conditions, consent decrees, staff turnover and workload).
Insert description:
Part 3: Current Initiatives
Briefly describe the cross-cutting improvement initiatives (e.g., practice model, new safety model, workforce projects) to provide context for, and an understanding of, the priority areas of focus from the last CFSR that were addressed through the state’s most recent PIP. This is an opportunity to highlight current initiatives and progress made toward achieving desired outcomes and systemic change.
Insert description:
Section III: Assessment of Child and Family Outcomes
Safety outcomes include: (A) children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect; and (B) children are safely maintained in their own homes whenever possible and appropriate.
Performance Data Highlights
Highlight the most notable state performance and provide a brief summary of the state’s most recent, relevant, and quality data pertaining to the CFSR Safety Outcomes and supporting practices. Examples of relevant data: references to safety indicators in recent CB-generated state data profile, case record review results, and administrative data such as state- generated performance on the statewide safety data indicators and timeliness of face-to-face contact with children who are subjects of screened-in CPS reports. Include a description of state-produced measures (denominator and numerator), data periods represented, and methodology.
Brief Analysis
Briefly summarize the most salient observations, including strengths and areas needing improvement, and findings across data sources and practice areas, by answering the questions below. Consider how state risk-standardized performance compares to national performance on the CFSR safety data indicators, how current statewide case review performance compares to CFSR Round 3 findings and PIP measurement, and the quality of the data.
What is the trend in performance over time, and is the state trending in the desired direction? Are there changes in the denominator and numerator over time?
What information do other related data sources provide to inform state observations?
What does performance data from the legal and judicial communities show with respect to the impact of court processes on safety outcomes?
What does performance data show with respect to the impact of prevention efforts on safety outcomes?
What does the performance data identify as areas of strength?
What does the performance data identify as areas in need of improvement?
Are there data quality limitations (e.g., completeness, accuracy, and reliability)?
Results of Deeper Data Exploration for Priority Focus Areas
Identify areas prioritized for deeper data exploration and reasons for selecting those areas. Briefly summarize results of data analysis, including evidence supporting the identification of contributing factors and potential root causes driving strengths and challenges. Consider observations from additional evidence that may have been gathered to deepen the state’s understanding of the focus area (e.g., additional analysis of a target sub-population, qualitative data such as caseworker surveys or focus groups with key stakeholders).
What meaningful differences were identified for sub-populations, including specific groups of children (e.g., age, race/ethnicity) and geographic location in the state?
What events, conditions, or factors contribute to or lead to the strength or challenge?
What supporting evidence is provided by key stakeholders (e.g., caseworkers, supervisors, program managers, birth parents and youth, caregivers, and service providers) regarding the contributing factors and/or root cause(s)?
Are there data or research findings pointing to the root cause(s) and/or contributing factors?
Information Regarding CQI Change and Implementation Activities, As Applicable
Briefly describe how the information and results of the analysis above relate to or build on results of prior data exploration and CQI change and implementation activities. Has progress been made and/or have lessons been learned from development, implementation, and monitoring of improvement activities included in the state’s most recent CFSR/PIP, CFSP/APSR, and other systemic improvement processes? Are adjustments needed to existing strategies/interventions/plans, or are new CQI change and implementation plans needed to achieve desired outcomes?
Permanency Outcomes 1 and 2
Permanency outcomes include: (A) children have permanency and stability in their living situations; and (B) the continuity of family relationships is preserved for children.
Performance Data Highlights
Highlight the most notable state performance and provide a brief summary of the state’s most recent, relevant, and quality data pertaining to the CFSR Permanency Outcomes and supporting practices. Examples of relevant data: references to permanency indicators in recent CB-generated state data profiles, case record review results, and administrative data such as time to permanency by permanency goal, percentage of children placed with relatives/kin, percentage of children in foster care placed with some or all siblings; court performance measures; and quality hearing review project results. Include a description of the state-produced measures (denominator and numerator), data periods represented, and methodology.
Brief Analysis
Briefly summarize the most salient observations, including strengths and areas needing improvement, and findings across data sources and practice areas, by answering the questions below. Consider how state risk-standardized performance compares to national performance on the CFSR permanency data indicators, how current statewide case review performance compares to CFSR Round 3 findings and PIP measurement, and the quality of the data.
What is the trend in performance over time, and is the state trending in the desired direction? Are there changes in the denominator and numerator over time?
What information do other related data sources provide to inform state observations?
What does performance data from the legal and judicial communities show with respect to the impact of court processes on permanency outcomes?
What does the performance data identify as areas of strength?
What does the performance data identify as areas in need of improvement?
Are there data quality limitations (e.g., completeness, accuracy, and reliability)?
Results of Deeper Data Exploration for Priority Focus Areas
Identify areas prioritized for deeper data exploration and reasons for selecting those areas. Briefly summarize results of data analysis, including evidence supporting the identification of contributing factors and potential root causes driving strengths and challenges. Consider observations from additional evidence that may have been gathered to deepen the state’s understanding of the focus area (e.g., additional analysis of a target sub-population, qualitative data such as caseworker surveys or focus groups with key stakeholders).
What meaningful differences were identified for sub-populations, including specific groups of children (e.g., children entering foster care, children in foster care for longer periods of time, child age and race/ethnicity) and geographic location in the state?
What events, conditions, or factors contribute to or lead to the strength or problem?
What supporting evidence is provided by key stakeholders (e.g. caseworkers, supervisors, program managers, birth parents and youth, caregivers, and service providers) regarding the contributing factors and/or root cause(s)?
Are there data or research findings pointing to the root cause(s) and/or contributing factors?
Information Regarding CQI Change and Implementation Activities, As Applicable
Briefly describe how the information and results of the analysis above relate to or build on results of prior data exploration and CQI change and implementation activities. Has progress been made and/or have lessons been learned from development, implementation, and monitoring of improvement activities included in the state’s most recent CFSR/PIP, CFSP/APSR, and other systemic improvement processes? Are adjustments needed to existing strategies/interventions/plans, or are new CQI change and implementation plans needed to achieve desired outcomes?
Well-Being Outcomes 1, 2, and 3
Well-being outcomes include: (A) families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs; (B) children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs; and (C) children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs.
Performance Data Highlights
Highlight the most notable state performance and provide a brief summary of the state’s most recent, relevant, and quality data pertaining to the CFSR Well-Being Outcomes and supporting practices. Examples of relevant data: case record review results, administrative data such as participation in family team meetings, caseworker visits with children and parents, children receiving timely well-child visits; service utilization rates. Include a description of the state-produced measures (denominator and numerator), data periods represented, and methodology.
Brief Analysis
Briefly summarize the most salient observations, including strengths and areas needing improvement, and findings across data sources and practice areas, by answering the questions below. Consider how current statewide case review performance compares to CFSR Round 3 findings and PIP measurement, and the quality of the data.
What is the trend in performance over time, and is the state trending in the desired direction?
What information do other related data sources provide to inform state observations?
What does performance data from the legal and judicial communities show with respect to the impact of court processes on child well-being outcomes?
What does the performance data identify as areas of strength?
What does the performance data identify as areas in need of improvement?
Are there data quality limitations (e.g., completeness, accuracy, and reliability)?
Results of Deeper Data Exploration for Priority Focus Areas
Identify areas prioritized for deeper data exploration and reasons for selecting those areas. Briefly summarize results of data analysis, including evidence supporting the identification of contributing factors and potential root causes driving strengths and challenges. Consider observations from additional evidence that may have been gathered to deepen the state’s understanding of the focus area (e.g., additional analysis of a target sub-population, qualitative data such as caseworker surveys or focus groups with key stakeholders).
What meaningful differences were identified for sub-populations, including specific groups of children (e.g., age, race/ethnicity) and geographic location in the state?
What events, conditions, or factors contribute to or lead to the strength or problem?
What supporting evidence is provided by key stakeholders (e.g., caseworkers, supervisors, program managers, birth parents and youth, caregivers, and service providers) regarding the contributing factors and/or root cause(s)?
Are there data or research pointing to the root cause(s) and/or contributing factors?
Information Regarding CQI Change and Implementation Activities, As Applicable
Briefly describe how the information and results of the analysis above relate to or build on results of prior data exploration and CQI change and implementation activities. Has progress been made and/or have lessons been learned from development, implementation, and monitoring of improvement activities included in the state’s most recent CFSR/PIP, CFSP/APSR, and other systemic improvement processes? Are adjustments needed to existing strategies/interventions/plans, or are new CQI change and implementation plans needed to achieve desired outcomes?
Section IV: Assessment of Systemic Factors
The statewide assessment includes a review of 18 items associated with 7 systemic factors that are used to determine the CFSR ratings for substantial conformity for each factor. For CFSR Round 4, the expectation is that the statewide assessment team will use relevant, well- constructed, valid, and defensible evidence that speaks to how well each systemic factor requirement functions across the state.
The Children’s Bureau recognizes that in many states the information systems that house data submitted to the federal government for AFCARS and NCANDS also contain a wealth of administrative data that could be considered when evaluating the systemic factors. Where possible, we recommend that states make use of these and other available data sets to demonstrate systemic factor functionality.
Whether quantitative or qualitative evidence is used to demonstrate the functionality of systemic factor items, states are strongly encouraged to use systematic processes to assess state performance, include explanations regarding how well the data and/or information characterizes statewide functioning, and provide information regarding the scope of the evidence used.
If the federal review team determines that the statewide assessment does not conclusively demonstrate substantial conformity, the team may collect additional information through stakeholder interviews during the onsite phase of the CFSR. Stakeholder interviews on the Service Array and Case Review systemic factors, jointly conducted by the federal-state team, will be held in all states.
States are encouraged to review the CFSR Round 3 Systemic Factors report for examples of the combination of evidence used to demonstrate systemic factor functioning in Round 3, and the CB information briefs developed for each systemic factor (https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/report/systemic- factors-results-cfsrs-2015-2018) that provide additional ideas and suggestions for demonstrating functionality.
Item 19: Statewide Information System
For this item, provide evidence that answers this question:
How well is the statewide information system functioning statewide to ensure that, at a minimum, the state can readily identify the status, demographic characteristics, location, and goals for the placement of every child who is (or within the immediately preceding 12 months, has been) in foster care?
In your analysis:
Using relevant quantitative/qualitative data or information, briefly summarize the most salient observations and findings, including strengths and areas needing improvement, by answering the questions below. Ensure that you address each of the four components of this question.
What data sources were used/analyzed to inform state observations? Briefly describe your analysis, including data periods represented, measures, and methodology.
Are there limitations to the evidence and information (e.g., completeness, accuracy, reliability)? Briefly describe those limitations.
What does the evidence show with respect to the system functioning statewide?
What does the evidence identify as areas of strength?
What does the evidence identify as areas in need of improvement?
What does the evidence show with respect to how end users experience the statewide information system?
How do the findings compare to CFSR Round 3 performance in this area? Describe improvement efforts made during the PIP and/or CFSP, if applicable. To what extent does current information reflect those improvements?
State Response:
For this item, provide evidence that answers this question:
How well is the case review system functioning statewide to ensure that each child has a written case plan that is developed jointly with the child’s parent(s) and includes the required provisions?
In your analysis:
Using relevant quantitative/qualitative data or information, briefly summarize the most salient observations and findings, including strengths and areas needing improvement, by answering the questions below. Ensure that you address each of the three components of this question.
What data sources were used/analyzed to inform state observations? Briefly describe your analysis, including data periods represented, measures, and methodology.
Are there limitations to the evidence and information (e.g., completeness, accuracy, reliability)? Briefly describe those limitations.
What does the evidence show with respect to the system functioning statewide?
What does the evidence identify as areas of strength?
What does the evidence identify as areas in need of improvement?
What does the evidence show with respect to families’ experience with the case planning process?
How do the findings compare to CFSR Round 3 performance in this area? Describe improvement efforts made during the PIP and/or CFSP, if applicable. To what extent does current information reflect those improvements?
State Response:
Item 21: Periodic Reviews
For this item, provide evidence that answers this question:
How well is the case review system functioning statewide to ensure that a periodic review for each child occurs no less frequently than once every 6 months, either by a court or by administrative review?
In your analysis:
Using relevant quantitative/qualitative data or information, briefly summarize the most salient observations and findings, including strengths and areas needing improvement, by answering the questions below.
What data sources were used/analyzed to inform state observations? Briefly describe your analysis, including data periods represented, measures, and methodology.
Are there limitations to the evidence and information (e.g., completeness, accuracy, reliability)? Briefly describe those limitations.
What does the evidence show with respect to the system functioning statewide?
What does the evidence identify as areas of strength?
What does the evidence identify as areas in need of improvement?
What does the evidence show with respect to stakeholders’ experience with the periodic reviews process?
How do the findings compare to CFSR Round 3 performance in this area? Describe improvement efforts made during the PIP and/or CFSP, if applicable. To what extent does current information reflect those improvements?
State Response:
Item 22: Permanency Hearings
For this item, provide evidence that answers this question:
How well is the case review system functioning statewide to ensure that, for each child, a permanency hearing in a qualified court or administrative body occurs no later than 12 months from the date the child entered foster care and no less frequently than every 12 months thereafter?
In your analysis:
Using relevant quantitative/qualitative data or information, briefly summarize the most salient observations and findings, including strengths and areas needing improvement, by answering the questions below.
What data sources were used/analyzed to inform state observations? Briefly describe your analysis, including data periods represented, measures, and methodology.
Are there limitations to the evidence and information (e.g., completeness, accuracy, reliability)? Briefly describe those limitations.
What does the evidence show with respect to the system functioning statewide?
What does the evidence identify as areas of strength?
What does the evidence identify as areas in need of improvement?
What does the evidence show with respect to stakeholders’ experience with the permanency hearing process?
How do the findings compare to CFSR Round 3 performance in this area? Describe improvement efforts made during the PIP and/or CFSP, if applicable. To what extent does current information reflect those improvements?
State Response:
Item 23: Termination of Parental Rights
For this item, provide evidence that answer this question:
How well is the case review system functioning statewide to ensure that the filing of termination of parental rights (TPR) proceedings occurs in accordance with required provisions?
In your analysis:
Using relevant quantitative/qualitative data or information, briefly summarize the most salient observations and findings, including strengths and areas needing improvement, by answering the questions below.
What data sources were used/analyzed to inform state observations? Briefly describe your analysis, including data periods represented, measures, and methodology.
Are there limitations to the evidence and information (e.g., completeness, accuracy, reliability)? Briefly describe those limitations.
What does the evidence show with respect to the system functioning statewide?
What does the evidence identify as areas of strength?
What does the evidence identify as areas in need of improvement?
What does the evidence show with respect to stakeholders’ experience with the TPR process?
How do the findings compare to CFSR Round 3 performance in this area? Describe improvement efforts made during the PIP and/or CFSP, if applicable. To what extent does current information reflect those improvements?
State Response:
Item 24: Notice of Hearings and Reviews to Caregivers
For this item, provide evidence that answers this question:
How well is the case review system functioning statewide to ensure that foster parents, pre- adoptive parents, and relative caregivers of children in foster care (1) are receiving notification of any review or hearing held with respect to the child and (2) have a right to be heard in any review or hearing held with respect to the child?
In your analysis:
Using relevant quantitative/qualitative data or information, briefly summarize the most salient observations and findings, including strengths and areas needing improvement, by answering the questions below. Ensure that you address both components of this question.
What data sources were used/analyzed to inform state observations? Briefly describe your analysis, including data periods represented, measures, and methodology.
Are there limitations to the evidence and information (e.g., completeness, accuracy, reliability)? Briefly describe those limitations.
What does the evidence show with respect to the system functioning statewide?
What does the evidence identify as areas of strength?
What does the evidence identify as areas in need of improvement?
What does the evidence show with respect to caregivers’ experience with the hearing and review notification process?
How do the findings compare to CFSR Round 3 performance in this area? Describe improvement efforts made during the PIP and/or CFSP if applicable. To what extent does current information reflect those improvements?
State Response:
Item 25: Quality Assurance System
For this item, provide evidence that answers this question:
How well is the quality assurance system functioning statewide to ensure that it is (1) operating in the jurisdictions where the services included in the CFSP are provided, (2) has standards to evaluate the quality of services (including standards to ensure that children in foster care are provided quality services that protect their health and safety), (3) identifies strengths and needs of the service delivery system, (4) provides relevant reports, and (5) evaluates implemented program improvement measures?
In your analysis:
Using relevant quantitative/qualitative data or information, briefly summarize the most salient observations and findings, including strengths and areas needing improvement, by answering the questions below. Ensure that you address each of the five components of this question.
What data sources were used/analyzed to inform state observations? Briefly describe your analysis, including data periods represented, measures, and methodology.
Are there limitations to the evidence and information (e.g., completeness, accuracy, reliability)? Briefly describe those limitations.
What does the evidence show with respect to the system functioning statewide?
What does the evidence identify as areas of strength?
What does the evidence identify as areas in need of improvement?
What does the evidence show with respect to stakeholders’ experience with the QA/CQI process?
How do the findings compare to CFSR Round 3 performance in this area? Describe improvement efforts made during the PIP and/or CFSP, if applicable. To what extent does current information reflect those improvements?
State Response:
For this item, provide evidence that answers this question:
How well is the staff and provider training system functioning statewide to ensure that initial training is provided to all staff who deliver services pursuant to the CFSP so that:
Staff receive training in accordance with the established curriculum and timeframes for the provision of initial training; and
The system demonstrates how well the initial training addresses basic skills and knowledge needed by staff to carry out their duties?
“Staff,” for purposes of assessing this item, includes all contracted and non-contracted staff who have case management responsibilities in the areas of child protection services, family preservation and support services, foster care services, adoption services, and independent living services pursuant to the state’s CFSP.
In your analysis:
Using relevant quantitative/qualitative data or information, briefly summarize the most salient observations and findings, including strengths and areas needing improvement, by answering the questions below.
What data sources were used/analyzed to inform state observations? Briefly describe your analysis, including data periods represented, measures, and methodology.
Are there limitations to the evidence and information (e.g., completeness, accuracy, reliability)? Briefly describe those limitations.
What does the evidence show with respect to the system functioning statewide?
What does the evidence identify as areas of strength?
What does the evidence identify as areas in need of improvement?
What does the evidence show with respect to participants’ experience with initial training?
How do the findings compare to CFSR Round 3 performance in this area? Describe improvement efforts made during the PIP and/or CFSP, if applicable. To what extent does current information reflect those improvements?
State Response:
Item 27: Ongoing Staff Training
For this item, provide evidence that answers this question:
How well is the staff and provider training system functioning statewide to ensure that ongoing training is provided for staff that addresses the skills and knowledge needed to carry out their duties with regard to the services included in the CFSP so that:
Staff receive ongoing training pursuant to the established curriculum and timeframes for the provision of ongoing training; and
The system demonstrates how well the ongoing training addresses basic skills and knowledge needed by staff to carry out their duties.
“Staff,” for purposes of assessing this item, includes all contracted and non-contracted staff who have case management responsibilities in the areas of child protection services, family preservation and support services, foster care services, adoption services, and independent living services pursuant to the state’s CFSP.
“Staff,” for purposes of assessing this item, also includes direct supervisors of all contracted and non-contracted staff who have case management responsibilities in the areas of child protection services, family preservation and support services, foster care services, adoption services, and independent living services pursuant to the state’s CFSP.
In your analysis:
Using relevant quantitative/qualitative data or information, briefly summarize the most salient observations and findings, including strengths and areas needing improvement, by answering the questions below. Ensure that you address all of the components of this question, including the two bullets and all required staff as described above.
What data sources were used/analyzed to inform state observations? Briefly describe your analysis, including data periods represented, measures, and methodology.
Are there limitations to the evidence and information (e.g., completeness, accuracy, reliability)? Briefly describe those limitations.
What does the evidence show with respect to the system functioning statewide?
What does the evidence identify as areas of strength?
What does the evidence identify as areas in need of improvement?
What does the evidence show with respect to participants’ experience with ongoing staff training?
How do the findings compare to CFSR Round 3 performance in this area? Describe improvement efforts made during the PIP and/or CFSP if applicable. To what extent does current information reflect those improvements?
State Response:
Item 28: Foster and Adoptive Parent Training
For this item, provide evidence that answers this question:
How well is the staff and provider training system functioning to ensure that training is occurring statewide for current or prospective foster parents, adoptive parents, and staff of state licensed or approved facilities (who receive title IV-E funds to care for children) so that:
Current or prospective foster parents, adoptive parents, and staff receive training pursuant to the established annual/biannual hourly/continuing education requirement and timeframes for the provision of initial and ongoing training; and
The system demonstrates how well the initial and ongoing training addresses the skills and knowledge base needed to carry out their duties with regard to foster and adopted children?
In your analysis:
Using relevant quantitative/qualitative data or information, briefly summarize the most salient observations and findings, including strengths and areas needing improvement, by answering the questions below. Ensure that you address all of the components of this question, including the two bullets and all required trainees as described above.
What data sources were used/analyzed to inform state observations? Briefly describe your analysis, including data periods represented, measures, and methodology.
Are there limitations to the evidence and information (e.g., completeness, accuracy, reliability)? Briefly describe those limitations.
What does the evidence show with respect to the system functioning statewide?
What does the evidence identify as areas of strength?
What does the evidence identify as areas in need of improvement?
What does the evidence show with respect to caregivers’ experience with foster and adoptive parent training?
How do the findings compare to CFSR Round 3 performance in this area? Describe improvement efforts made during the PIP and/or CFSP, if applicable. To what extent does current information reflect those improvements?
State Response:
For this item, provide evidence that answers this question:
How well is the service array and resource development system functioning to ensure that the range of services specified below is available and accessible in all political jurisdictions covered by the CFSP?
Services that assess the strengths and needs of children and families and determine other service needs;
Services that address the needs of families in addition to individual children in order to create a safe home environment;
Services that enable children to remain safely with their parents when reasonable; and
Services that help children in foster and adoptive placements achieve permanency.
In your analysis:
Using relevant quantitative/qualitative data or information, briefly summarize the most salient observations and findings, including strengths and areas needing improvement, by answering the questions below. Ensure that you address all four components of this question.
What data sources were used/analyzed to inform state observations? Briefly describe your analysis, including data periods represented, measures, and methodology.
Are there limitations to the evidence and information (e.g., completeness, accuracy, reliability)? Briefly describe those limitations.
What does the evidence show with respect to the system functioning statewide?
What does the evidence identify as areas of strength?
What does the evidence identify as areas in need of improvement?
What does the evidence show with respect to children and families’ experience with the availability, accessibility, and delivery of services?
How do the findings compare to CFSR Round 3 performance in this area? Describe improvement efforts made during the PIP and/or CFSP, if applicable. To what extent does current information reflect those improvements?
State Response:
Item 30: Individualizing Services
For this item, provide evidence that answers this question:
How well is the service array and resource development system functioning statewide to ensure that the services in Item 29 can be individualized to meet the unique needs of children and families served by the agency?
Services that are developmentally and/or culturally appropriate (including linguistically competent), responsive to disability and special needs, or accessed through flexible funding are examples of how the unique needs of children and families are met by the agency.
In your analysis:
Using relevant quantitative/qualitative data or information, briefly summarize the most salient observations, including strengths and areas needing improvement, and findings by answering the questions below.
What data sources were used/analyzed to inform state observations? Briefly describe your analysis, including data periods represented, measures, and methodology.
Are there limitations to the evidence and information (e.g., completeness, accuracy, reliability)? Briefly describe those limitations.
What does the evidence show with respect to the system functioning statewide?
What does the evidence identify as areas of strength?
What does the evidence identify as areas in need of improvement?
What does the evidence show with respect to children and families’ experience with accessing and participating in individualized services?
How do the findings compare to CFSR Round 3 performance in this area? Describe improvement efforts made during the PIP and/or CFSP, if applicable. To what extent does current information reflect those improvements?
State Response:
Item 31: State Engagement and Consultation With Stakeholders Pursuant to CFSP and APSR
For this item, provide evidence that answers this question:
How well is the agency responsiveness to the community system functioning statewide to ensure that in implementing the provisions of the CFSP and developing related APSRs, the state engages in ongoing consultation with Tribal representatives, consumers, service providers, foster care providers, the juvenile court, and other public and private child- and family-serving agencies and includes the major concerns of these representatives in the goals, objectives, and annual updates of the CFSP?
In your analysis:
Using relevant quantitative/qualitative data or information, briefly summarize the most salient observations and findings, including strengths and areas needing improvement, by answering the questions below. Ensure that you address all elements of this question.
What data sources were used/analyzed to inform state observations? Briefly describe your analysis, including data periods represented, measures, and methodology.
Are there limitations to the evidence and information (e.g., completeness, accuracy, reliability)? Briefly describe those limitations.
What does the evidence show with respect to the system functioning statewide?
What does the evidence identify as areas of strength?
What does the evidence identify as areas in need of improvement?
What does the evidence show with respect to stakeholders’ experience with the ongoing consultation process?
How do the findings compare to CFSR Round 3 performance in this area? Describe improvement efforts made during the PIP and/or CFSP if applicable. To what extent does current information reflect those improvements?
State Response:
Item 32: Coordination of CFSP Services With Other Federal Programs
For this item, provide evidence that answers this question:
How well is the agency responsiveness to the community system functioning statewide to ensure that the state’s services under the CFSP are coordinated with services or benefits of other federal or federally assisted programs serving the same population?
In your analysis:
Using relevant quantitative/qualitative data or information, briefly summarize the most salient observations and findings, including strengths and areas needing improvement, by answering the questions below.
What data sources were used/analyzed to inform state observations? Briefly describe your analysis, including data periods represented, measures, and methodology.
Are there limitations to the evidence and information (e.g., completeness, accuracy, reliability)? Briefly describe those limitations.
What does the evidence show with respect to the system functioning statewide?
What does the evidence identify as areas of strength?
What does the evidence identify as areas in need of improvement?
What does the evidence show with respect to children and families’ experience with service coordination between child welfare and other federal programs?
How do the findings compare to CFSR Round 3 performance in this area? Describe improvement efforts made during the PIP and/or CFSP, if applicable. To what extent does current information reflect those improvements?
State Response:
For this item, provide evidence that answers this question:
How well is the foster and adoptive parent licensing, recruitment, and retention system functioning statewide to ensure that state standards are applied to all licensed or approved foster family homes or child care institutions receiving title IV-B or IV-E funds?
In your analysis:
Using relevant quantitative/qualitative data or information, briefly summarize the most salient observations and findings, including strengths and areas needing improvement, by answering the questions below.
What data sources were used/analyzed to inform state observations? Briefly describe your analysis, including data periods represented, measures, and methodology.
Are there limitations to the evidence and information (e.g., completeness, accuracy, reliability)? Briefly describe those limitations.
What does the evidence show with respect to the system functioning statewide?
What does the evidence identify as areas of strength?
What does the evidence identify as areas in need of improvement?
What does the evidence show with respect to stakeholders’ experience with state standards being applied equally?
How do the findings compare to CFSR Round 3 performance in this area? Describe improvement efforts made during the PIP and/or CFSP, if applicable. To what extent does current information reflect those improvements?
State Response:
Item 34: Requirements for Criminal Background Checks
For this item, provide evidence that answers this question:
How well is the foster and adoptive parent licensing, recruitment, and retention system functioning statewide to ensure that the state complies with federal requirements for criminal background clearances as related to licensing or approving foster care and adoptive placements, and has in place a case planning process that includes provisions for addressing the safety of foster care and adoptive placements for children?
In your analysis:
Using relevant quantitative/qualitative data or information, briefly summarize the most salient observations and findings, including strengths and areas needing improvement, by answering the questions below. Ensure that you address all components of this question.
What data sources were used/analyzed to inform state observations? Briefly describe your analysis, including data periods represented, measures, and methodology.
Are there limitations to the evidence and information (e.g., completeness, accuracy, reliability)? Briefly describe those limitations.
What does the evidence show with respect to the system functioning statewide?
What does the evidence identify as areas of strength?
What does the evidence identify as areas in need of improvement?
What does the evidence show with respect to stakeholders’ experience with the criminal background check process?
How do the findings compare to CFSR Round 3 performance in this area? Describe improvement efforts made during the PIP and/or CFSP, if applicable. To what extent does current information reflect those improvements?
State Response:
Item 35: Diligent Recruitment of Foster and Adoptive Homes
For this item, provide evidence that answers this question:
How well is the foster and adoptive parent licensing, recruitment, and retention system functioning to ensure that the process for ensuring the diligent recruitment of potential foster and adoptive families who reflect the ethnic and racial diversity of children in the state for whom foster and adoptive homes are needed is occurring statewide?
In your analysis:
Using relevant quantitative/qualitative data or information, briefly summarize the most salient observations and findings, including strengths and areas needing improvement, by answering the questions below.
What data sources were used/analyzed to inform state observations? Briefly describe your analysis, including data periods represented, measures, and methodology.
Are there limitations to the evidence and information (e.g., completeness, accuracy, reliability)? Briefly describe those limitations.
What does the evidence show with respect to the system functioning statewide?
What does the evidence identify as areas of strength?
What does the evidence identify as areas in need of improvement?
What does the evidence show with respect to children and families’ experience with the ensuring a diversity of foster and adoptive parent homes?
How do the findings compare to CFSR Round 3 performance in this area? Describe improvement efforts made during the PIP and/or CFSP, if applicable. To what extent does current information reflect those improvements?
State Response:
Item 36: State Use of Cross-Jurisdictional Resources for Permanent Placements
For this item, provide evidence that answers this question:
How well is the foster and adoptive parent licensing, recruitment, and retention system functioning to ensure that the process for ensuring the effective use of cross-jurisdictional resources to facilitate timely adoptive or permanent placements for waiting children is occurring statewide?
Please provide relevant quantitative/qualitative data or information that show the state’s process for ensuring the effective use of cross-jurisdictional resources to facilitate timely adoptive or permanent placements for waiting children is occurring statewide.
Please include quantitative data that specify the percentage of all home study requests received to facilitate a permanent foster or adoptive care placement that are completed within 60 days.
In your analysis:
Using relevant quantitative/qualitative data or information, briefly summarize the most salient observations and findings, including strengths and areas needing improvement, by answering the questions below.
What data sources were used/analyzed to inform state observations? Briefly describe your analysis, including data periods represented, measures, and methodology.
Are there limitations to the evidence and information (e.g., completeness, accuracy, reliability)? Briefly describe those limitations.
What does the evidence show with respect to the system functioning statewide?
What does the evidence identify as areas of strength?
What does the evidence identify as areas in need of improvement?
What does the evidence show with respect to stakeholders’ experience with the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children process overall?
How do the findings compare to CFSR Round 3 performance in this area? Describe improvement efforts made during the PIP and/or CFSP, if applicable. To what extent does current information reflect those improvements?
State Response:
Appendix: CFSR State Data Profile
Attach a copy of the CB-generated CFSR state data profile transmitted to the state for use in completing the statewide assessment.
| File Type | application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document |
| File Title | CFSR Round 4 Statewide Assessment Instrument |
| Subject | Statewide Assessment Instrument for CFSR Round 4 |
| Author | Children's Bureau |
| File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
| File Created | 2021-10-04 |
© 2024 OMB.report | Privacy Policy