To: Kathleen McHugh, Director of Division of Policy

Children's Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families

1250 Maryland Avenue SW., Suite 800

Washington, DC 20024

From: State of Kansas, Children & Family Services

Date: March 6, 2008

Subject: Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rule Making: Adoption and
Foster Care Analysis and Reports 45 CFR Part 1355

To Whom It May Concern:

The State of Kansas submits this letter of comments in regards to the
NPRM document issued on January 11, 2008 by the Administration for
Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. Kansas appreciates the interest in capturing accurate data for
the Child Welfare Systems in order to help focus appropriate energies in
the correct places to assist the children in care across the Country.
Kansas also commends you for eliminating unnecessary data and
inefficiencies in the data submission process in your focus to capture
and measure better outcomes for children.

Although there are many positive aspects to this proposal there are also
some changes Kansas would like to comment on or obtain additional
clarification.

**Reporting Population:**

-   The expansion of the reporting population to include utilizing other
    state human service systems, including Juvenile Justice and the
    Department of Health and Environment. This expansion will make it
    very difficult to get timely coordinating data especially with the
    NPRM proposed shortened submission timeframe. Kansas would also like
    to request a clarification of the definition of who to include in
    our AFCARS submission as it pertains to our Juvenile Justice
    population.

-   Kansas would like a clearer definition on what is meant by "family"
    in regards to the requested "family record" number. There are
    situations in our data where a child may be on multiple family
    records due to a variety of family situations.

-   Also there is no clear direction or description of how to submit the
    new expanded longitudinal historical data. The size of a file of
    this magnitude may prove to be a problem and a burden on Kansas. It
    is clear that this would be a substantial adjustment for Kansas and
    this needs to be thoroughly explored at the Federal level.

**Data Reporting Requirements:**

-   Changing timelines for submitting files from 45 to 15 days and with
    the additional data elements, this will impose difficulty in time
    constraints and could be problematic for data accuracy. With the
    additional data elements a longer submission time frame of 60 days
    would be more appropriate and is requested by Kansas.

-   Kansas is also concerned with the proposed error rates in accordance
    with the proposed additional data requested and the proposed time of
    file submissions decreased.

-   Kansas is concerned with the expanse of new data elements and
    question the necessity for some elements. The additional data
    elements will require major system changes in order to capture and
    create system locations to store all the proposed data. With a major
    change like this to our systems, the following processes will be
    required and will require extensive work effort:

    -   Training

    -   Policy Changes

    -   Form Changes

    -   Extensive Programming Changes

-   The cost to implement major programming changes, in addition to the
    training, forms and policy would be a burden on Kansas financially.

-   Kansas is also concerned with the fact that we are currently in the
    midst of an AFCARS review and some of the changes that we are
    currently making for that review would be reversed with the
    implementation of this new proposal, causing undue burden to the
    state in that respect as well.

**Out-Of-Home Care Data File Elements:**

-   Kansas would like to comment that the additional data elements would
    mean longer and more complicated forms for the field staff to
    navigate, resulting in potential data inaccuracies.

-   There is a noted discrepancy in definitions between the NCANDS and
    the proposed AFCARS program when defining abuse/neglect removal
    reasons. This discrepancy will make it difficult to obtain accurate
    reporting data for the AFCARS proposed system since we currently
    capture this data using the NCANDS definitions. We would have to
    capture the data multiple times and with two different sets of
    criteria which would make it very burdensome for associates in the
    field.

-   Kansas has concerns and would appreciate clarification as to how
    some of the additional data elements will provide better outcomes
    for children.

    -   Child's language and level of verbal communication

    -   Immunizations

    -   Educational Information and Special Education eligibility

    -   Annual Circumstances and Exit Circumstances

    -   International Adoptions

**Adoption Assistance and Guardianship Subsidy Data File**:

-   Kansas appreciates that this file will not be penalized but is
    unclear how this additional data collection will add value and
    provide better outcomes for children.

    -   There are many instances in our population where children with
        special needs could be subsidized for up to 20 years.

    -   Reporting this data in accordance with adoptions may be
        considered in violation of Public Law 101 regarding contact and
        oversight with the adoptive family.

    -   This proposed edition would also cause additional work effort as
        our stage agency does not have ongoing contact with these
        populations.

**Penalties:**

-   The NPRM states that the penalties would be effective as soon as the
    final regulation is put into effect. This proposed timeframe could
    potentially result in Kansas being non-compliant with penalties
    charged given the volume and scope of the changes proposed in this
    NPRM will take three to five years to accomplish. Kansas requests
    that these penalties be delayed while states are implementing
    changes from the new regulations.

-   Kansas would also like to suggest ACF develop and implement a
    process and plan for all states to ensure that these new changes to
    our systems occur accurately so useful data is obtained.

**Fiscal Impact:**

-   The OMB estimated in the proposed NPRM that the state costs will be
    \$36 million annually for the first five years. The financial aspect
    of this proposal is an enormous burden on our state. Kansas is
    experiencing a budget crisis and is not able to sustain such
    additional costs, and is concerned that those estimates are lower
    than what would be necessary for these proposed changes to occur.

Kansas appreciates the opportunity to provide comments in regards to the
NPRM document. Kansas supports the comment documents provided by APHSA
and CWLA. Both sets of comments illustrate many of the same points as
Kansas does, however they also portray how some of these proposed
changes will affect all states as a whole.