.; 
Department of Health and Human Servces 
OFFICE OF 
INSPECTOR GENERAL 
Independent Living Programs 
for Foster Care Youths 
Strategies for Improved 
Reportg 
ACF Management and 
S,tRVJC'E.r,  JU 
GffBS BROWN 
Inspector General 
Novembe9r 319-940  
;,(iYd3a  #OEI-01- OFFCE OF INSPECTOR GENERA 
The mission of the Offce of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, as 
amended, is to protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Servces ' (HHS) 
programs as well as the health and welfare of beneficiaries served by those programs. This 
statutory mission is carried out through a nationwide network of audits, investigations, and 
inspections conducted by three OIG operating components: the Offce of Audit Servces, the 
Offce of Investigations, and the Office of Evaluation and Inspections. The OIG also inform 
the Secretary of HHS of program and management problems and recommends courses to 
correct them. 
OFFCE OF AUDIT SERVICE 
The OIG's Office of Audit Servces (OAS) provides all auditing servces for HHS, either by 
conducting audits with its own audit resources or by overseeing audit work done by others. 
Audits examine the performance of HHS programs and/or its grantees and contractors in 
carrng out their respective responsibilities and are intended to provide independent 
assessments of HHS programs and operations in order to reduce waste, abuse, and 
mismanagement and to promote economy and efficiency throughout the Department. 
OFFCE OF INTIGATIONS 
The OIG's Offce of Investigations (01) conducts criminal, civil, and administrative 
investigations of allegations of wrongdoing in HHS programs or to HHS beneficiaries and of 
unjust enrichment by providers. The investigative efforts of 01 lead to criminal convictions 
administrative sanctions, or civil money penalties. The 01 also oversees State Medicaid fraud 
control units which investigate and prosecute fraud and patient abuse in the Medicaid program. 
AN 
OFFICE OF EVALUATION  INSPECTONS 
The OIG's Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) conducts short-term management and 
program evaluations (called inspections) that focus on issues of concern to the Department 
the Congress, and the public. The findings and recommendations contained in these inspection 
reports generate rapid , accurate, and up-to-date information on the effciency, vulnerabilty, 
and effectiveness of departmental programs. 
The report was prepared under the direction of Mark R. Yessian, Ph.  , the Regional 
Inspector General, and Martha B. Kvaal, Deputy Regional Inspector General, Boston Region 
Offce of Evaluation and Inspections. Participating in this project were the following people: 
Headquarrs 
Boton Region 
Timothy Corbett  Ann O'Connor Program Specialist 
David Veroff

For additional copies of this report, please contact the Boston regional offce by telephone at 
(617) 565-1050 (617) 565-3751. 
, or by fax at  ..  p. 
Department of Health and Human Servces 
OFFICE OF 
INSPECTOR GENERAL 
Independent Living Programs 
for Foster Care Youths 
Strategies for Improved 
Reportg 
ACF Management and 
SERVICEs  JU 
GffBS BROWN 
Inspector General 
November 1994 
qYd'3a  #OEI-01-93- EXECUTIVE  SUMMAR Y 
PUROSE 
To assist the Administr!!tion for Chidren and Famies in its efforts to improve its 
management and program reporting strategies for the Title IV-E Independent Living 
Program for foster care youths. 
BACKGROUN 
Prgr 
Though the Title IV-E Independent Living Program (ILP), the 
goals: 
Deparent's Administration for Children and Familes (ACF) supports State efforts 
to assist adolescents in foster care--and adolescents who were previously in foster care 
to prepare for independent adult life. Such efforts are intended to 
after age 16--
enable youths to find housing and employment, achieve positive social relationships 
perform daily living activities, and live independently of public support. Federal 
may use varyng methods and strategies to 
instructions to the States note that they "
" though program funds may not be used for room 
achieve the program objectives 
and board, and must supplement, rather than replace, existing expenditures. 
, at 
The program received permanent reauthorization in August 1993
This  repn: 
$70 milion per year. The ACF has taken this occasion as an opportunity to 
reexamie its  to provide information 
approach to the program, and has asked the  OIG 
and ideas on improved long-term management and program reporting strategies. We 
have drawn upon several priary sources of information, including a record review 
structured on-site and telephone discussions with State and ACF staff, and a focus 
Association. 
group with members of the National Independent Livig 
LIG 
ACF AN TI  OF INEPENEN 
FU 
The AfCuF  recognizes that it must address a number of issues as it considers how it can 
best  its management and oversight responsibilities. These include questions 
s general role in independent livig, the integration of independent 
about the agency 
living into the spectrum of child welfare servces, and the Federal government s overall 
approach to the needs of youths. 
RECOMMED STRTEGIE 
We recommend two broad strategies that ACF should undertake in order to better 
ensure accountabilty, promote quality State servces, and enhance understanding in 
the field of independent living. The ACF' s decisions regarding its overall approach to 
independent living, as outlined above, will help direct its choice of specific options in 
each area.  REUCT 
IT INEPENEN LIG PROGRA 
TH ACF SHOUW 
APPUCATION AN PROGRA REORTIG PROCEUR. 
Issues of Concern: 
The ACF's current application and program reporting mechansms do not adequately 
accurate national picture of 
support State plannng and do not allow ACF to gain an 
independent livig efforts. The lack of such information weakens basic accountabilty 
determe 
and hinders efforts to improve programs and to  effective practices. 
The current application process discourages effective plamrg and full 
integration with other child welfare servces. 
Program reporting by the States has been inconsistent. 
The application and program reports have not focused adequately on program 
performance and outcomes. 
Options for Improvement: 
plang: 
Requie and support better State 
Create a consolidated State plan for chid welfare servces that includes 
mium 
requirements to ensure that relevant 
independent living, and set 
issues are adequately addressed. 
Require States to establish measurable goals and targets, and to report on their 
progress. 
Adjust the timing of the State plan and the grant award to ensure that funds 
are made available by the beginnig of the fiscal year. 
lig reportg mechanms: 
Strengten independent 
Retain a distinct focus on independent living and youths in any State chid 
welfare reporting system. 
Use a simple, standard reporting form for aggregate information in order 
mizing 
improve the reliabilty of data, while  the burden on the States. 
Utilize the capabilities of State Automated Child Welfare Information Systems 
and the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System. 
Encourage electronic reporting specifically for independent living.  lig 
reportg: 
Improve the content of independent 
Establish a basic data set for independent living, including basic demographic 
servce, and outcomes information. 
Facilitate the development of clear definitions of independent living terms. 
Collect more detailed budget data through the program reporting mechanism. 
Solicit information on effective practices and innovations. 
progr 
Focu on  performance and outcomes: 
Develop performance and outcomes measures for independent livig. 
Establish general parameters within which States could defie specifc outcomes 
and ways of measuring those outcomes. 
Focus on the status of youths at discharge. 
Encourage and assist State efforts to link independent living data systems with 
, unemployment, crimial justice and Internal Revenue Servce 
public assistance
information systems.

Play an active role in independent living research. 
TH ACF SHOUW FOCUS IT MAAGEM AN PROGRA REORTIG EFORTS 
SHAG. 
ON INORMTION 
Issues of Concern: 
The ACF has not actively facilitated information sharing among States, components of 
ACF, and other Federal agencies. This lack of good communication may be limiting 
opportunities for States to improve the quality of independent living servces and for 
ACF to provide effective advice to States and others on the program. 
The ACF has not generally made available to States information it currently 
collects and to which it has access. 
The ACF's interactions with States about the program, aside from the reports 
and applications, have been limited. 
State and ACF offcials see substantial room for improvement, and view more 
complete and accurate information sharing as key to such progress.  Opons for Improvement: 
The ACF could capitalize on its investment in independent living by effectively 
among the States information on the program 
gatherig, analyzng, and sharing 
successes and difculties. Below, we identify several specifc options that ACF could 
consider. Some of these could be undertaken immediately with no extra financial 
commitment, while others might require additional funding. To fiance such activities 
in a tight budgetary environment, ACF could seek legislation to provide a set-aside 
from the Federal independent living appropriation for these purposes. 
Provde wrtten inormtion to the States: 
Report on State performance measures.

Disseminate qualitative updates on State activities. 
Share model forms and directories of avaiable resources. 
Facitate inormation sharg thoug ACF sta: 
Develop a focus for ACF youth programs in central and each regional offce. 
Incorporate independent living issues into other chid welfare monitorig 
activities. 
Become a resource on other Federal programs servng youths, and facilitate 
coordination among these and the Independent Living Program. 
TI DRA REORT 
COMMNT ON 
We shared our draft report with and solicited comments from the Administration for 
Plang 
Children and Families (ACF), the Assistant Secretary for  and Evaluation, the 
Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget, and the Assistant Secretary for 
Legislation. We also solicited comments from the Child Welfare League of America 
(CWL) and the National Independent Living Association (NIL). 
NIL. 
We received written comments from ACF and from CWLA and  They all 
CWL and NIL 
concurred with our two recommendations. The  also commented 
favorably on several options we offered for each recommendation.  .................................................
..  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 
. . . ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ....    ....    ....    ....    ....    .....     .....     ......      ......      ......      ......      ......      ......      ......      ......      ......      ......      ......      ......      ......      ......      ......      ..... .    . .... .    ... .   . ... .   . ... .   . .. .  . .. .  . .. .  . ...    ....    ....    ....    ....    ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ...  . 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXCU SUMY

INODUCI0N 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 
. Purpose

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 
. Background

. Methodology

. . . . . . . 3 
this report 
. Structure of 
FU 
LIG 
AN TI  OF INEPENENT 
ACF 
RECOMMED STTEGIE. 
Program 
. Restructuring the Independent Living 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 
application and program reporting procedures. . 
management and program reporting 
. Focussing 
efforts on information sharing 
COMMNT ON TH DRA REORT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23 
APPENDICE 
A: Legislative history. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A 
............................................... B
B: Methodology 
C: Sample data collection forms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. C
. . . .. D
D: Sample data elements 
- E .. . . E. :.  . S. a. m.p .l .e .  .p .e .r f. o. r. m. a. n.c .e .  .m .e .a .s u. r. e. s. 
. .
the draft report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. F 
F: Complete comments on 
....................................... ........... G
G: Notes  INTRODUCTION
PUROSE 
To assist the Administration for Children and Famiies in its efforts to improve its 
management and program reporting strategies for the Title IV-E Independent Livig 
Program for foster care youths. 
BACKGROUN 
Though the Title IV-E Independent Living Program (ILP), the Department's 
Admistration for Children and Famiies (ACF) supports State efforts to assist 
adolescents in foster care--and adolescents who were previously in foster care after age 
16--to prepare for independent adult lie. Such efforts comprise "a series of 
skis 
developmental activities that provide opportunities for young people to gain the 
required to live healthy, productive, and responsible lives as self-suffcient adults. 
They are intended to enable youths to find housing and employment, achieve positive 
social relationships, perform daily living activities, and live independently of public 
support. 
Chi 
Adolecen in th  The chid welfare system has traditionally 
Welfare System 
focused on the security and dependency needs of young chidren, and on permanency
plarg 
efforts that include family reunication and adoption. In recent years 
, for 
recognition has grown of the need for specialized efforts to serve older children
whom family reunification or adoption may not be feasible options. Many of these 
adolescents will eventually "age out" of the substitute care system, usually at age 18 
and will face the need to live on their own. This transition to independent livig can 
adult, but for foster care youths it can pose particularly 
be difcult for any young 
formidable challenges. Many of these teenagers start out with distinct disadvantages 
including limited social support systems, unstable placements while in care, incomplete 
high school education, limited employment experience, emotional disturbance 
pregnancy and parenthood, drug abuse, and health problems. 
Fedral  Congress created the Title IV-
Th  Indpennt Livg Prgrm: 
Independent Living Program in 1985.  Among the allowable servces outlined in the 
, its equivalent 
legislation are programs to enable teens to seek a high school diploma
or vocational training; provide training in daily living skills, including budgeting, 
housing, career planning, and health care; provide individual or group counseling; 
integrate and coordinate existing servces; establish outreach programs; provide a 
written transitional independent living plan to each participant, based on a needs 
instructions to the States note that 
assessment; and provide other servces. Federal 
they "may use varyng methods and strategies to achieve the program objectives," 
though program funds may not be used for room and board, and must supplement 
4 (See appendix A for the legislative history 
, existing expenditures.
rather than replace
of the program.  , "

, at $70 millon per 
The program received permanent reauthoriation in August 1993
considerable uncertainty in the chid welfare 
year. Prior to that time, there was 
community as to the program s prospects. Being unsure of continued Federal support, 
some States made only tentative commitments to independent living. The ACF 
liewise, refrained from promulgating regulations or devoting substantial time or 
resources to the development of oversight or technical assistance efforts for the 
program. 
reportg  To receive Independent Living Program 
AppliaJn and progrm 
predes:  , durg 
fuds, each State must submit an application, which is due by February 1st (Le.
the second quarter of the fiscal year for which funding is being requested). Required 
carr 
information includes a description of the servces and activities the State plans to 
out, how the State will build on previous years' activities , the number of eligible youths 
and the number expected to participate, and a description of the State s current 
efforts. Each State must also submit a year-end program report describing the 
previous year s activities; this report is due by January 1st. States are required to 
provide a description of servces and activities actually provided, a record of how funds 
were spent, and information on the demographics and the outcomes of paricipating 
youths. Periodic fiscal reports are also required.  Beging in fiscal year 1994, the 
s regional offces. 
applications have been reviewed and approved by ACF'
The ACF is currently engaged in a reengieering process 
Cuen ACF inties: 
designed to improve its ability to support State child welfare programs. These efforts 
7 and performance 
include examiations of ACF monitorig, grants management 
measurement. An agency team has been charged to make recommendations that 
ACF can use "in designing a new approach to monitoring that is cost effective and
us The ACF 
comprehensive enough to address ongoing stewardship responsibilities. 
has indicated an interest in movig from compliance monitoring to greater information 
sharing. In designing this new approach, ACF will build on recommendations made in 
Oversight of State Child Welfare 
a recent Offce of Inspector General report 
Programs" (OEI-0l-92-00770). That report recommended, among other things, that 
ACF improve current planning and review processes, focus on outcomes and 
, and enhance information sharing. 
performance measures
METHODOLOGY 
We have drawn upon 5 primary sources of information: (1) a review of program 
reports for fiscal years (FY) 1992 and '  , and applications for FY' s 1993 and ' 
from all 50 States and the District of Columbia; and a sample of State FY ' 93 fiscal 
independent jiving coordinators in 
reports; (2) structured telephone discussions with 
10 States; (3) structured discussions with ACF staff in central offce and each regional 
offce; (4) an in-depth site visit to 1 State to meet with the independent living 
coordinator, technical assistance and evaluation staff, county-level staff, and staff at a 
private youth-servng agency; and (5) a focus group and discussions with State 
coordinators and other professionals at the annual conference of the National 
Independent Living Association (NILA) in March 1994. In addition, we conducted  informal visits to two State programs; attended a meeting of the independent living 
coordinators in Region I; held discussions with consultants, academics, and advocates 
in the field; reviewed legislation and literature on independent living; and examied 
ACF program information and directions. We also spoke informally with participating 
youths from Maine, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Arzona. (See appendix B for a 
more detailed description of our methodology. 
We conducted this inspection in accordance with the  Quality Standards for Inspections 
issued by the President's Council on Integrity and Effciency. 
STRUcr  TI REORT 
OF 
to provide information and ideas on improved long-term 
The ACF has asked the  OIG 
management and program reporting strategies. Because ACF is aware of the general 
, we do not outlie these in a 
limitations in its management of the program to date
lO Instead
separate section. , we begin with a discussion of several underlying 
considerations that will affect ACF's overall approach to independent living. We then 
recommend two broad strategies that ACF should undertake to better promote and 
, we describe some of the issues 
support State independent living servces. Under each
of concern these address, and then identify a series of specific options for 
implementation. This report does not evaluate individual State efforts or specific 
program models.  ACF AND THE FUTURE OF
INDEPENDENT LIVING
The recent permanent reauthorization of the Independent Livig Program has 
prompted ACF to reexamine its approach to the program. The agency wishes to 
determine how it might, withi anticipated resource constraints, better manage Federal 
independent livig resources and guide and oversee State programs. It would lie to 
determine, in particular, how best to prevent inappropriate or ineffective uses of 
independent living funds, while at the same time allowing flexibilty and promoting 
innovation among the States. The ACF recognzes that it must address a number of 
issues as it considers how best to fulfil these dual responsibilties, including questions 
in three basic areas: 
The ACF's general role in independent lig: How extensive a role does the 
How directive does it want to be? 
agency wish to play in independent livig? 
How will ACF's role in independent living be affected by the agency s broader 
reengineerig efforts, particularly with respect to monitorig and oversight? 
The legislation gives States great flexibilty in spending independent living funds; ACF 
has left program plannig and design largely to the discretion of the States. Most 
observers consider the program s flexibility--the ability to innovate and to creatively 
address the diverse needs of this population--to be a significant strength; it is our 
understanding that ACF does not intend to limit this flexibility in program approach. 
At the same time, ACF has indicated that it intends to improve its management of the 
program and to coIlect better information from the States. The agency is also 
exploring new approaches to program monitorig that will allow it to playa more 
consultative and proactive role. The ACF must decide how both to ensure 
accountabilty and to guide States within these varied objectives. 
lig  spect 
Integration of independent  into the  of chid welfe servce: 
How will independent living be further integrated into the overall child welfare 
system? What implications will this have for ACF's role in independent living? 
What implications wiIl this have for program design, planning, and data 
collection? 
Those in the field widely agree on the desirability of integrating independent living 
At the 
efforts and philosophy into the overaIl continuum of chid welfare servces. 
same time, many argue that a continued programmatic emphasis on adolescents is 
necessary in order to ensure that their special needs are met. In times of limited 
resources and demanding case loads, it is argued, the needs of teens can too easily be 
sacrificed to the seemingly more immediate crises of small children suffering abuse or 
neglect.  The ACF also has a basic responsibility to ensure that the funds directed by Congress 
toward the needs of adolescents in substitute care are in fact spent on this population. 
The ACF will have to consider ways of resolving these tensions; it will have to assist 
States in integrating independent living, without losing sight of it. 
An overa approach to the needs of yout: How will independent livig fit 
into the Federal Government s overall approach to the needs of youths? How 
might collaboration and coordination be improved? 
The ACF and other Federal agencies currently fund a variety of programs for youths. 
Opportnities and Basic Skis 
Programs administered by ACF include the Jobs 
, II and a variety of State efforts 
program, servces to runaway and homeless youth
funded through general child welfare and social servces funding mechanisms. The 
programs. 
Department of Housing and Urban Development funds transitional housing 
The Department of Labor coordinates various employment and trainng programs 
Department of Justice oversees 
including Jobs Training Partnership Act servces. The 
Deparent of Education plays a key role 
a range of juvenile justice programs. The 
in educational programs. 
Coordination and collaboration among these efforts, however, is often hindered by 
, fragmented funding streams, and divided organizational 
poor communication
responsibilities. Broader approaches to integratig and coordinating these programs 
and funding streams are desirable, and will inevitably have major implications for the 
structures ACF wi use for the program. 
tyes of program reporting  RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES

In this section, we recommend two broad strategies that ACF should undertake in 
order to better ensure accountabilty, promote quality State servces, and enhance 
understanding in the field of independent living. We describe briefly the issues of 
a series of specific options for 
concern addressed by each strategy and then identif 
implementation. Some of these options are mutually exclusive; others fit well 
together. Our goal is to present ACF with a wide range of ideas on how its 
management and program reporting procedures could be improved. The ACF' 
decisions regarding its overall approach to independent living, as outlined in the 
preceding section, will help direct its choice of specific options in each area. 
We also intend that these approaches should benefit the States--by helping them to 
plan, to understand their own programs, and to learn from their peers. A number of 
the options we suggest could actually make the States' job easier by enhancing the 
clarity, effciency, and value of their reporting efforts. We identif some of the costs 
as well as the advantages of the various options. On balance, however, we believe 
that improved management and program reporting will benefit ACF, the States, and 
the youths whom the program seeks to serve. 
SHOUl RETRUCT IT INEPENEN LIG PROGRA 
TI ACF 
AN PROGRA REORTIG PROCEUR. 
APPliCATION 
CONCE: 
ISSUE OF 
The ACE's cu"ent application and program reportng mechanisms do not adequately 
support State planning and do not allow ACF to gain an accurate national picture of 
independent living efforts. No other source can provide a comprehensive picture of State 
activities. The lack of such information weakens basic accountability and hinders efforts 
to improve programs and to determine effective practices. The ACF  is  also missing an 
opponunity to guide and encourage high quality State program planning and development. 
The curent application process dicourages effecte plang and fu integrtion with 
other chid welfe servces. 
The separation between the Title IV-B joint plan for child welfare servces and the 
application for independent living funds has led some States to compartmentalize their 
12 For example
plannng for their youth population. , one regional staffer noted that 
in one State, the independent living coordinator was not even invited to joint planning 
sessions. Another State coordinator described her contribution to the State joint plan 
as an "add-on ; her agency did not address the needs of youths in an integrated 
fashion in the plan.  In addition, the timing of the application and grant award can be an obstacle to good 
program planningY In the most recent grant period, instructions on the application 
process were provided more than two months into the fiscal year, and only six weeks 
before the due date. The award itself has not been made until the middle of each 
fiscal year; many States have been spending their grants in the second year of the two-
co=it 
year expenditure period. Many States noted that they are not able to 
resources until they actually have the Federal funds in hand. The late grant award can 
pose particular problems in States that have county-based programs or that rely 
heavily on contractors; these States need time to negotiate contracts, process 
applications from counties, or channel funds to providers. The ACF staf have 
recognzed the liabilities of the separate application process and the problems posed 
by the late awarding of funds. 
Program reportg by the States has been inconsistent. 
The States' approaches to program reporting and the quality of their program reports 
vary greatly. Many reports provide little sense of the intensity of servces, and do not 
explain the range of efforts made for youths in various placement settings. In most 
cases, there is no clear link between the application and the report; one cannot see if 
States have done what they planned to do. It is diffcult to compare State-by-State 
information or to construct a comprehensive national picture. 
States use various definitions of terms, which can result in duplicate counts and 
inconsistent statistics. For example, the basic term ' to be served' has different 
meanings in different States. In some, a youth is counted as 'served' if he or she has a 
case plan goal of independent living or has received an assessment, while in others, a 
course to be counted. The term 
youth must be enrolled in a formal life skills 
appropriate' is likewise used in very diferent ways; some States consider all youths in 
the eligible age group to be ' appropriate' for servces , while others interpret the 
appropriate' criterion very narrowly. Another example is the term ' counseling ; in 
some States, this refers only to the servces of a licensed therapist, while in others the 
definition is much broader. 
A number of State independent living coordinators and regional ACF offcials with 
whom we spoke expressed the concern that ACF had not clearly articulated its 
expectations of the States. Their criticisms focus on inadequately precise 
requirements, unclear definitions of terms, and some conflcting messages from ACF' 
central and regional offces. Some reports have been incomplete because States had 
not known in advance that they would be expected to report certain information. 
One reason for this is the fact that ACF's instructions on program reporting are 
purposefully broad; no specific program report format is required or recommended. 
One State coordinator pointed out that "it's really hard to make comparisons between 
States when they are interpreting the program instructions very broadly and very 
individually." In particular, ACF does not require a specific budget breakdownY  , " 
Another reason for this variation in reporting is the fact that State methods of data 
collection and analysis--and the strength of their central, State-wide information 
capabilities--vary greatly. 
progr 
The application and program report have not focued adequately on 
performance and outcomes. 
Most State applications and reports have presented descriptions of activities planned 
or undertaken; little information has been provided on the quality or impact of such 
in their applications, and 
efforts. States are not required to establish goals or targets 
must provide only very limited outcomes information in their year-end program 
reports. 
The ACF has required States to report on the results achieved by participants 
90 days after they receive servces. This information, however, has been very diffcult 
, inconsistently reported, and hard to interpretP Most signficantly, many 
to collect
it may be 
States question the value of such information at 90 days after paricipation--
soon enough to reach a considerable number of youths, but too soon to really judge 
expressed 
how well the youths are managig their independence. Many States 
concern that the information does not provide valuable insight into the impact of their 
programs--and, for this reason, do not see the information as helpful in program 
development and management. As one State coordinator expressed it  to thin that 
there is something magical about that 90 days after servce is not really true; it doesn 
tell us anything meaningfl." 
IMROVE: 
OPTONS FOR 
plang: 
Requie and support better State 
Create a consolidated State plan for child welfare services that includes 
independent living. 
The ACF has undertaken an effort to combine the plans for Title IV-B Subpart 1 
child welfare servces, Subpart 2 family support and preservation servces, and Title 
IV-E independent living. Most State coordinators and regional ACF staff with whom 
we spoke were very supportive of this idea. 
A move to a single, multi-year plan could encourage States to integrate independent 
living more comprehensively into the spectrum of servces for children and youths in 
and 
substitute care. Implemented properly, it could give greater prominence 
credibility to independent living as an approach to youths and give independent living 
staff greater leverage in their overall systems. It could also improve communication 
within State child welfare agencies. As part of a consolidated plan, independent living 
would be included formally in the State-ACF joint planning process, which could  create a regular opportnity for direct State-ACF interaction on independent living. It
could move ACF and the States towards a greater partnership in independent livig.
vagueness or superfciality on 
The potential drawbacks to a single plan might include 
independent living issues. One State coordinator expressed the concern that 
the independent living section of the plan might be completed by someone who is not 
very familiar with the program. Another was concerned that it could be included as 
an add-on to the overall plan, without being comprehensively addressed 
throughout. IS
To avoid these pitfalls, ACF could set some minmum requirements for the plan to 
, one of the 
ensure that independent living is adequately addressed. For example
required goals could be related to the preparation of youths for life after discharge. 
To support an integrated approach, ACF could also encourage or require that youth
concerns be addressed, as relevant, throughout the plans. For example, goals and
objectives regarding training for staff or foster parents could include elements related 
to training in independent living phiosophy and servces.
To maxmize the benefits of a single State plannig process, ACF could elimiate the 
19 If ACF does not eliminate the 
separate Independent Living Program application.
separate application, then it could create a simple, standard application form to ensure 
the comparability of information among States.
Require States to establish measurable goals and targets, and to report on their 
progress. 
The ACF could require States to use the child welfare servces plan (or the 
independent living application, if it is retained) to layout specifc goals for developing 
a continuum of servces to help youths prepare for independence. Year-end reporting 
2o This 
mechanisms could be used to relate States' progress towards these goals. 
approach might encourage States to think strategically, while at the same time making 
their reports more meaningfl to ACF. 
The most significant potential liability of this approach is the danger that States could
set minimal goals for themselves. One State coordinator feared that his own 
department, which is only minimally committed to independent livig, could take the 
opportunity to decrease its efforts in the area. If goals were set too broadly, 
accountability could be lost. 
To guard against this concern, ACF could specify certain minimum goal areas that
States should address. These might include the availability of servces in various 
placement settings (e.  , foster family homes, group homes, residential facilities, and 
subsidized living arrangements), mentoring opportunities, aftercare servces, training 
for staff and caregivers, educational assistance, job experience, job trainng, and life 
skills training. Specific, measurable objectives might include things such as increasing
the percent of youths receiving assessments by a certain age, graduating from high  , or gaiing job experience before discharge; or increasing the 
school before discharge
percent of staff or foster parents receiving training in independent living. These goals 
and objectives could incorporate agreed-upon performance measures (we discuss the 
development of such measures in a later section). 
Adjust the timing of the State plan and the grant award. 
Regardless of any changes in the application and reporting framework, ACF could 
take steps to ensure that the grant award is made available by the begiing of the 
fiscal year. We understand that ACF intends to seek legislation movig the 
application due date up to June, which would enable it to disburse grants by 
October 1. 
Both earlier knowledge of the grant requirements and more timely awarding of funds 
could allow States to plan better for the upcomig year. Ths could be particularly 
important in States that disperse fuds to local or county agencies or that must 
negotiate contracts with private providers.

There might be two potential drawbacks. First, some States may now be spending 
money with the expectation that new funds will not be available until late in the fiscal 
year; a phase-in period could help them to adjust their spending patterns. Second 
some State coordinators use their completed program report as the basis for their 
planning efforts and application. The ACF could allow States to use information from 
the previous program year as the basis for the application. 
Strengten independent lig reportg mechanms:

Retain a distinct focus on independent living and youths in any State child welfare 
reportng system.

The ACF is currently engaged in an agency-wide effort to reduce the reporting burden 
on States, and to improve the value and use of required reports. As part of this 
effort, ACF will consider whether to retain or eliminate the separate year-end 
either case, ACF could continue to require a 
independent living program report. In 
specific focus on independent living, both in individual-level records and program-wide 
reports.zl 
A distinct focus on independent living issues would address three key needs. First, the 
program is stil relatively new, and good information is vital for continued program 
development and effectiveness research. Federal reporting requirements can help 
States to develop solid, comparable information capabilities. Second, concrete 
reporting requirements could help to maintain a focus on this population, ensuring 
that they not be lost in the overall spectrum of child welfare servces. Third, they 
could allow ACF to better ensure that independent living funds are actually spent on 
the target population, and are not diverted to other priorities (a point of greater  mion 
importance now that the program has grown in recent years to the level of $70 
annualy). Many State coordinators strongly endorsed a distinct reporting structure for 
independent living. 
The ACF could provide clear, specific, consistent instructions to States on aggregate 
begig 
program reporting requirements before the  of the reporting period. Clear 
instructions could allow States to know specificaly what they need to report and give 
them the advance notice necessary to collect information properly, through whatever 
data collection systems they choose. These could also help to ensure consistency 
among the various regional offces and the central offce--an issue of particular 
importance now that regional staff have the responsibility for approving State 
applications. 
Provide the States with a simple, standard form for reportng aggegate information. 
A standardized independent living information form could improve the reliabilty and 
, while minimizing the burden on the States. A number of State and 
uniformity of data
regional contacts suggested more structured reporting as a means of increasing the 
usefulness and comparability of the information collected from State independent 
living programs. This form could be either a free-standing reporting document or part 
22 As ACF and the States move forward along the 
of a broader child welfare report.
information highway, such a "form" could actually become an electronic report. 
A structured form might include certain standardied data elements, which we discuss 
below. Standardized data elements might only tell part of the story, however. 
Because of the great variety of approaches among programs, such a form could also 
allow for additional quantitative or narrative sections for further explication of State
efforts. 
Although some initial effort would be required to develop a standard form, and 
perhaps to solicit comments on it from the States, the long-term savings in time and 
effort could be substantial. (See appendix C for examples of existing State forms. 
Utilize the capabilities of Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information 
Systems and the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reportng System.
The easiest way for States to capture the required aggregate information might be to 
include independent living data elements in the new statewide automated child welfare 
information systems (SACWIS), for which Federal funding has just been made 
available. The SACWIS provides ACF with an unprecedented occasion to guide State 
information strategies; ACF could make concrete efforts to assist States in fully 
including independent living information in those systems. 
The SACWIS regulations call upon States to construct systems that will be "likely to 
provide more efficient, economical, and effective administration" of their Title IV-
E programsP Full integration of independent living information into the 
and IV- States' data systems could streamline their data collection and record keeping 
processes, as well as help to facilitate the actual integration of independent livig into 
the spectrum of servces. An earlier evaluation of the Independent Living Program 
also recommended the modification of "State and local information systems to include 
information on independent living servces provided to youths as well as to track 
youths' skill attainment. "24 
The ACF could encourage States to incorporate the standard independent living data 
set, described below, into their individual SACWIS systems. At a mium, al States 
will be required to include in their systems the basic data elements established through 
25 The 
the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS).
livig, 
requirements of this data system could fulfill several functions for independent 
including the provision of demographic data, the identification of eligible youths 
(through age data and case plan goal), and calculations based on the number of 
eligible youths (e.  , the number receiving specific servces divided by the number 
eligible). Independent living data collection could also be based on AFCARS 
standards, such as point-in-time standards for reporting. As ACF considers future 
identifg 
refiements to the AFCARS data set, it might want to add a data element 
, the admistration 
youths as participants in the Independent Livig Program; for now
could encourage States to include such an element in their SACWIS systems. 
Encourage electronic reportng specifcally for independent living. 
Many States may choose to incorporate independent livig data elements into their 
overall automated chid welfare information systems, which could provide for easy 
collection of data from the local level. The ACF could assist States in their aggregate 
reporting of such information from the State level to ACF by developing and sharing 
specialized independent living software and by allowing the electronic submission of 
information. 
Such an effort need not be expensive or overly sophisticated. A simple, standard 
spreadsheet program, for example, could help all States to aggregate the required 
information from the field and to submit this to ACF on diskette or on-line. Such 
potentially be used within States for internal reporting of information 
softare could 
that is not included in SACWIS from the field to the State coordinator. 
lig 
reportg: 
Improve the content of independent 
Establish a standard, basic data set for independent living. 
The ACF could establish a set of standard data elements on which States would report 
meaningfl than the data 
annually, in aggregate; these could be more precise and 
currently collected. Such data elements could include basic demographic, servce, and 
outcomes information. Some of these elements (such as demographics) would be 
required to be included in the State Automated Child Welfare Inormation System  discussed above. Others (such as servces and status/outcomes) mayor may not be 
, depending on each State s design. If individual States choose 
part of such a system
, they may have to conduct program 
not to include these elements in their SACWIS
specifc data collection activities in order to provide the aggregate information. 
The ACF could provide clear instructions as to how such information should be
collected and reported (including avoiding duplicate counts). It might also be useful 
for ACF to provide States with model client-specifc data forms that they could use to 
collect inormation at point-of-servce, district, or county levels. 
As noted above, the data collection capabilities and approaches of the States vary 
greatly; these variations must be borne in mind in developing any standard data set.
Any restructurig of the data reporting requirements should be done with advance
warng to provide adequate time for States to revamp their internal data collection 
activities. In addition, State and regional contacts with whom we spoke urged that
ACF look carefully at each data element to ensure that it is useful for national
program evaluation and research.
The National Independent Living Association (NIL) and some States have made 
efforts at specifyg a basic data set. A number of professionals in the field, however 
stressed the need for Federal leadership and direction in this area, and the infuence 
27 The ACF 
of Federal information requirements on State data collection activities.
refie 
could work with these groups in developing a data set, and could reexamie and 
the data elements in the future. Ths effort would require an investment up front, but 
could payoff in improved co=unication and understanding in the future. (See 
appendix D for more detailed information on data collection. 
tel7. 
Facilitate the development of clear definitions of independent living 
A lack of co=on definitions of terms presents a signcant problem in understandig 
individual State program reports, in comparg programs among States, and ultimately 
28 As one State coordinator put it 
in detemIing what practices are effective.
before we can start talking about post-servce outcomes, we have to build consensus 
about the current servce interpretations and defitions of what we mean. Not 
everyhing works just because we think it does. But right now we can t argue with 
each other about what s working and what's not working, because we have a different 
definition of what we re doing. " The ACF could playa useful role in facilitating that 
consensus.
Clear definitions would be vital for the development of a standard data set, as 
discussed above. On both tasks, ACF could work closely with NIL. Again, the 
necessary initial investment may well be justified by the improved utility of the 
information collected. It should be noted that the development and use of uniform 
servce definitions need not limit State flexibility in  servces to provide. 
choosing  which  , "

Collect more detailed budget data through the program reportng mechanism.
To gain both closer accountability for funds and a better sense of program priorities 
ACF could collect more detailed and uniform budget information. At a mium, this 
might include a required breakdown by expenditures on administration, training, and 
servces. 
The ACF could also collect more detailed budget inormation on State-funded 
servces, in order to gain a better sense of what is really being done for this 
population. It could also be useful to receive more detailed information on the State 
match and State maintenance of effort. 
Because of substantial variation in how States finance independent living, ACF would 
have to exercise care in comparing budget figures across States. Nonetheless, such
information could raise signcant questions for ACF staff which they could pursue in
technical assistance and joint-planning discussions with the States.
Solicit information on effective practices and innovations.
Although many States currently provide extensive descriptions of their programs 
including examples of their innovative practices, the free-form style of the program 
reports makes it difcult to gain a comprehensive picture of such activities. The ACF 
does not explicitly encourage States to detai their innovative approaches.
The ACF could establish categories in which States could, at their option, provide 
information on important activities that cannot easily be reduced to numbers. State 
and regional contacts suggested a number of key areas of interest, including aftercare 
mentoring, alternative living arrangements, interagency agreements and coordination 
youth advisory boards, connections with co=unity resources, staff-youth relationship 
building, staffng patterns, definitions of success, and outcomes measures. Standard 
section headings in the program report could provide for a better national picture and
for easier comparison among States.
Focus on program performance and outcomes:

Develop performance and outcomes measures for independent living. 
Working with NILA, other national advocacy and research groups 31 and the States

ACF could establish performance measures for independent living servces. Such 
measures could help to ensure that efforts are focussed on providing the best servces
and on achieving positive results for the youths being served. As one State 
coordinator put it  s vital to have clear information on progress and outcomes; a lot
of open narrative assuages a lack of knowledge about how 
 well  you re doing.

Performance measures could be focussed on key process areas as well as interim and
final outcomes for youths. The ACF is giving substantial attention to performance measurement across its varied 
programs; the development of measures for independent living could fit well with this 
broader effort. In fact, the relatively new, distinct, and small nature of the program 
might make it a good "laboratory" for the development and testing of performance 
measures. 
The ACF and the States could focus on a few measures at fist, and then refine and 
expand these with experience. One possible area in which to begi measurig 
33 Possible measures could include the 
performance might be educational status.
percent of youths completing high school before discharge, receivig financial 
assistance for education, or voluntarily remaining in State custody beyond their 18th 
34 (See appendix E for a list of 
birthday in order to complete their educational goals.
additional sample performance measures. 
Such an undertaking would not be easy. There is general agreement among 
independent living professionals that performance measurement is a weak area. Many 
States have no experience measuring performance or outcomes (beyond the minimal 
required information at 90 days after servce). There are wide-rangig views on what 
, and on how these can best be measured. 
constitute successful outcomes for youths
For example, one of the premises of the program is that it helps to prepare youths for 
self-suffcient adulthood, free from public assistance. Several State coordinators and 
consultants suggested, however, that in some cases the abilty of a young adult with 
severe diffculties to access the resources of the welfare system should be viewed as a 
success , not a failure. In addition, good performance measurement will require 
reliable numbers, which many States are not now able to produce. There are 
concerns that any such measures be accurately made and reported, to ensure valid 
comparability. 
Nonetheless, there is wide agreement that the development of performance measures 
would be a important next step for the field of independent living. The ACF could 
playa key role in facilitating the development of such measures. 
Establish general parameters within which States could define specifc outcomes 
and ways of measuring those outcomes. 
State innovation has been one of the key sources of progress in the field of 
independent living. By allowing States to defie outcomes and means of measurement 
within defined parameters, ACF could both encourage States to thin concretely 
terms of outcomes, and promote innovative approaches to outcomes measurement. 
For example, ACF could require States to define specific, measurable goals in the 
area of employment readiness. A State could choose to focus its efforts on providing 
youths with job 'experience while in care, and could measure its performance in this 
area by looking at the percent of youths who, at discharge, hold a job, have held a job 
for at least six months, or have received a raise.  , " 
Whle this approach would have the advantage of promoting innovative strategies for 
, it could hinder comparisons among States. 
measuring performance and outcomes
This deficiency could be alleviated through the establishment of standard areas for 
action, and good information sharing on States' experiences with specific measures. 
Focus on the statu of youths at discharge. 
results achieved 90 days after 
States are currently required to report on the "
participants completed the program." As noted above, some States have provided 
information on youths 90 days after discharge from custody, while others have looked 
at youth 90 days after completion of a discrete independent livig program, perhaps 
while they are stil in care. Most States have also experienced difculty reachig a 
substantial number of youths. To provide some consistency to these figures, and to 
reach a larger percentage of youths, ACF could require States to provide information 
Ths 
on how well prepared for independence youths appear to be  at discharge. 
approach could allow States to gather preliminary status/outcomes information on all 
youths leaving care, and could emphasize the responsibilty of the entire child welfare 
system--not just the independent living program--for youths' readiness for adult lie. 
The ACF could also provide guidance on appropriate methods for reporting such 
information so as to avoid double counts and inconsistent statistics. 
(but perhaps 
For those States currently providing inormation on youth  after services 
while stil in care), this approach could actually provide a look at youths further out 
36 For those States currently 
gatherig 
giving a better picture of their preparedness.
after discharge  this new approach would allow them to get 
information on youth 
information from the entire population of youth leaving care; they could also continue 
collecting information from youth after discharge. 
' status in areas such as educational 
Valuable data at discharge might include youths
attainment, employment, living arrangements, famiy relationships, parenthood, use of 
, and health. Given the customer focus of ACF' s reengieerig 
public assistance
efforts, it might also be worthwhile to encourage States to ask the youths to evaluate 
the efforts made to help them prepare for independence. 
Information at discharge would only tell part of the story; as noted in one State 
, measured right after program 
internal evaluation  immediate program outcomes
completion, would not necessarily reflect long-term effects.'03 Nonetheless , good 
information on all youths at discharge could provide a valuable piece of the overall 
picture. The ACF could also encourage States to voluntariy continue efforts to reach 
youths after care, in addition to the time of discharge, and could provide guidance to 
ensure that such information is meaningfl and comparable.  , " 
Encourage and assist State efforts to link independent living data systems with 
, unemployment, criminal justice and Internal Revenue Service 
public assistance
information systems. 
The SACWIS regulations allow States to design their child welfare inormation systems 
in such a way as to interface with other computer systems. The ACF could encourage 
States to use this capability to track certain youth outcomes--for example, employment 
crial 
status, use of public assistance, and interactions with the  justice system. 
measures to be 
These should not be regarded as the only--or even the best--outcome 
tracked. They would, however, provide a key piece of the picture. 
Interfacing with such databases could pose some complex problems in terms of 
confdentiality, and could require extensive negotiations with other agencies. If these 
difculties can be overcome, however, this channel could allow for relatively easy long-
term monitoring of cohorts of discharged youths. The ACF could share information 
on the successes of individual States, and could serve as a consultant to agencies 
attempting to accomplish this sort of data matchig. 
Play an active role in independent living research. 
to date, most information on 
As the Chid Welfare League of America has noted 
independent living is anecdotal. ... Virually no recent objective national data exist 
on the effectiveness of independent living servces or on the experiences of youths 
,,39 A number of the options 
discharged from out-of-home care. outlied above would 
help improve the quality of information on independent living that is collected and 
available at both the State and national levels. 
Many State and regional contacts with whom we spoke also noted the need for a 
longitudinal study of participating youths. It is very diffcult to follow individual youths 
, and such efforts require attention--and in many cases, expertise-
after discharge
beyond the capacity of most State child welfare agencies. The ACF could fi this gap 
by supporting research projects that would provide better information on the 
effectiveness of independent living efforts. The ACF could widely dissemiate the 
results. 
Studies of this sort could be costly. In the short term, ACF could consider giving 
priority to such projects within existing research budgets. In the longer term 
improved understanding of effective approaches to promoting self-suffciency could be 
viewed as a wise investment in prevention.  TI ACF SHOUL FOCUS IT MAAGEM AN PROGRA 
SHAG. 
REPORTIG EFORTS ON INORMTION 
IsUE OF CONCE: 
The ACF has not actively facilitated information sharing among States, components of 
ACE, and other Federal agencies. This lack of good communication may be limiting 
opponunities for States to improve the quality of independent living services and for ACF 
to provide effective advice to States and others on the program. 
The ACF has not genera made avaable to States inormation it curentl collect 
and to which it has accss. 
The ACF collects program statistics and descriptions from every State through the 
independent livig program reports and applications. The ACF also has access to 
Whe 
information related to other youth programs both within and outside of ACF. 
some regional offces have made efforts to share information among States, there is no 
organized or centralied effort to dissemiate this inormation to States or withi 
ACF. 
Numerous regional ACF and State offcials reported that, in part because information 
has not been shared effectively, they do not know why much of it is collected or what
use is made of it. In fact, several ACF offcials, both at the central-offce and 
, noted that program reports are rarely used. A number pointed 
regional-office levels
out that there appears to be no connection between the application and report at the 
ACF-review level; many State offcials complained that they have never received 
substantive feedback from ACF on either the application or the report. 
progr 
The ACFs interactons with States about the  aside from the report and 
lited. 
applications, have been 
In-person interaction with State independent livig staff has been minial. The ACF 
has conducted on-site independent living reviews in only six States. Some regional 
offces have attempted to visit programs in conjunction with other monitoring 
activities, but such opportunities have been infrequent and brief. Both State and 
regional offcials have found the few on-site reviews useful. Staff in only two regional 
offces have coordinated or participated in regular meetings of the State coordinators 
in their region. 
Most ACF and State offcials with whom we spoke cited a need for greater in-person 
interaction. Regional staff noted that they would like to visit more State programs 
more often, but face serious budgetary restrictions on travel. A number of regional 
staff also thought that the tye of regional meetings of State coordinators that are held 
in two regions would be quite valuable in their own regions.  State and ACF offci see substatial room for improvement in the program and 
accte 
inormation sharg as key 
view more complete and  to such progress. 
Al but one State and every regional offcial we spoke with felt that the State 
programs would benefit from better information about activities in other States. Many 
felt that being able to compare States, to learn from the best experiences of other 
States, and to have a sense of barriers other States have faced would help improve 
individual programs and the Independent Livig Program generally. Several felt 
better information sharing could speed program improvements by avoiding long 
development periods. 
Many offcials in both States and regional offces felt that ACF has not adequately 
shared information on available Federal resources for youths, including programs 
inside and outside the Department. Some suggested that ACF would be a logical 
locus for such information, and hoped that ACF central offce and regional offce staf 
would develop expertise and capacity in this area. 
IMROVE: 
OPTONS FOR 
The ACF could capitalize on its investment in independent livig by effectively 
States inormation on the program 
gathering, analyzing, and sharig among the 
activities could include research and evaluation 
successes and diffculties. Such  traig 
projects, an information clearinghouse, contracts for technical assistance, or 
and support for ACF staff to facilitate State efforts. 
Below, we identify several specific activities that ACF could consider. Some of these 
could be undertaken immediately and with no additional fiancial commitment. 
Others would require additional funding. To finance such activities in a tight 
budgetar envionment, ACF could seek a legislative set-aside that would reserve 
Whe 
some percentage of the Independent Living appropriation for these purposes. 
States would necessarily lose a small portion of their individual grants, they could 
benefit substantially from the information sharing activities that these funds could 
support. 
Provde wrtten inormation to the States: 
Repon on State peiformance measures. 
NIL 
As suggested above, ACF could work with  other advocacy groups, and the 
States to establish performance measures for independent living. In its information-
sharing role, ACF could disseminate an annual report on these measures, allowing 
States to use the, information as an impetus for improving their individual programs. 
Such a report might also be a valuable resource for other youth-focussed programs 
outside of the Title IV-E Independent Living Program.  , "

Compiling such a report could require a commitment of staff time and resources on 
the part of ACF. The agency might also encounter political concerns about makig 
direct comparisons among States. While most ACF regional staff with whom we 
spoke believed that States would like to compare themselves directly with other States 
a number of State offcials urged that they not be explicitly ranked against their peers. 
There was strong interest among States, however, in hard data from which they could 
themselves draw conclusions and seek answers. 
The usefulness of such a report would depend largely on the usefulness of the actual 
measures used. First, it would need to be a concise, focussed set of measures. 
Second, it would require clear agreement on the meanig of terms and the methods of 
measurement. One State coordinator urged  let s not provide numbers that don 
mean anything." Timeliness would also be key. 
Disseminate qualitative updates on State activities. 
One State coordinator pointed out that "information sharing is the way to get people 
thinkig;" ACF could disseminate useful information on a variety of aspects of 
independent living servces. 
Such materials could include compilations of State independent living policies and 
plans, with annual updates  ; State-identifed inovative areas or effective practices; 
and State-identified problem areas. State contacts suggested several specifc areas in 
which they would like information from their peers, including aftercare, mentoring, 
alternative living arrangements, interagency agreements and coordination, youth 
adVisory boards, community resources, outcomes measures, definitions of success 
, and in-State evaluation efforts. 
staffng patterns
The ACF could also explore ways of providing such information by computer, perhaps 
by linking with NlLet, the National Independent Living Association s computer 
NIL 
bulletin board system. All members of  have access to this network, but ACF 
does not currently make use of it. 
Share model form and directories of available resources. 
It could be very useful for ACF to share with the States model youth needs assessment 
tools, model transition plans and case plans, model currcula, and lists of resources 
available from other Federal agencies. State coordinators noted that consultant fees 
for the development of such materials can be quite expensive, and pointed out that 
many such materials have already been developed in individual States through Federal 
Title IV-E funds. In the future, ACF may wish to contract for the development of 
such materials directly, and widely distribute them among the States. 
The ACF's efforts in this area might be constrained by resource limits. At the same 
time, such sharing could prevent unnecessary duplication of effort, and therefore 
expense, among different States.  Facitate inormtion sharg though ACF sta: 
Develop a focus for ACF youth programs in central offce and each regional offce.
Several regional contacts identified a lack of coordination on youth servces in ACF' 
central offce as a serious problem. They recommended that the youth programs 
currently in the Family and Youth Servces Bureau, including the Runaway and 
Homeless Youth (RH programs, be brought into the Chidren s Bureau; the 
administrative structure should follow the needs and the population, they argued, not 
the fundig stream. Staff in one regional offce, in which the same branch admisters 
both the ILP and the RHY programs, noted that this organization encourages them 
thi  mium, 
to  comprehensively about the needs of older adolescents." At a  they 
urged that there be better coordination in central offce between the two branches. 
One regional staffer stressed that memoranda of understanding out of central offce 
would make it easier for the regions (and the States and grantees) to forge 
coordination and collaboration with other programs. 
At the regional level, State offcials with whom we spoke would like to see program 
specialists playa more consultative role through the provision of techncal assistance; 
this is indeed the role that ACF itself is seeking to fill. To play this role well, ACF 
staff need to be experts in youth issues. One solution might be to designate a full-time 
youth specialist in central offce and in each regional offce. These specialsts could
oversee, or at least coordinate, all youth-focussed ACF programs. To properly fill 
such a position, a specialist might need trainig in the area, and might need to attend 
relevant national and regional conferences. In addition, traing could help to ensure 
a certain level of consistency among regions. 
The regional youth specialists could be catalysts for bringig together people from 
for example, in quarterly coordinators' meetings. They could also 
different States--
facijjtate monthly or quarterly conference calls among State independent living 
coordinators and other State, Federal, and private youth-servng agencies; these could 
prove to be both productive and cost effective.
At both the central and regional levels, it could be valuable for ACF to have an 
understanding of its programs from the perspective of the clients they seek to serve. 
The ACF could establish some means of getting direct youth input, perhaps through 
youth advisory boards, such as many States have established. 
These different activities could require varyng levels of commitment. It could be 
possible, for example, to designate a youth specialist in each region, but not increase 
opportunities for attendance at conferences. Changes in the organizational structure 
of the central or regional offices might likewise be accomplished as part of the 
Department's overall streamlining and reorganization activities.  Incorporate independent living issues into other child welfare monitoring activities.
The ACF is currently exploring ways of addressing independent living in broader chid 
welfare monitoring activities, including Section 427 reviews. This would allow ACF 
livig, 
staff regular occasion to interact with States on-site with regard to independent 
and to share information. In reviews of case fies, ACF staff could check that 
, including appropriate case plan 
appropriate steps have been taken for youths
documentation. In addition, ACF staf could use site visits to Runaway and Homeless 
Youth grantees, many of which also conduct independent living activities, as 
opportunities to explore relevant issues. Such reviews would be focussed on
information sharing, not compliance.
staf 
There could be several potential drawbacks to this approach. The ACF 
conducting general child welfare monitorig activities might not be well informed 
about independent living issues, and might have limited ability to provide constructive 
advice to the States. More broadly, independent living could be given lower priority
than, for example, child abuse and neglect issues. The ACF might want to take steps 
to ensure that independent living is indeed accorded adequate time and emphasis in
such monitoring activities.
Become a resource on other Federal programs serving youths, and facilitate
coordination among these and the Independent Living Program.
The ACF staff could playa valuable role as resources for information on servces to 
youths, and could facilitate coordination at the Federal, State, local, and servce
delivery levels. One regional staff person suggested that ACF specialists, if well 
informed, could help State staff to broker interagency relationships and to negotiate 
the use of resources from other governent agencies. He felt that this role could be 
helpful even at the county or local levels.
, a 
While such an approach might entai increased costs or commitment of staff time
move in this direction could be viewed as a solid investment in improved and 
streamlined servce delivery. It is a concrete example of how ACF could
operationalize its vision for a proactive monitoring and technical assistance role.  COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT REPORT
We shared our draft report with and solicited comments from the Administration for 
Chidren and Families (ACF), the Assistant Secretary for Planng and Evaluation, the 
Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget, and the Assistant Secretary for 
Legislation. We also solicited co=ents from the Chid Welfare League of America 
(CWL) and the National Independent Livig Association (NIL).
We received wrtten co=ents from ACF and from CWL and NIL. They all 
reco=endations and did not suggest any changes to the 
concurred with our two 
NIL 
report. The CWLA and  also commented favorably on several options we 
offered for each recommendation. We reproduce these co=ents in appendix F.  APPENDIX A
LEGISLATI HITORY
Proions
Law  Major 
L. 99-272  Added Section 477 to Title IV-E of the Social Securi  Act:  FY 87: $45 m 
(COBRA 85)  FY 88: $45 m 
. Allowed payments to States for independent livig servces 
to IV-E foster children for FY's 87-
Amended Section 475 of Title IV 
. Required that, where appropriate, the case plans of 
children age 16 and over include a written description of 
the servces that will be help them to prepare for 
independent living 
L. 100-647  Amended Section 477:  FY 89: $45 m 
(1989) 
. Continued program through FY 89

. Alowed States to elect to servce non-IV-E foster children

. Alowed States to elect to provide follow-up servce for

up to 6 months after discharge from foster care
. Prohibited payments for room and board
Amended Section 475: 
. Required that dispositional hearings for children age 
16 and over address the servces needed to assist in the 
transition to independent living 
L. 101-239  Amended Sections 474 and 477:  FY 90: $50 m 
(OBRA 89)  FY 91: $60 m 
. Reauthorized program for FY's 90- FY 92: $70 m 
. Increased annual funding levels 
. Required States to provide dollar-for-dollar match for 
funds over each State s share of the $45 m base funding 
L. 101-508  . Appropriated FY 91 funding  FY 91: $60 m 
(OBRA 90)(cid:1) . Exanded eligibility to children formerly in foster care, to 
age 21 (also eliminated provision allowing for servce up 
to 6 months post-discharge)
L. 102-394  . Appropriated funds for FY 93  FY 93: $70 m
L. 103- . Permanently reauthorized the program  $70 m per year
(OBRA 93) APPENDIX B
METIODOLOGY 
We have drawn upon five primary sources of information: 
(1) A review of program reports for fiscal years (FY) 1992 and '  , and 
applications for FY' s 1993 and '  , from all 50 States and the District of 
Columbia; and a sample of State fiscal reports (Standard Form 269). 
(2) Structured telephone discussions with independent living coordinators in 
, Ilois
ten States: Vermont, New York, Florida , Texas, Missouri, Colorado 
California, Arzona, and Idaho. These States were selected to reflect diversity 
of geographic setting, size, population, adminstrative structure, and program 
approach. Our choice was based upon both our fie review and input from 
ACF, the National Independent Livig Association, and a variety of 
professionals in the field. 
(3) Structured discussions with ACF staff in central offce and each regional 
offce. 
(4) An in-depth site-visit to Pennsylvania to meet with the independent living 
coordinator, technical assistance and evaluation staff, county-level staf, and 
staff at a private youth-servng agency. Ths State was selected based on input 
from a variety of professionals in the field as an example of a large, county-
based State with a well-developed information-reporting system. 
(5) A focus group and discussions with State coordinators and other 
professionals at the annual conference of the National Independent Livig 
Association (NILA) in March 1994.
In addition, we conducted informal visits to the Massachusetts and Connecticut 
independent living programs; attended a meeting of the independent living 
coordinators in Region I; held discussions with consultants, academics, and advocates 
in the field; reviewed legislation and literature on independent living; and examined 
ACF program information and directions. We also spoke informally with participating 
youth from Maine, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Arona.  APPENDIX C
SAMLE DATA COLLCTON FORM 
On the following pages, we present several examples of data collection forms that 
have been developed by individual States; We present these as ilustrations of the 
range of approaches and capabilties across the country; we do not specificaly endorse 
these approaches or formats. 
Client-level reporting forms:  The first three forms are used to collect information on 
every youth participating in the respective States' independent living programs. Every 
county or district, and every contractor, must complete such a form for each youth and 
submit it to the central State offce, where the information is aggregated and analyzed. 
Example A, page C- Minnesota 
Example B, pages C-3 to C- Kentucky 
Example C, page C- 7  California 
Aggregate-level reporting forms:  The fourth example is used by a county-based State 
to collect aggregate information from each county regarding the servces being offered 
and the number expected to be served. The fifth example, also used by a county-
based State, solicits year-end information on youth served. 
Example D, pages C-8 to C-I0:  Pennsylvania 
Example E, page C-ll:  California 
C - 1
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(~~!~(=~~!=(~~!=~(~~!=~~(~!=~~(~!=~~(~!=~~(~!~~(~!(~=!~(=!~(=!~(~=!~(~:!=~(~!~~
(;, .( - '
Data
SELF Client 
. Date. oIBirtlt.  County Infoalion-
Complete form on all youth served. 
Coumy Number:
! Montn I Day i Year  f :I 
USE NUMBER TWO PENCIL.
i.-
Please do not fold  Q)!  O: 0  ''0: Ut 
CIII T:Irt  3-: :. 
x a: 
::2-= -
' :a (X I- ;L :JJ 5:- cr 
6; oJ 
Ice
'1 
,(JCI  () (I
CE  (E  :A.K) (A;E IE (E, (K;  (F,  X IE IE IE iX: .A; eEl  J) (I
(j (j'E (j() (j (j(i (j (j (j (j (j CI CI (I (j) (9 tEl CI 7; :D
') CI il  County:
zw(jw(jWWWW(jWWW IE  'CDm
x x Worker:
X(j(jroro(i(jrorororo(j(jrox 
Date:
ff r 
Race/Ethnicity
11 (j (jE (j(j CI (j(j (j (mj (XlD (mj(!I m(j m(j( j aXr (mj aIr   - ASian 
X I I TII 
J) a; XI QE; EXOQO;. Ex  Q)X mx  Q;  XXXXI  X E =:  AHfirsipcaanni cA mencan 
mOOOOy  OOOO
-= American Indian
= White 
OOOO
(!(j(!E(!(j(!(!(!(!(j(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(! - Other 
ZW(j  (j(jW  W(j(j(j(j(jm Was Youth Served by a 
mmmrxmmmmmmmmmmmmmm SELF Grantee? II so, 
m(j  (jWWWWW=W(j(j  W(jWE ; Agency 
CI(!(! ! Name '= Male 
= Female 
(j (jm (j I(jm CI T(j m(j (jm (j m(j (mj (j  (j (j (jm (j m(j mmmmmm 
$$$W  WWW  WWW  Placement Status 
mrnoooooornoc  '.I  .: State Ward 
OO 00 Y 000000000000000000  FOR 
wwwwwwwwwww  (1 CD  .: Voluntary Placement 
oo oc x x oc xoooooooooc  oooooooc xoox  .: a;  STUASTEE Court Ordered Placement 
:Det RUM
T Y  T m  m 00 m oc  00 m  m rn  ':!/II ONLY - Not in Placement
X X Z x z x  ro x x
Total Time in Substitute Care 
Services Provided to Youth 
0:6 months  = 3-5 years 
-= 6-12 months  .: 5-7 years 
= ILS Group Training  '.=:  JEodbu cEaxtpioenriaeln cReef tehrrroaulgsh/E SxpEeLnFse s  :: 1. 3 years  -: :: 7 years 
= RetreaVConference/Workshop 
-= Purchased Goods. Not for School 
:: IndividuallLS Training  Scltool
-= Stipends/Incentive Payments
= Camo/Adventure Challenge 
.: "iaduated High School 
Driver's Education  :: Other 
:. Dropped Out of High School 
= Comoleted GED 
= Working on GED 
Arrngement. 
Current Living  = In Special Ed Program 
Disabling Condition 01 Youtlt 
Foster Home  = In Alternative High School 
-: Group Home = In Regular High School 
= Develoomenral Disabilities 
ResidenLiai Trearmem  .: In College 
.: He:!!"lng Speech/Sight 
: Scecijjc Learning Disability  - Emergency Shelter  :: In VoTech 
-= Correctional Facility 
-= Emotional/Behavioral Disability  Highest Grad-e  L1eve1l C ompleted
-= Chemical Deoendency - - Birth Pareml s:  =::  89  
= Other  -= Relatives  . 10:  1132  -: 14
Indeoenaem .: 15
- 16 
Other
DHS 3091 (7-93) 
r- '--
.-: :'. \.- ,; . ...
INDIVIDUALYOUTH
INDEPENDENT LIVING DATA COLLECTION -
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
PARENTAL STATUS:

NAME:
NUMBER OF CHILDREN: 
SSN:
WIT YOUT: 
NUMBER CHILDREN LIVING 
- DOB:

COMPLE: 9 10 11 12 
Female  HIGHEST GRADE 
sex:  Male  GED College 1 2 3 

Vocational 1 2 
MARITAL STATUS:  PlACEMEN HISTORY:
Black  Hispanic  Asian  Total time 
RACE: White 
Number of entries: 
Other 
Native American 
Number of placements: 
Living arrngement:
DISABILITY: (Specify) 
Date into IL program: 
PROGRAM COMPONENTS 
INDEPENDEN LIVING SKILLS TRAINING 
EDUCATION: Basic skills assessment 
Tutoring/Remedial education
 Interpersonal skils 

GED classes

Communications skils 

Driver education
Self-esteem skils 

Higher education
Decision-making skils 

Vocational Assessment 
Values clarication skils 

Special vocational training  Time management skils 

Educational planning skills 

H""s"'" "Lcils 

EMPLOYMENT
npl::yme-I a+.. -:.c:L .  Emergency and Safety skiiis
Job placement 
Hygiene skills
Employment
Personal appearance
Employment (subsidized) 
Leisure time
Length of current employment:
Legal issues
Length of previous employment:
First aid
Jobs held:  Money management
Type of jobs: 
Job hunting

Transportation
SUPPORT GROUPS  Cooking
Peer groups  Shopping
Transition manager  Housekeeping
Youth networks
Apartment living 
Transitional living 

SPECIALIZED SHORT TE;RM PROGRAMS  Community Resources 
Team-Building Retreats 
Consumer skills 
Teen Conferences

ROI
c- 3  D2
DisctAgenc DISCHARGE SERVICES (CONTINUED) 
STIPENDsJSCHOL6SHIPS
Personal information packet 
Youth stipends 
Discharge conference
Start-up assistance 
College stipends 
SUPERVISED PRACTICE LIVING 
Scholarships
IL foster home 
IL group home 
DISCHARGE SERVICES
Transitional group home
Individual counseling 
Transitional living apartment 
Group counseling
Teen parent services 
Securing permanent housing Y 
POST DISCHARGE SERVICES 
OTHER
VOLUNTERS/SUPPORT GROUPS
Health exams
Guardianship for youth with 
Dental exams
limited abilities 
Health insurance
Mentors
Financial assistance 
Support groups
Referral service 
Drop-in center
FOllOW-
2 YEAS 
90 DAYS  6 MONTS  1 YEAR 
DATA ITE  IL TRAINING AFR  AFR 
COMPLEION
GED
High School Diploma 
Vocational Training 
Obtained Housing 
Employed
Independent of Agency 
Individual Counseling 
Group Counseling 
Budgeting
Housing
Career Planning 
C - 4 . .- -. .
INDEPENDENT LIVING DATA
Instructions for Completing Data Sheets for Individual Youth
DEMOGRAPHICS 
Youth' s first name, middle initial, and last name. 
NAME: 
Do not forget to include the middle initial. 
Youth' s social security number. 
SSN: 
s birt. 
The month, date, and year of youth'
D08: 
Circle appropriate gender. 
SEX: 
Circle S (Single), M (Marred), or D (Divorced).

MARITAL STATUS:

Circle appropriate race.
RACE: 
The following conditions are included in this item.
DISABILl1Y: 
clinically diagnosed.
The conditions must be "
Developmental disability, Emotional disabilty, 
Specific learning disabilty, Hearing, sight or 
speech impairment, Physical disability, other
clinically diagnosed conditions.
This item refers to whether or not youth have 
PARENTAL STATUS:
children of their own. 
The number of children youth has, whether or 
NUMBER OF CHILDREN: yout. 
not child lives with the 
The number of the yout' s own children 
NUMBER OF CHILDREN
living with the youth. 
LIVING WITH YOUTH:
Circle appropriate grade level.
HIGHEST GRADE COMPLETD: 
PLACEMENT HISTORY yout was 
The total number of months/years the 
Total time:

in foster care, (excluding time spent at home), at 
the beginning of the program. 
re-ntries 
This item includes the total number of 
Number of entries: 
(including the initial entry) that a youth has had. 
A re-entry into substitute care is counted if the 
youth re-enters substitute care after having been 
formally discharged from substitute care with the 
intent of permanently placing the youth in an in 
nome living arrngement. 
C - 5 The total number of different placements (living 
Number of placements: 
arrngements) youth has had while in care. 
living arrangement for the 
. This item refers to the 
Living Arrangement: 
youth at the time of entry including: Emergency 
Shelter, Non-Relative foster home,. Relative foster 
home, Pre-Adoptive home, Group Home, Drug 
Rehab Program, psychiatric Institution, Residential 
Care Facilty, Secured Facility (Detention), 
Independent Living Arangement. 
The date the youth began the IL Program. 
Date into IL Program: 
PROGRAM COMPONENTS 
yout recived 
These items refer to training or services offered by your program. Circle Y (Yes) if 
Circle N (No) if youth did not receive the training or service.
the training or service component. 
Circle NA (Not Applicable) if your program does not offer the training or service component. 
POST DISCHARGE SERVICES 
These items refer to services received by youth after being released from committent, although 
guardianship and mentors) are usually initiated prior to the 
some of the services (particularly  , please 
, even before release
youth' s release from care. If the youth has been paired with a mentor
circle Y. 
FOllOW-
, and at 
completion of your program 
These data items refer to the status of the youth at the 
, in 
They require Y (Yes) or N (No) answers
selected time intervals afer completing your program. 
, if a youth has obtained a GED or 
terms of items completed at the specified time interval. Thus , is employed, 
, completed vocational training, obtained housing 
high school diploma Y" in 
independent of the agency, has received individual counseling or group counseling, put a " 
, put an "N" in the appropriate box. If 
the appropriate box. If the youth has not obtained the items
, put an "N" in the appropriate box. 
a youth is in the process of obtaining the items
Were the yout trained in 
The last three items refer only to training received In your program. 
If so, answer "Y" in the column labeled "IL Training 
budgeting, housing and career planning?  all other columns 
, answer "  . Leave 
were not trained in these items
Completion . If the youth 
blank for these three items. 
agency 
or 
Rnemaemmber e, your tno amfille i,n  athne bdla ntksh e dateat.  Ift hye bootuto mh ofa tvhee fi rastn pyage ,q iundeicastitnigo ynours d ipslteraiscet  call Mike Yocum  at  (502) 564-
2136, Thank you for your help in obtairiitg this data. 
c- 6  DEPARTENT OF SOAL SERVES
STATE OF CAUFORNrA . HEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY
CUENT NAME

INDEPENDENT LIVING SKILLS PROGRAM
DATE FCIS CASE NUMBERJNIOUE J.D.
INDIVIDUAL CLIENT CHARACTERISTIC DATA
01 CUENT PROFILE:
IV-E ELIGIBLE:  ACCEPTD ILSP SERVICES ((DATE) DECUNED ILSP SERVICES (DATE)
DNa
D Ves 
PARENTAL STATUS;  Expectat Father
 SPECIAL NEEDS: TRAINING GOAL: o Voc 

Childless  Educational  OMental  o HS Diploma College
Expectant Mother 
o Medica  Physical  o GED
 Adult Ed
Parent  Children
(as appropriate):
02) ILSP DIRECT SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED 
IntemersonaVSocial Skills
Access to Communitv Resources
Mone  Mananement
Consumer Skills
Parentino
Healih Care
Time Mananement
Home Manaoement
Transnnrtation
HousinQ Options/Location

OTHER (SPECIFY
COUNSELING: TURING o(TO RGINGr SEoRVIuCESp FO R 0A YO UI nWHdICiHv AiRdE NuOTa RElO U0IRE D TO BE PROVIDED THROH" SCHPOa DIcSmelCT.):
o Group  Individual  Personal Computer Tutori 
Recrds 0 
EXIT PACKET CONTNTS: 0 Birt  Community Resource Listing  Educational Certfication(cid:1) Health Records
(OPTONAL) Placement Recrds D Social Security Care  o Work Registration Other
03) CLIENT OUTCOMESITERMINATION:

AWAROEO HIGH SCHOL OIPLO,, (DATE I AWAROED GED (OATE  co,,,mD VO ED (DATE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETD AD\AT EO (DTE

I SUCSSFULLY 
ENROLLED IN COLLEGE (DATE  SCHOOUGEDI ED ENROLLMENT (DATE
 ENROLLED IN ADVANCED SKILL TRNNG (DA'T
I CONTNUED HlGH 
ENTED MIUTARY (DATE
EMPLOYED
Entered Job Corps
o FT 0 PT  Activelv Seekinn 
UNEMPLOYABLEiSI ELIGIBLE (DATE
I UNEMPLOYED.TOT ACTIVELY SEEKING
UNEMPLOYED (NOTE PROBLEM AREA(S)
YOUT CONTNUES IN ILSP YOU NO LONGER IV-E EUGIBLE (DATE)  LIVING INDEPENDENTYOFAGENCY MAINTNANCE PROGRAMS (DATE
PERSONAL SERVICES CONTCT WITH THIS  DID NOTOBTAIN OTHER COMMUNIT SERVICES (NOTE PROBLEM AREA(S)
YOUT (ATTACH COPY)
HOUSED ODENTFY TYPE)
RETRNED TO FAMILY(DATE
MOVEDIWEREABOUS UNKNOWN (DATE
TRANSFERRED TO ILSP IN ANOTHER COUNT (DATE 
04 90-DAY FOLLOW-UP AFTER TERMINATION  includes termTinEatLioEn oPf HseOrvNiceEs  du(eD toA cTesEsa)tio n of outside fundin .
MAIL (DATE
FACE.TOFACE (DATE 
MODE OF CONTACT:
MOVED  OTHER
FAILURE TO CONTACT:
CASE VIGNET. SUMMARY

DATE
SUMMARY COMPLETED BY:
SOC3.  (l16S)
C - . . 
DEPARENT OF PUBUC WELFARE
YOUT AND FAMIUES

OFFICE OF CHILDREN, 
TITLE IV-E lNDEPENDENTUVING PROGRAM 
NEEDS AND SERVICE PROJECTION 
COUNT: 
lL SERVICE  RECEIVE

SERVICE NEES RECEIVE 
IV-E PM  IV-E PM  PROJECTON  IV-E PM  IV

1. AU chidren In 
.aement 
2. Yout In p!8Dement 
.Aalder 
16  I'. of. 
3. Yout turning 16 Y". of 
durin the rant ..r 
4. Oter yout who could 
benefR from IL 
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED IL PROGRAM 
accom 
A. Needs Asssent/Cas Planning  J. Practce Il Placement (Sll)(cid:1)
Loon 
K.  of pennanent Housing(cid:1)
B. Lie SkiDs Traning 
L Stpends for Yout 
C. Vocational Training. 
M. Afercar Servces 
D. Remedial EducatonlTutorig  Parnt 
N. Servces for Teen 
E. Preparion for GED

O. Retats/Camps 
F. Individual or Group Counseling

G. Asistance in Obtaining Higher Ed. P. Indire Services 
Q. Progrm Administon 
H. Job Placement 
Employment  R. Oter: (Specif below) 
I. Subsidized 
Letter (s) of 
CHECKED IN I. - SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED
II. PROVIDERS OF SERVICES .
Provider 
. Servce s Checked 
CY-806 
Jun-92 
c- 8  Page 1 of 2
TITLE IV- E INDEPENDENT LlVI  COU
NG GRANT 
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 
. PROVIDER:
Complete a separe sheet for each provider.
B. Life Skils Trainin
skils training?
many youth wil receive lie 
I. f:ow 
#IV 
Total # 
II. Show the total number of hours of life skils instruction each IL
participant receives.
Hours
III. How is training provided?
Individual  Group  Both
Both" was chosen, show the percent of time for each. Use the hours in II
If "
as the basis for the calculation.
% Group
% Individual 
IV. From the list below and on Page 2 of this form, identify the subject
as apply.
areas covered in your life skills training course. Check as many 
Financial Responsibility  Vocational Skils
Aptitude/Interest
Budgeting 
Banking  Job Seeking
Job Interviewing
Personal Identification(cid:1)
Work/Dress Habits
Job Retention
Community Resources
Consu mer Skils 
Public T",n,porttion
Shopping 
Health Care
Nutrition 
Human Services Access
Food Preparation 
Legal Services
Contracts/Leases 
Apartment Location
c - 9 Page 2 of 2 
LIVING GRANT  CQUNI 
TITLE IV- E INDEPENDENT 
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION  PROVIDER: 
Complete a separate sheet for each provider. 
d.\ 
B. Life Skils Traininn (Cont' 
Interpersonal! Communication Skils 
Problem Solving 
Decision Making 
Self Esteem'" 
Human Sexuality 
Impulse Control 
Assertiveness 
Individual/Group Interactions 
c= 
Life Skils Practice (Structured) 
If practice is described elsewhere, just 
cross-reference here. 
Other - Describe 
youth wil practice IL Skils? 
V. How many 
IV
otal # 
Include in the estimate the 
VI. Estimate the total cost of providing life skils training. 
cost of staffto provide the training, the cost to purchase the training, training 
materials and supplies and transportation to get youth to and from training. 
809. 
The amount of the estimate should agree with the amount on the CY-
Do not include Aftercare Life Skils Training costs here. 
C - 10  ....................................................................................... ............................... ...................................................................... .................. ........... .................................. .................. ................... ...... ................................ .......................................................  .........................................
DEPARTENT OF SOIA SERVCES 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. HEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY 
Send One Copy 10: 
INDEPENDENT LIVING PROGRAM (ILP)  Depaem of Social Servces
Stanstica Servces Bureau 
Annual Statistical Report	 744 P Street, M. S. 19-81 
Sacramemo CA 95814
Federal Fiscal Year 1990 
COUNTY  CODE 
(October 1, 1989 through September 30, 1990) 
PART A: YOUTHS SERVED AND CLIENT CHARACTERISTICS 
Youths to whom IlP services were offered during the year. 
Youths who received IlP services during the year........................................................ 
Youths who are single............................................................ 2a 
Youths who are married............................................................ 2b 
Youths who are parents......... ................................ ............ ............ ..... ............ 
4. Youths who have special needs which are educational, medical, mentai, and/or physical in nature................ 
Youths who received IlP services during the six month period following exit from loster care ........................ 
PART B' PROGRAM OUTCOME/CLIENT PROGRESS 
Youths who completed IlP services or a component 01 services 
Youths who are continuing to receive ILP services 

education............................................................................

Youths who completed high schooVGED or adult 
education......................................... 
Youths continuing and/or currently enrolied in high schooVGED or adult 
10.  Youths who have completed vocational education or on-the-job training ....................................................... 
the-job training ................................ 
11.  Youths continuing and/or currently enrolied in vocational education or on-
12.  Youths enrolled in college............. ......................... .......... ......... ................ ....... 
13.  Youths who obtained e  her full-time or part-time employment ........................................................................ 
14.  Of the number of youths reported in Item 13 above, those who are mimary or Job Corps enlistees................. 
15.  Youths actively seeking empioyment . ........... ........... ............ 
16.  Youths determined unemployable, SSI eligible, or other similar special category ............................................ 
17.  Youths who are living independently of agency maintenance programs ........................................................... 
18.  Youths who obtained housing and other communit servicas........................................................................... 
obtained..................................................................... 
19.	 Youths for whom no information could 
TELEPHONE NU"BER  ATE 
PERSON TO CONACT 
ro 040SA (6190)  C - 11
 APPENDIX D
SAMLE DATA 
In the body of this report, we propose that ACF could develop a standard set of data 
elements to be reported on each youth participating in independent livig servces, to 
be reported annually, in aggregate. We suggest that ACF could encourage the States 
to include many of these elements in their new SACWIS systems. 
On the following pages, we present some examples of the 
tyes of data elements that 
ACF might consider adopting. We have divided the information into three categories 
(demographics, servces, and status/outcomes), and present the data elements, the 
reporting timeframe, and the source. 
These suggestions build on reco=endations to us by the Data Collection Task Force 
NIL 
of the  as well as the current ACF data requirements. 
D - 1
 I DEMOGRAIDCS 
Sour: 
Element  At what point in tie:

cumulative, end of year  SACWIS/AFCARS 
# 16-17 year olds in substitute care

cumulative, end of year  SACWIS/AFCARS 
# 16-17 year olds with a goal of

independent living 
# 16-17 year olds for whom  cumulative, end of year  ILP data 
independent living servces are 
considered "appropriate 
# 16-17 year olds who participated  cumulative, end of year  SACWIS 
in independent living servces 
# 18-20 year olds stil in care who  cumulative, end of year  ILP data 
participated in independent living 
seIVces 
cumulative, end of year  ILP data 
# discharged youth who returned

to receive independent living 
seIVces 
cumulative, end of year  SACWIS/AFCARS 
# of those participating of each 
race/ethnic group (W, B, A, H, AI 
cumulative, end of year  SACWIS/AFCARS 
# of those participating of each

sex (M, F) 
cumulative, end of year  SACWIS/AFCARS 
# of those participating with a

disabling condition 
# of those participating who were  cumulative, end of year  SACWIS/ILP data 
eligible 
length of time in care of those  cumulative, end of year  SACWIS/AFCARS 
participating 
D - 2  SERVICE 
Sour: 
Element  At what point in tie:

educational assistance cumulative annual total  SACWIS or 
participating  ILP data 
tutoring 
stipend/scholarship  (depends on design

of each State 
SACWIS) 
employment assistance 
jObPlacement 
job apprenticeship

job mentoring 
group life skill training
(listoftoPiCS) 
formal, individual life skill training 
(listoftoPiCS) 
pre-
discharge financial  assistance 
(non-school stipend) 
post discharge financial  assistance 
mentoring arrangement 
supervsedPractiCejivigarrangement 
-- before age 19 
supervsed practice living arrangement 
-- age 19+ 
medical coverage 
teenretreat/conference/wlderness 
expenence 
support groups

diSChargeServces(SpeCialized 
counseling, housing placement, etc. 
D - 3  I STATUS/OUTCOME 
Sour: 
Element  At what point in tie:

Educational status  cumulative annual  SACWIS or 
(highest grade completed)  freq uencies, collected at  ILP data system

at discharge 
(depends on design

(and at some point after  of each State 
discharge, if so decided)  SACWIS) 
Employment status  SACWIS or 
ILP data system

# employed

# employed for at least six  (depends on design

months  of each State 
SACWIS) 
Interface with 
unemployment and

IRS data 
SACWIS or 
public assistance  status 
ILP data system

AFC 
Medicaid  Interface with 
Food Stamps
 unemployment and

IRS data 
other assistance

maritalstatus  SACWIS or 
ILP data system

# single

# married

# females who are  pregnant 
# number of chidren (0, 1, 2, 3+) 
housing status 
IL subsidized

other publicly subsidized

parents 
independent 
other 
staying in care voluntarily
 ILP data system

(to complete school, etc. 
D - APPENDIX E(cid:1)
MEUR
SAMLE PERORMCE 
In the body of this report, we propose that ACF could facilitate the development of 
performance and outcomes measures for independent living. Below, we present 
examples of measures that ACF and the States might consider adopting. 
MEUR
PROCE 
Meaur Sour
Percent of eligible youth receivig a formal assessment of  ILP data collection
independent living strengths and needs in a tinely fashion 
(e.  , before or at age 16) 
Percent of eligible 16 & 17 year olds participating in the IL SACWIS
program
Percent of eligible youth receiving each of certain specific  ILP data collection
servce (e.  , group life skill classes, financial stipends, etc. 
Percent of participating youth completing all servce  ILP data collection
(eventually, SACWIS) 
identifed in individual case plan 
Number of discharged youth returning for IL servce ILP data collection 
Percent of participating youth remainig in care voluntarily  ILP data collection
past their 18th birthday in order to continue in school
MEUR
STATUS/OUTCOME 
Sour
Meaur
Percent of participating youth holding a job at discharge ILP data collection at
discharge
Percent of participating youth having held a job for at least 6 ILP data collection at
months at discharge discharge; interface with
unemployment and IRS
data
Percent of participating youth completing high school by  ILP data collection at
discharge discharge
Percent of participating youth continuing to higher education ILP data collection at
discharge
Percent of participating youth avoiding early parenthood by  ILP data collection at
discharge discharge
E - 1 MEUR 
STATUS/OUTCOME 
Sour 
Meaure 
Percent of participating youth independent of public  ILP data collection at 
assistance at discharge  discharge; interface with 
unemployment and IRS 
data 
Percent of participating youth responding positively in a  ILP discharge survey 
survey evaluating the servces they received (at discharge) 
E - 2  APPENDIX F 
TI DRA REORT 
ON 
COMM 
In this appendix, we present in full the comments on the draft report offered by the 
Administration for Children and Familes (ACF) as well as the Child Welfare League 
Association. 
of America and the National Independent Livig 
F - 1  ...","...,  . .
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH II HUMAN SERVICES 
ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILOREN ANO FAMILlE! 
Ofrce 0' the Assistant Secre1ary. Suite 600

370 L' Enrant Promenade. S.

Washington, O.C. 20447

August 30, 1994

TO:	 June Gibbs Brown 
Inspector General 
FROM:  Assistant Secretary 
tor children and Families 
SUBJECT:  OIG Draft Report: "Independent Living Program for
Foster Care Youths: strategies for Improved 
Administration for Children and Families 
Management and Program Reporting, " OEI-Ol-93-00090 
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above-noted

draft report.

We generally concur with its findings and the two broad

strategy recommendations that are outlined in the report.

The options presented will be very useful for us to consid

in our attempts to improve our management of the program.

We look forward to receiving a copy of the final report and

we appreciate the efforts made by your staff in its

development. 
Mary Jo Bane

F - 2
 "",.","' :'',\/."'\'  ""'":;:\'. .':", ,'',,',':.',..'.., ""
CWU 
Inc.
Child Welfare League of America, 
20/638-
First Street. NW. Suite 310. Woshington. DC 200 1-2085 . 202/638-2952 . FAX 
MO 
PRESIDENT
John F. Merchant
VICE PRESIDENTS

Anne Duncan
Judlll1Sherman
Ruthann S, YamanaMa
August 10, 1994

SECRETARY 
Marilyn Co.
ASSISIANT SECRETARY
Norman W. Powell. Jr
June Gibbs Brown
TREASURER
Insptor Genera

RicharaH. Flemn'lg 
Deparent of Heath & Human Service
ASSISTANT TREASURER 
Raymond P. Carpenler Washigtn, D.C. 20201

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

CarOl Armstrong
Char1es,L. Baker  Dea Ms. Brown:

Judith S. Block
Sheryl BrisseU-Chapman dr insption rert
Sarah Bryanl  Than you for th opportnity to review and comment on the 
Nan Dale Progr 
Charles A. DeGranClore  entitled "Indepndent Living  for Foster Car Youths: Strtegies for
JCehaanrelnees AD.u nHcakaesl

 Improved ACF Maagement and Progr Reortg . The Chid Welfare Legue
KGeenolr gHee nTd. H:usbobna rd  of America (CWL) is commtted to imPprrogvrig  (seIr)vi.ce to the at-risk youths served
MaiBel! Hurley
 by the Title IV-E Independent Living 
Ann D. Jordan 
JamesM. Karel
GKalyrln Gn .D K. oKnegy  CWL supports the two mai recommendations your offce has made to improve the
progr reortg 
Suzanne S. Megalnlm IL; that ACF restrcture the application and  procedures for the
Elba Monlaillo .  plag 
Rob Mosbacher. Jr ILP to more effectively support State  and to give ACF an accurate national
Timothy F. Noelker  restrcturig
M,chael R. DSlrQWSM'
 picture of independent living efforts and that ACF should focus their 
Jane K Paine

R,chard G Plolka  efforts on inormation sharg.
SlepnanlC G. ROb,ns,="

1nlyn A 5cvmann
r Stanie' Shavc APPLICATION AN PROGRA REPORTIG PROCEDUR
S ;-lor,.al1 Shlrrv 
::a,!h Sm'lh
Pamera K Steele
larlha SwnnlS  accurate national picture of independent living ejJons  it is

In order to gai an 
SUS;Jn S SICDIC!O
 , multi-yea plan which consolidates chid
Georga W Swan III  reommended that ACF move to a single
JInG TherJ.111 welfare services, family support and preservation services, and independent living.
:J;uyY Tull 
::rI,,,..I. \l1I1I,," ';lilr, CWLA supports this suggestion with the addition of guidelines for development of
HONORARY MEMBER
 specific youth and independent living s:::tions.
..It,; BI I\ W H, ,,''1'" I"  Sb.te plans with 

EXECUTIVE DIREcro:?

".J  '':I!W:1\,",,'  CWLA supports the recommendation to strengthen independent living reporting
PUTY DlRECIO:!
 mechanisms by retaining a distinct focus on independent living and youths in any
1,,, I,,  . "r:". require ACF first to adopt
State child welfare reporting system. This would 
WESTEI1NOFFICE standardized definitions of terms and then to provide the States with detailed
1'''' 
'.'''''S_ reporting instructions based on these terms. ACF could then develop the
","1.01:;,;5 
1,\. , as recommended in your report.
standardized independent living information form
, II  r"/"!I"'n
01,.1.
CWlA/CANADA
1..
1 ,W "
. ::r
;,'d, F - 3
II.:
'''''h.  CWU 
Guarding Children s Rights. Serving Children s Needs 
August 10  1994 
Page 2. 
ACF should playa key role in developing performance and out caomre  measures for indepndent 
living, as remmended in the rert. Exstig effort in this  shroueld hnot , however, be 
forgotten. ACF could coordinate and dirt effort to brig together  and advocy 
grups to focus on outcome meaures. ACF could also focus on assessment inormation on 
youths to more accurately trck changes in status for outcomes. 
The report discusse the confsion around meaurig "reults achieved 90 days afer parcipants 
. CWL 
completed the progi" discharge with ACF 
supprts moving to outcomes 
encouragig state which currntly trck youths beyond discharge to contiue to do so. 
progr 
also support the involvement of the young peple in  evaluation efforts at dischare. 
SHAG 
FOCUS ON INORMTION 
CWL supports the recmmendation that ACF develop a mechansm for sharg inormation 
progr 
about  services as well as bet practice inoarmra tion and models reived from the state. 
"Ts would reduce duplication of efforts in many  and save the states considerable time and 
resources. 
The report recommends the introduction of centra office " youth speialists " to provide technca
loc 
assistace and  states and to  progras. CWL 
consultation to the  supports this 
recommendation and views this as one more step towards ensurig that the nees of vulnerable 
youths do not get lost in the efforts to consolidate chid welfare service application and 
reporting. 
CWLA welcomes this opportnity to provide input on this importt 
process. Please do not 
hesitate to contact me or Nancy Peppler, our Program Director of Youth Services , at (202) 638-
2952 , should you have any questions. 
Sincerely, 
lh-
David S. Liederran 
Executive Diretor

F - 4
 . .
. .
. -
, .
j: - - :-.:-  .--- . .-: ":-:,:. : -/.,. '  :,':.'.. . 
nringing

urutaluing ta

indepet 
living deelopment

August 8, 1994-
t);:; 
:.,t. 
June Gibbs Brown 
Department of Health and Human Services
Office of -the Inspector -General: 
330 Independence Avenue, Room 5250
Washington, _D. C. 20201
Dear Inspector Brown:
The - Board and membe  ship - of the National Independent Living-
Association (NILA) -j oin me in expressing- my appreciation to you for 
allowing us to comment on the draft of - the- report, "Independent 
Living Program for Foster Care Youths: Strategies for Improved -ACF 
prepared for 
Management and - Program Reporting" that has been _ - the 
Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children 
and Families. We were pleased to be consulted regularly by Tim 
Corbett and Dave Veroff during the development otfh eth e report, it-
orbveioucs othamt omur e- innput d- waas  uttiliizeod inn s.fo rmulation - of
I have provided our comments on each "Option for Improvement" in
the order in which  they appear in the document, beginning on
page 8. 
1. 
Create a consolidated State plan for child welfare services that includes independent 
(page 8) 
living. 
especially 
NILA supports this recommendation  when 
combined with #4 below. 
2. 
Require states to establish measurable goals and targets, and to report on their 
(page 9) 
progress. 
We recognize the need for outcome measures; however, 
federal staff should exercise caution in establishing 
avoid implementation of 
guidelines in this area to 
simplistic measures that may not be a true indication 
of the success of independent living services. NILA 
offers our assistance and support in the development of 
outcome measures. 
Natiosna-l Independent Living Association 
1419 
202 W(5 Eighth  This. OK 74\19- 91815.2986 fAX9181592-IR41  ~~~
- /,".:   ",.,: '; :  ';:":.,," .:;""?, ''":.. . ;..:  ,:! .: .
June Gibbs Brown - Inspector General 
August 8 , 1994 
Page 2 
3. Adjust (cid:1) (page 10) 
lhe timing oflhe Stale plan and the granl award. 
f:. 
NILA wholeheartedly supports this recommendation. 
4. 
Relain a dislincl focus on independenl living and youlhs in any State child welfare 
(page 10) ' 
reporling syslem. 
NILA wholeheartedly supports this recommendation. 
5. 
Provide the Slates wilh a simple. standard form for reporling aggregate informalion. 
(page 11) 
is recommendation, we would , hope that any 
NILA supports 
such form will eventually be automated. 
6. 
Aulomaled Child Welfare Information Syslems 
Utilze the capabillies of Statewide 
(page 11) 
and the Adoplion and Foster Care Analysis and Reporling System. 
NthILaA ts uapnpyor tnse wth irse qrueicroemmmeenntdsa tifoonr.  sItta tsehosu ltdo b ein ncolutdeed 
independent living in their SWACWIS must be done promptly 
as a number of states are already in the development 
stage. 
7. 
(page 12) 
Encourage eleclronic reponing specifically for independemliving. 
NILA supports this recommendation. 
8. 
Establish a standard. basic data sel for independent living.  (page 12) 
NILA supports this recommendation and offers our support 
in the selection of the elements in the data set. 
9. FaciWale lhe developmenl of clear definilions of independellliving lerms.  (page 
13) 
and 
NILA supports this recommendation  the  Data
Collection Task Force offers to  develop 
dra ft 
definitions. 
10.	 Collecl more detailed budgel dala lhrollgh lhe program reponing mechanism. 
(page 14) 
NILA supports this recommendation; however , we urge 
federal staff to keep budget categories broad. 
F - 6
 .. . - .',.
".  . ":: .: ..   .-..: .'.:: ;',"; 
June Gibbs Brown - Inspector General

August 8, 1994

Page 4

17.  (page 19)

Report on State performance measures. 
NILA supports this recommendation.

18.  (page 20)  !:f 
Disseminate qua/iative updates on State activites. 
NILA supports this recommendation.

(page 20) .
19. 
Share model forms and directories of available resources. 
NILA supports this recommendation.

20.	 Develop a focus for ACF youlh programs in central office and each regional office. 
(page 21) 
Implementation of
NILA supports this recommendation. 
this recommendation would provide tremendous support to

state agency staff who are isolated throughout the

country . 
21.	 Incorporate independent living issues into other child welfare monitoring activities. 
(page 22) 
NILA supports this recommendation.

22.  Become a resource on other Federal programs serving youths. and facilitate 
(page 22)

coordination among these and the lirdepelldellt Living Program. 

NILA supports this recommendation.

The Independent Living coordinator from Pennsylvania asked that I

also mention that the Pennsylvania reports referred to as the end

of the year report is actually the application that counties submit

for funding.

Any review of the IV-E Independent Living Initiative would be

incomplete if it did not include information on the quality of the

staff. Mike Amrose and Irene Hammond are significant assets to

keeping the states 
in 
the IV-E-IL program. They have been diligent  the program. It is amazing that they 
informed of developments  in 
have been able to be so supportive of the states with so few staff 
on this program would be incomplete 
resources. Any recommendations 
if they did not include a recommendation to increase the number of

staff and travel money for this program.

F - 7
 . .
: ", . . :.. .,: .,,  :: ' "-.., ..~.  ~ ,--,~. .' -,, .' : 
June Gibbs Brown - Inspector General 
August 8, 1994 
Page 3 
11. Solicit information on effective practices and innovations.  (page 14) 
NILA supports this recommendation.  "b. 
. I"  I-" 
12.  (page 14). 
Develop performance and outcomes measures for independent living. 
NILA supports t2hi.s  recommendation with the reservations
voiced about #  NILA welcomes the opportuni tyt6 be 
t:t: 
involved in the development of these measures. 
13.  (page 15) 
Establish general parameters within which States could define specific outcomes and.
ways of measuring those outcomes. 
recommendation. This 
NILA strongly supports. this 
recommendation must be implemented if states are going 
to be given the latitude to develop their own outcome 
measures. 
14.  (page 16) 
Focus on the status of youths at discharge. 
NILA supports this recommendation; however, we do not
believe that we should "focus" on youth only at 
dtois charge. We recommend that the language be changed
indicate that discharge is one point at which 
obtained. 
information should be  Youths should be 
several  age 16, at 
looked at on  occasions: at 
discharge, and at different points in time after the 
youth is discharged from care. 
15.  Encourage and assist State efforts 10 link independent living data systems with 
public assistance. unemployment. criminal justice and Internal Revenue Service 
(page 17) 
information systems. 
NILA strongly supports this recommendation. 
16.  (page 17) 
Play all active role in independent living research. 
the 
NILA strongly supports  federal central office 
independent living, 
contracting for national research on 
especially longitudinal studies to follow youths for years 
care. At 
after they leave  time , several 
this point  in 
states are lapsing IV-E-IL "matching " funds. We recommend 
that some of these funds be utilized to help fund central 
office functions such as research. 
F - 8(cid:1) ,.. ' . ,' 
.. ": ...;.:...: :." ,:" :"':" .!
June Gibbs Brown - Inspector General

August 8, 1994

Page 5

Lastly, we want to commend the work of Tim Corbett and David 
to 
Veroff. Both of these young men spent a tremendous amount of time.
and energy working with us  secure our opinions and.  '1;, 
recommendations. We commend Tim and David for excellent work in 
blending divergent perspectives and developing an excellent report..
If they are representative of the caliber .of your staff ,  you are a 
very fortunate administrator. 

. you 
Please feel free to call me at 512/450-3309 if  have any 
. comments. Again, thank you very 
much for 
questions regarding our
providing us the opportunity to comment on the report. 
Sincerely, 
Thomas Chapmond

Chairperson 
Mike Amrose 
Irene Hammond

Timothy Corbett 
David Veroff

NILA Board Members

F - 9  APPENDIX G 
NOTE 
Child Welfare League of America  Standards for Independent Living Services 
1989, section 1.2, p. 10. 
Westat, Inc. A National Evaluation of Title IV-E Foster Care Independent Living 
HHS contract 105-87-1608, Phase I, Vol, I, p. 4-
Programs for Youth 
99-272). Ths 
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985  (PL. 
law provided funding to States for servces to youth in foster care who were 16 
to 18 years of age and who were receivig foster care maitenance payments 
under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, which is tied to eligibilty for Aid to 
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Subsequent amendments to the 
law provided additional funds and made various changes in eligibility and 
oversight requirements, including giving States the option of providing 
independent living servces to non-Title-IV-E chidren and to youth up to age 
21. 
Funds are allocated on the basis of each State s relative share of the nation 
population of foster-care children in 1984; this base year has not been updated 
since the start of the program. The first $45 milion requires no cost sharig; 
the remaining $25 milion requires a dollar-for-dollar State match, which can be 
in-kind or cash. Each fiscal year s grant is paid out in quarterly payments, and 
must be spent by the end of the fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the 
award was made. 
Administration for Children, Youth, and Famiies, Program Instruction 
(ACYF-PI-93-01), December 10, 1993. 
There has been one formal evaluation of federally funded independent living 
programs, conducted in 1988-90 by the consulting firm Westat, Inc., under 
contract to ACF (see note 2). That study concluded that "the passage of P. 
99-272 has had a dramatic effect on the development and implementation of 
independent living policies and servces" in the States. The study also 
determined that such servces have the potential to improve outcomes for 
youth, and that education and employment opportunities appeared to be of 
particular importance. 
G - fiscal reports (Standard 
Origially, States were required to submit quarterly 
Form 269) on the independent living grant; because of the two-year 
expenditure period for the grant, each annual grant generally entailed 8 reports. 
Recently, the reporting schedule has been revised--in part to reflect the late 
Thee reports are now required, one at the end of the 
awarding of the grant. 
first fiscal year of the expenditure period, one at the middle of the second year 
and a third at the end of the second year. 
The ACF's grants reengieering process entails a reexamiation of the fiscal 
oversight of the host of grants within the purvew of the 
admistration and 
agency. Our report does not address fiscal reporting requirements; we expect 
the 
that ACF will give full consideration to the ILP grant as part of 
reengieering process. 
Repon of the Administration for Children and Families' Monitoring Team  Draft 
April 1994. 
wi 
also have an impact on all ACF chid 
Other recent program initiatives 
welfare programs, including the ILP. First, through the Family Preservation 
and Family Support Act, ACF will move to prevent crises by proactively 
assisting at-risk families. Second, through the Adoption and Foster Care 
Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS), ACF has established a required 
basic data set for each child in substitute care. Third, through the State 
Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS), ACF will provide 
softare 
funding and direction for the development of computer hardware and 
for State child welfare programs. 
reports focus largely on detailig program, policy, or administrative 
10. 
Most  OIG 
deficiencies in separate section entitled "Findings. 
11.  Through the Runaway and Homeless Youth (RHY) Programs, ACF directly 
funds competitively selected public and private agencies to provide servces 
including housing, to these groups of youth. Many of these providers also serve 
youths who are stil in foster care, through contracts to States for the provision 
of independent living servces. 
In ACF central offce, the RHY programs are admistered by the Family and 
Youth Servces Bureau. At the regional level, the organizational structure 
, the ILP and the RHY programs are located within the 
varies. In five regions
same branch. In other regions, the RHY programs are located in the Head 
Start Branch, which similarly provides direct grants to servce providers (as 
opposed to State governments). 
12.  The enabling legislation for the program requires each State to submit an 
application for funds, separate from its general child welfare plan. In the early 
years of the program, this requirement ensured that States paid particular 
G - ,." - " ':'- :!'.
;-o 
attention to independent living and youth. This separate application process 
also allowed the States and ACF to be somewhat flexible in plannng, given the 
program s initially temporary status and uncertain future. 
It should be noted that some States have included independent living more 
comprehensively in their planning efforts than others. Some regional offces 
planng 
likewise, have made a point of including independent living in the joint 
process. 
The application is due by February 1st, and funds generally are not awarded 
until the third quarter of the fiscal year. The earliest date that application are 
accepted is October 1st, while this year, the program instruction regarding the 
application did not go out until December 10th. 
14.  Although there is no standardized reporting format for the States, ACF does 
require that regional staff use a standard checklst in reviewing the applications 
, the staff with whom we spoke had shared this form 
and reports. In one region 
in advance with the States, so that they could collect the specific information 
, one State coordinator had copied this form and given it to 
correctly. In fact 
his district staff, so that they too could collect the right information throughout 
the year. The coordinator simply compiled these reports from the districts 
both monthly and annually. 
15.  The ACF does ask States to provide in their program reports "a complete 
record of the purposes for which the funds were spent." States have 
interpreted this requirement very loosely, however. For example, one regional 
staffer noted that one State in his region provided a three page budget 
detailing all expenses, while another provided only a three line budget, outling 
Federal, State, and total expenditures. 
Fiscal reporting requirements (as opposed to program reporting requirements) 
are very minimal. 
16.  Only 2 of the 11 States with whom we spoke had fully automated systems for 
independent living information, while 4 others could obtain some relevant 
information from their States' general child welfare computer systems. In a 
number of States, the independent living coordinator has access only to 
aggregate information on the numbers of youth served in counties, districts, or 
regions; in others, the coordinator has access to information on a per-youth 
for independent 
basis. At least one State has no separate reporting capability 
, the coordinator has no line authority over the staff 
living. In several States 
providing servces, which can limit the abilty to access information. 
17.  States noted that youth are very anxous to be free of the child welfare system 
and often want nothing to do with it once they are discharged. States have 
tried various methods to encourage youth to return mail surveys or to come 
G -(cid:1) back for follow-up intervews after discharge, including cash payments and 
certificates. Their success has generally been quite limited. 
There are also signcant variations in how this inormation is reported. Some 
States report on youth at 90 days after their participation in an independent 
living activity, such as a group lie skis course. Some of these youth, therefore 
may stil be in the care of the State; they are not yet independent. Other 
States report on the results achieved 90 days afer discharge from custody, 
regardless of when independent livig servces were provided or completed. 
the 11 States with whom we spoke, 4 stared the clock at servce completion, 
6 at discharge (for one we were not able to detemIe this information). Ths 
21 year-olds who 
timing issue can be further complicated in the case of 18-
return for assistance after their intial discharge.

In one State, the situation is even more complex. Ths State has instituted an 
option caled "trial discharge," which allows youths to leave the system but 
retain the option of returng to State custody up to age 21 if they have 
problems. The results reported for youths durig trial discharge, therefore, may 
not provide a useful picture of their ability to manage real independence. 
We also noted a basic methodological problem in the reporting of this 
number of " (such as the number 
information. States report the  results achieved" 
employed and the number holdig a GED). In most reports, it is not possible 
for whom these results are being reported. 
to detemIe  the number of youth 
For example, a State may report that 100 youths were employed and 
100 youths graduated from high school; it is not possible to detemIe whether 
, or somethig in between. 
the population reporting equals 100 or 200 youths
18.  Several State contacts also were concerned that independent living funds might 
be lost in the overall fuding stream to the States, and be redirected by agency 
admstrators to seemigly more urgent State priorities. They urged that funds 
remain a distinct stream. 
19.  The enabling legislation for the ILP requires States to submit an annual 
application for funds; legislative or regulatory change might be required to 
replace the application with a consolidated plan.

20.  Goals and progress updates could be included in any planning and reporting 
framework ACF chooses; they could be set out in either free-standing 
independent living applications and reports or integrated child welfare plans 
and reports. 
Although the current application and reporting requirements do not mandate 
that States establish specific goals and report on their progress in meeting 
them, some States have structured their submissions in this fashion. 
G -
 21. The enablig legislation for the ILP requires States to submit an annual 
program report providing a description of their programs; any consolidation of 
reports may requires legislative or regulatory change. 
22. .	 Such a document might require approval from the Offce of Management and 
Budget. 
23.  58 Fed. Reg. 67939, Dec. 22, 1993. 
With respect to independent living, the SACWIS regulations require only that 
identifg 
the systems be capable of  eligible youth. 
24.  Westat, Phase I, Vol., p. ix. 
25.  58 Fed. Reg. 67913, December 22, 1993. 
There would be certain limitations to the usefulness of AFCARS and SACWIS 
for the purposes of independent livig; most importantly, they would not 
retu 
include youth formerly in foster care who  for independent livig 
assistance. Inormation on such paricipants (who in most States represent a 
very small percentage of all youth served through the independent living grant) 
might have to be maintaied separately. 
26. Several of the State coordinators with whom we spoke voiced concerns about 
States that are currently unable to track specifc servces provided to youths. 
These critics were skeptical about programs that report that they are servng 
large numbers of youth by virtue of training to staff or foster parents that 
trickles down " or who report that they serve everyone in the eligible age group 
because that s the regulation. 
27. As an example, one coordinator pointed out that her district-level 
mium 
admistrators "were really nailg me to the wall about 'what are the 
requirements that the feds lay on us.' And when I had to say they only require 
90 days, then they said that's all they re going do, the minium. I argued and 
argued that you don t see much at 90 days, but it didn t matter. It was an issue 
of resources. 
28.  In 1990, a NIL data collection task force surveyed the States regarding their 
signcant 
data collection activities. The group found that one of the most 
diffculties in interpreting the States' responses was the lack of common 
NIL 
definitions of terms. This issue was also well recognized at the  annual 
meeting in March 1994. 
29. While the requirements of the fiscal report are very limited, ACF can require 
more financial detail in its program reporting mechanisms. For example, both 
the Developmental Disabilities Program and the Social Servces Block Grant 
require substantial budget detail. 
G - ,.., 
30.	 In our discussions with State and regional staff, we suggested lookig at the 
Federal-expenditures-per-youth as a measure of program extent and intensity; 
we received widely divergent reactions. Some staf argued that the figure was 
meaningless because it did not include additional State funds, did not take into 
account regional cost variations or varyng levels of admistrative costs for 
county- and State-run systems, and was not lined to program outcomes. Other 
contacts regarded the number as a very important insight, and suggested that it 
would prompt them to ask questions about the reasons for the variations 
among the States. 
31.	 The Chid Welfare League of America is currently engaged in an effort to 
identify core elements of independent livig practice; ACF is represented on 
the project's advisory committee. These efforts might connect well with the 
ultimate development of performance measures. 
32.  By process areas we mean such thigs as the geographic extent of servces, the 
training of staff, the length of programs, and so on. By interi outcomes we 
mean such thigs as youths' educational and employment status at the time of 
discharge. By final outcomes we mean such thigs as youths' education and 
employment status at points after discharge, whie the youths are livig 
independently. 
33.	 Most State and regional contacts stressed the importance of educational 
attainment--including completion of high school GED, or 
, earng of a 
continuation to higher education--as a key measure. Simarly, the evaluation 
by Westat, Inc. , determined that high school completion prior to discharge from 
custody "led to better outcomes, regardless of skis traing" (Westat
, Phase 
p. xiii). 
Vol 
34.  The ACF could take several additional steps to emphasize the importance of 
educational efforts. As suggested by the Chid Welfare League of America 
ACF could suggest amendig current legislation to require that individual case 
plans "outlie the steps being taken to help youths obtai a high school degree 
or its equivalent" (Child Welfare League of America  Independent Living 
Services for Youths in Out-of-Home Care  1993, p. 51). Section 475 of the Social 
Security Act stipulates requirements for the case plans of chidren in substitute 
care. More broadly, ACF could require or encourage better coordination 
between independent living servces and local educational systems. 
35.	 States have created a variety of innovative means of measuring outcomes and 
program impact. These include exit intervews with youth, follow-up intervews 
, evaluations by youth of the servces they have received, and 
mail surveys
efforts to determine if youth have developed meaningful relationships in their 
lives. 
G -
 -o' 
36. Many States treat independent living preparation as a discrete program, to 
which youths are referred by their priary case worker, and which lasts for a 
set period of time. In such programs, a youth might be referred for 
traig 
independent livig  at age 16, complete the traing by age 17, and 
remain in care for several more years--until age 18, 19, or even 21. The 
independent livig program might have no further contact with this youth after 
completion of the traing program. In these programs, therefore, requied 
reporting on the status of youths at discharge would represent an important 
new source of inormation on the preparedness of these youths at the time they 
actually become independent, and would indeed give a longer-term picture of 
the youths than inormation at 90 days after the completion of servces
, as is 
now generally reported. 
37.  Micent Abel, Ph.  et. al. , Evaluation of the Independent Living Program/ 
Initiative; Summary of Evaluation  Urban Research Center, University of 
Louisvie, March 13, 1990, p. 6. 
crial 
38. One State, for example, is curently negotiating with  justice offcials to 
get such inormation in aggregate form (through ' 'blid matches  ); they would 
not be able to track individual youth, but could see overall trends. 
39.  Independent Living Services  p. 52. 
CW 
40. For example, one regional offce shares the application and report from each of 
the region s States with all of the other States in the region. 
mially 
Although ACF produces an annual report to Congress that 
summarizes State programs, offcials in several States mentioned that they have 
not received this inormation. Aside from the sparse information contained in 
this report to Congress, ACF produces no national information on the program. 
41.  In addition, as noted above, the organzational structures of the regional offces 
vary with respect to youth servces: In five regions, the Runaway and Homeless 
Youth (RHY programs are administered by a diferent branch than the ILP. 
Such fragmentation may lit the abilty of ACF program specialsts to devote 
time to youth issues and to provide useful assistance to the States. 
42. The National Resource Center for Youth Servces (NRC) released a 
compilation of 34 State policies in 1993. The ACF has funded resource centers 
in various subject areas to provide technical assistance and support to State 
agencies and grantees receiving funds from ACF. 
43. Depending on resource availability, ACF might be able to fund a national 
resource center for youth servces for such a function. 
G -