Introduction to Cross-System Data Sources 

in Child Welfare, Alcohol and 

Other Drug Services, and Courts

i

Introduction to Cross-System Data Sources 

in Child Welfare, Alcohol and Other 

Drug Services, and Courts

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment

and

Administration for Children and Families

Administration on Children, Youth and Families

Children’s Bureau
ii

Acknowledgments

This document was prepared for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration (SAMHSA) and the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) by the 

National Center on Substance Abuse and Child Welfare (NCSACW) under Contract No. 

270-027108, with ACF and SAMHSA, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

Sharon Amatetti, M.P.H., served as the Government Project Officer from SAMHSA’s Center 

for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) and Irene Bocella, M.S.W., served as the Project 

Officer from Children’s Bureau within the Administration for Children and Families.

Disclaimer

The views, opinions, and content of this publication are those of the authors and do not 

necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or policies of SAMHSA or HHS. Resources listed 

in this document are not all-inclusive and inclusion in the list does not constitute an 

endorsement by SAMHSA or HHS.

Public Domain Notice

All material appearing in this document is in the public domain and may be reproduced or 

copied without the permission of SAMHSA. Citation of the source is appreciated. However, 

this publication may not be reproduced or distributed for a fee without the specific, written 

authorization of the Office of Communications, SAMHSA, HHS.

Electronic Access and Copies of Publication

This publication may be downloaded or ordered at http://store.samhsa.gov. Or, please 

call SAMHSA at 1-877-SAMHSA-7 (1-877-726-4727) (English and Español). In addition, 

this publication can be ordered at the Child Welfare Information Gateway at http://www.

childwelfare.gov or by phone at 1-800-394-3366.

Recommended Citation

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. Introduction to Cross-System Data Sources in Child 

Welfare, Alcohol and Other Drug Services, and Courts. HHS Publication No. (SMA) 11-4630. 

Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2011.

Originating Office

Office of Program Analysis and Coordination, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 1 Choke Cherry Road, 

Rockville, MD 20857. HHS Publication No. (SMA) 11-4630. Printed in 2011. 
iii

CONTENTS

Introduction............................................................................................. 1

Child Welfare System Data....................................................................... 2

Child Welfare Data-Reporting Systems .................................................... 3

Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) .............3

Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) ............5

National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS)..........................7

National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD)...........................................9

Child and Family Services Review (CFSR)...............................................11

Other Child Welfare Data Systems ......................................................... 12

Longitudinal Studies of Child Abuse and Neglect (LONGSCAN) ..................12

Center for State Foster Care and Adoption Data......................................14

National Data Analysis System (NDAS)..................................................16

Alcohol and Other Drugs System Data.................................................... 17

Inventory of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (I-SATS) .....................18

National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS) ..........19

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) ......................................................21

National Outcome Measures (NOMS) for Co-Occurring Disorders ..............23

National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH)..................................25

Court System Information...................................................................... 27

National Consortium on State Court Automation Functional Standards .......27

Dependency Court Performance Measures..............................................30

Tribal Child Welfare Data ....................................................................... 33

Bureau of Indian Affairs.......................................................................34

IHS Resource and Patient Management System ......................................35

Tribal Health System Data...................................................................... 37

Resource and Patient Management System (RPMS) .................................37

References............................................................................................. 40
iv
1

Introduction

In many families that are involved in the child welfare system and juvenile 

dependency court, one or both parents has a substance abuse disorder. In a survey 

by the National Center on Child Abuse Prevention Research, 85% of States reported 

that substance abuse was one of the two major problems exhibited by families in 

which maltreatment was suspected (National Center on Child Abuse Prevention 

Research, 2001). Studies have shown that between one-third and two-thirds of 

child maltreatment cases involve substance abuse (U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services, 1999). Data indicate that abused or neglected children from 

families with a substance-abusing parent are more likely to be placed in foster 

care and to remain there longer than maltreated children from families without a 

substance-abusing parent (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1999).

This guide describes the primary data-reporting systems used in the child welfare, 

alcohol and other drug services, and court systems. The document describes 15 

data-reporting systems, including 8 child welfare systems, 5 alcohol and other drug 

service systems, 2 initiatives to implement a national data reporting system in the 

courts, and 1 enterprise health information system for data on American Indian and 

Alaska Native families.

This report is a companion guide to Facilitating Cross-System Collaboration: A 

Primer on Child Welfare, Alcohol and Other Drug Services, and Courts. The primer 

provides basic information on child welfare, alcohol and other drug services, and 

court systems to support cross-system communication and coordination within 

State, county, and tribal jurisdictions.

The primary audiences for these two documents include jurisdictions that are 

interested in developing cross-system relationships. The documents are tailored to 

management and administrative personnel in State, county, and tribal jurisdictions’ 

child welfare, alcohol and other drug services, and court systems. 

For the purposes of this document, the authors have used the term “system” to 

refer to all of the data systems described in this report. Although these entities 

are very different from one another and might not fit the strict definition of a data 

system, each makes information available in its own way to the public about child 

welfare services, substance abuse services, or court-related cases. The systems 

described include automated data-collection systems, data-reporting systems, and 

related data-gathering activities that collect child welfare data to monitor a State 

agency’s ability to ensure safety, permanency, and well-being for all children in the 

child welfare system. These systems also include activities to collect and report 

data on substance use and treatment and on court processes.
2

Child Welfare System Data

The Children’s Bureau, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services, sponsors the major child welfare data systems 

that child welfare programs use to monitor and improve their outcomes. Five of 

the seven child welfare data systems described in this section were developed and 

implemented under the auspices of the Children’s Bureau: the statewide automated 

child welfare information system (SACWIS), Adoption and Foster Care Analysis 

and Reporting System (AFCARS), National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System 

(NCANDS), National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD), Child and Family Services 

Review (CFSR), and Longitudinal Studies of Child Abuse and Neglect (LONGSCAN). 

These systems are very different from and not comparable to one another. 

Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago and the American Public Human Services 

developed the Center for State Foster Care and Adoption Data, and the Child 

Welfare League of America created the National Data Analysis System (NDAS).

The SACWIS is a comprehensive, automated case management tool that assists 

social workers with foster care and adoptions assistance case management. Federal 

regulations require States to use a SACWIS or other system to collect and report 

AFCARS data to the Children’s Bureau to receive Federal reimbursement for State 

foster care and adoption costs. All States and the District of Columbia collect 

data on their child welfare cases and activities for a statewide automated system 

that provides a variety of reports. Not all statewide automated systems meet the 

standards for a SACWIS system, however. The Children’s Bureau supports State 

development of SACWIS systems, including reimbursement of a percentage of costs.

The AFCARS includes case-level information on all children in foster care for whom 

State child welfare agencies have responsibility for placement, care, or supervision. 

The AFCARS also includes information on children who are adopted under the 

auspices of the State’s public child welfare agency. States enter AFCARS data into 

and generate AFCARS reports from SACWIS systems. 

The NYTD collects case-level data from States on youth in care, including the 

services provided by State agencies that administer the John H. Chafee Foster Care 

Independence Program (Public Law [PL] 106-169). The Children’s Bureau requires 

all States to participate in the Child and Family Services Review (CFSR), which 

reviews each State’s data reporting system. For more information on Federal and 

State child welfare reporting systems, visit http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/

systems/index.htm. 

NCANDS, LONGSCAN, the Center for State Foster Care and Adoption Data, and the 

NDAS are voluntary data-reporting systems. The Children’s Bureau encourages but 

does not require States to collect NCANDS data in their SACWIS systems and to 

report to the Children’s Bureau on the status of child abuse and neglect reports, 

investigations, outcomes, and services. Currently, all States are collecting and 

reporting NCANDS data to the Children’s Bureau. LONGSCAN is a consortium of 

longitudinal research studies on the etiology and impact of child abuse and neglect 

in five cities around the country. The Center for State Foster Care and Adoption 
3

Data maintains a multi-State database of longitudinal foster care and adoption 

data. The NDAS integrates national child welfare data from AFCARS, NCANDS, and 

other sources and presents data in customized tables and graphs.

Child Welfare Data-Reporting Systems

Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System 

(SACWIS)

Sponsor • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

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

Features

SACWIS is a comprehensive, automated case management system that 

helps social workers manage foster care and adoption cases.

SACWIS includes basic components that the Children’s Bureau mandates 

and optional elements that the Children’s Bureau encourages but does not 

require States to use.

All States and the District of Columbia collect data on their child welfare 

cases and activities for entry into a statewide automated system that 

provides reports for a variety of uses.

Twenty-three SACWIS certified systems are in operation, 17 SACWIS 

systems are in development, and 10 non-SACWIS models are in operation.

Federal 

Requirements 

and Support

Federal legislation enacted in 1993 supports States in planning, designing, 

developing, and implementing a SACWIS system. 

Each SACWIS must support the reporting of data to AFCARS and NCANDS. 

The Federal government reviews each State’s SACWIS system to ensure that 

the system supports child welfare practices throughout the State and complies 

with reporting guidelines. The review takes place approximately 1 year after 

the State implements the SACWIS system. Front-line workers, supervisors, 

managers, and other system users (such as quality assurance personnel and 

non-case carrying staff with advisory responsibilities) use SACWIS data. 

When the review is complete, the State receives a summary report noting 

any areas that need improvement.

Data Elements

The Children’s Bureau requires States to include 66 data elements that 

are also part of the AFCARS system, including demographic information on 

the child’s race, age, gender, and date of entry into care. To view the data 

elements, visit 

http://www.nrccwdt.org/resources/afcars/notebook/docs/appendix_c.pdf. 

The SACWIS includes case-related information, such as the reason identified 

for removing the child and placing him or her into foster care, service goals, 

funding source, number of placements, and availability for adoption. 

States may include other data elements to meet their needs, including 

elements that help caseworkers manage their caseloads within the 

structure of the State child welfare system. 

Because each State can include different data elements in its SACWIS, 

States collect varying amounts and types of information. States use their 

SACWIS data to create management and outcome reports, which the 

Children’s Bureau sometimes requires for use in monitoring performance 

improvement. Other reports are unique to each State to aid in their own 

performance-monitoring and improvement systems.
4

Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System 

(SACWIS)

Strengths

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

The SACWIS provides a wealth of information about children and families 

and their progress through the child welfare system. 

The SACWIS is a means for collecting, collating, and analyzing data 

regarding agency, local office, and individual worker performance. 

Ideally, the SACWIS system gives anyone in the agency quick and easy 

access to all pertinent information about a child or family.

Challenges

State systems are in various stages of development and use. 

Although standards are available for the inclusion of specific information, 

each State or locality has the latitude to establish its own format and 

functionality. 

The degree to which front-line workers and key supervisory or management 

personnel use a SACWIS can vary between States and jurisdictions within 

States. This variation can result in inaccurate data. 

Although management personnel usually have access to specific outcome 

measures, they do not always have access to individual case data.

Because SACWISs are in varying stages of development and use, the 

longitudinal information on children and families in these systems is limited 

and unique to each State. 

Cross-System 

Issues

Child welfare data have significant implications for multiple domains, 

including substance abuse, mental health, family court, and housing 

systems. The sharing of data across these systems has a great potential to 

enhance services to children and families in the child welfare system.

The ability to share information outside the State or local child welfare 

system is limited by strict confidentiality restrictions aimed at protecting 

the rights of children and families. 

Efforts are underway to develop a format for sharing information between 

court systems and child welfare agencies, but progress in this area has 

been limited. Issues that impede progress include the use of multiple 

vendors and proprietary formats in the development of the data systems, 

the unique nature of each SACWIS, the different approaches and formats 

for gathering data across systems, and the highly sensitive nature of the 

data.

Because each State develops its own SACWIS, cross-system data sharing 

would require each State to develop a unique data-sharing system. 

Because each State selects the vendor that develops its SACWIS, crosssystem data sharing might require collaboration with multiple vendors and 

software developers.

Website http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/systems/sacwis/about.htm
5

Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System 

(AFCARS)

Sponsor • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

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

Features

The AFCARS collects information on all children covered under Titles IV-B 

and IV-E of the Social Security Act. 

States submit data from their SACWIS semiannually to the Children’s 

Bureau on every child who entered or resided in foster care and every child 

who was adopted through the State child welfare system.

Federal 

Requirements 

and Support

The Children’s Bureau requires States to collect AFCARS data, which it 

uses to assess and evaluate each State’s child welfare performance. The 

AFCARS assessment review is a “validation and verification” of the State’s 

automated information system (whether SACWIS or other) and includes an 

assessment of the system’s ability to accurately gather, extract, and submit 

the correct AFCARS data. 

Each review team identifies problems, investigates their causes, and 

suggests solutions.

The Children’s Bureau establishes a schedule for AFCARS reviews, which 

it conducts after each State SACWIS review. If the State does not have a 

SACWIS, the Children’s Bureau reviews the system that the State uses to 

report AFCARS data to the Children’s Bureau. A State may also request an 

AFCARS review. 

Circumstances that may prompt an AFCARS review, in addition to the 

regular reviews, include the identification of data quality issues in the 

course of a SACWIS, Title IV-E, or child and family service review. In 

addition, issues related to data quality identified by other sources—such as 

the Office of Management and Budget, the General Accountability Office, or 

the Office of the Inspector General—can result in a request for an AFCARS 

review.

Data Elements

The 89 foster care variables and 45 adoption variables that States can 

include in the AFCARS report include:

o	

o	

o	

Demographic information about the child (race, age, and gender).

Date of entry into care.

Limited case information (e.g., identified reason for removal and 

placement into foster care, drug and/or alcohol abuse history, service 

goals, funding source, number of placements, and availability for 

adoption).

The system assigns each child’s file an identifying number but records do 

not include child and family names.

Strengths

The AFCARS allows for the collection of aggregate data regarding child 

welfare systems and related services across the country. 

The AFCARS provides a snapshot of the field that allows comparative 

analyses. 

The AFCARS makes outcomes analyses possible in the child welfare system.

Multiple years of data are available.

Because AFCARS reporting is mandatory, State compliance levels are high.
6

Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System 

(AFCARS)

Challenges

• Because the focus is on foster care and adoptive care cases, the 

information that States may share across systems is limited to general 

demographic information only.

• The Children’s Bureau discourages the use of data from before 1998.

• Tribal agencies that place children for adoption are not required to report 

data to AFCARS.

• The definitions of some data elements, such as “placement” and “date of 

discharge,” are inconsistent.

Cross-System 

Issues

• The data collected are primarily demographic and may have some limited 

applicability for cross-system issues such as understanding service 

provision. 

• The format was developed for the Federal child welfare system, and this 

could limit its usefulness for other data-collection systems.

Website http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm
7

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS)

Sponsor Children’s Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families 

Features

This voluntary national data collection and analysis system gathers Stateand child-level data on child abuse and neglect reporting, assessment, and 

service provision.

The Administration on Children and Families publishes annual reports on 

NCANDS data, available at 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm#can.

States can order NCANDS data through the National Data Archive on Child 

Abuse and Neglect (NDACAN).

Federal 

Requirements 

and Support

The Children’s Bureau developed the NCANDS in response to the 

requirements of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (PL 93-

247) to establish a national data collection and analysis program for child 

maltreatment.

The NCANDS began in 1990 when 49 States, 1 territory, and the armed 

forces started submitting aggregate data. In fiscal year (FY) 2007, 46 

States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico submitted child data and 

47 States submitted aggregate data. 

Data Elements

The NCANDS includes 26 data elements from the SACWIS in the following 

categories:

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

Identifying information.

Preventive services, or services aimed at preventing child abuse 

and neglect. States can direct these services to a specific “at risk” 

population. Services include those designed to increase family strength 

and stability or improve parenting abilities.

Screened out reports, including reports of alleged maltreatment received 

within the calendar year that were not referred for child protective 

service investigation or assessment.

Out-of-court contacts.

Child maltreatment fatalities, including child deaths that occurred within 

the calendar year based on data from the coroner’s office, the Uniform 

Crime Reports, or reports compiled by the State’s child death review team.

The NCANDS includes State-level data, such as:

o	

o	

o	

The total number of abuse and neglect reports in the State.

Agency performance (e.g., average response time for abuse reports).

Workforce data (e.g., number of workers responsible for intake and 

assessment).

States may include child-level data in their NCANDS from 146 data fields, 

such as:

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

Number of abuse reports for a specific child.

Disposition of reports.

Type of abuse.

Characteristics of the child and parent or caregiver.

Risk factors, such as mental health status, physical disabilities, medical 

conditions, and substance abuse. Availability of these data varies 

by State and can be limited due to the timing of assessments and 

reporting, as well as the voluntary nature of the data collection. The 

variability in data collection limits the inclusion of these items in child 

maltreatment reports. 

Number of children and families receiving services.

Types of services provided (e.g., day care, respite care, transportation, 

counseling, and medical care).

Source of funding for services.
8

National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS)

Strengths

• The NCANDS offers a systematic means of analyzing data related to child 

abuse and neglect.

• The NCANDS data are available to researchers via the NDACAN, which 

conducts secondary analyses of data relevant to the study of child abuse 

and neglect. NCANDS therefore provides an inexpensive and scientifically 

productive means for researchers to explore important issues in the child 

maltreatment field.

• Various Federal review processes have resulted in enhancements and 

improvements to the NCANDS data submission system.

Challenges

• A 2003 report, Child Welfare: Most States Are Developing Statewide 

Information Systems, but the Reliability of Child Welfare Data Could Be 

Improved, from the General Accounting Office highlighted some concerns 

about the NCANDS data submitted to the Federal government. The 

oversight and monitoring of data submission is ongoing and various Federal 

review processes have resulted in improvements to the data submission 

system. The report is available at 

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03809.pdf. 

• Because NCANDS reporting is voluntary, not all States submit NCANDS data 

every year. 

• Variation in State child maltreatment laws and information systems could 

affect interpretation of the data.

Cross-System 

Issues

• Information on such issues as mental health and substance abuse is 

available through NCANDS, but States have not leveraged this information 

to the fullest extent possible in support of cross-system collaborative 

efforts.

Website http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm#can
9

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD)

Sponsor Children’s Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families 

Features

States collect case-level data on youth in care, including the services 

provided by State agencies that administer the John H. Chafee Foster Care 

Independence Program (PL 106-169). States report these data biannually 

to the Administration on Children, Youth and Families.

The NYTD tracks State performance on outcome measures.

Federal 

Requirements 

and Support

The Children’s Bureau developed the NYTD in response to the requirements 

of the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program. This program 

provides funding to States to implement transitional programs for foster 

youth.

State data must comply with the NYTD reporting standards, which include:

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

Use required file formats.

Contain accurate demographic data.

Meet 90 percent data quality check for data elements.

Provide full or partial outcome survey information from individuals aged 

19–21 years old.

Achieve 60 percent participation from individuals aged 19–21 years. For 

individuals aged 19–21 who are still under the State’s care, the State 

must achieve 80 percent outcome survey participation.

The Children’s Bureau penalizes States that fail to comply with the 

NYTD reporting requirements by reducing the State’s annual funding for 

independent living services by 1–5 percent.

Data Elements

States collect demographic information.

States report on the independent living services they provide to all youth in 

the following categories:

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

Independent living needs.

Academic support.

Post-secondary educational support.

Career preparation.

Employment programs or vocational training.

Budget and financial management.

Housing education and home management training.

Health education and risk prevention.

Family support and healthy marriage education.

Mentoring.

Supervised independent living.

States survey youth about six outcomes:

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

Financial self sufficiency.

Experience with homelessness.

Educational attainment.

Positive connections with adults.

High-risk behavior.

Access to health insurance.

Strengths

All States use the same standard reporting system.

The Children’s Bureau uses the NYTD to track the independent living 

services that States provide and assess the collective outcomes of 

transitional youth.
10

National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD)

• 

• 

• 

• 

Challenges

Collecting data from youth who have aged out of the foster care system 

and maximizing youth participation rates in general is difficult.

The data do not explain why some youth do not receive any transitional 

independent living services.

States do not quantify the services they provide, so these data do not show 

the extent or quality of the services the youth received.

Cross-System 

Issues

Information on such areas as substance abuse is available but States have 

not leveraged this information to the fullest extent possible in support of 

cross-system collaborative efforts.

Website https://www.nrccwdt.org/resources/nytd/nytd_home.html
11

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Child and Family Services Review (CFSR)

Sponsor Children’s Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families 

The CFSR collects safety, permanency, and well-being data on children 

involved in the child welfare system.

The process also involves an evaluation of such systemic factors as 

training, recruitment of resource families, and available services.

Features The CSFR is not a data-reporting system but this review process does 

collect important data.

The CFSR is the largest and most comprehensive systematic evaluation 

of public child welfare services outcomes undertaken by the Federal 

government.

Since 2001, after an initial pilot phase, the Administration on Children, 

Youth and Families has conducted annual reviews of State child welfare 

systems.

Federal 

Requirements 

and Support

The Children’s Bureau determines substantial conformity by analyzing 

statewide assessments; reviewing and comparing AFCARS and NCANDS 

report data to national data standards; and conducting week-long, on-site 

reviews of specific child welfare cases.

The on-site review process involves the review of State self-assessments; 

State and local policies; individual case files; and interviews with children, 

families, court personnel, and other stakeholders in the child welfare 

system.

After completing the CFSR process, States must develop performance 

improvement plans (PIPs) to address areas not in substantial conformity 

with Federal outcome guidelines. 

The CFSR contains detailed information about evaluations and services 

Data Elements provided in many areas, such as substance abuse, mental health, and 

education.

Strengths

The CFSR makes it possible to identify cross-systems’ strengths and 

challenges. This information can be helpful in formulating future goals aimed 

at improving outcomes for children and families in a variety of areas.

Challenges

The CSFR collects data on only 50 cases drawn from three geographic areas 

within each State. One of these areas is the largest metropolitan area in 

the State, and the Federal and State governments jointly select the other 

two areas. However, the second round of CFSRs will include a slightly larger 

sample size, although it will still be drawn from three geographic areas 

within each State. 

The data gathered could be valuable to many systems that interact with 

public child welfare programs.

Cross-System 

Issues

The PIP process offers an opportunity for stakeholders in related fields 

to become actively involved in addressing outcomes in the child welfare 

process. 

The second round of CFSRs is increasing the Children’s Bureau’s emphasis 

on collaboration with stakeholders and community organizations. This 

new emphasis could lead to improved data-sharing opportunities across 

systems. 

Website http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/index.htm
12

Other Child Welfare Data Systems

Longitudinal Studies of Child Abuse and Neglect 

(LONGSCAN)

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Sponsor Children’s Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families 

LONGSCAN is a consortium of longitudinal research studies of child abuse 

and neglect in Baltimore, Chicago, North Carolina, San Diego, and Seattle.

Features

LONGSCAN’s coordinated design permits longitudinal exploration of 

critical issues in child abuse and neglect to identify trends and developing 

situations.

Comprehensive assessments of children, their parents, and their teachers 

occur when the child reaches ages 4, 6, 8, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20.

LONGSCAN is built on pre-existing research programs.

Social-developmental-ecological theory guides LONGSCAN.

LONGSCAN began in 1990 through grants from the National Center on 

Child Abuse and Neglect to a coordinating center at the University of North 

Carolina and five sites. 

Federal 

Requirements 

and Support

Each site is conducting a separate and unique research project on the 

etiology and impact of child maltreatment. 

Using common assessment measures, similar data collection methods and 

schedules, and pooled analyses, LONGSCAN allows for individual dataset 

analysis.

LONGSCAN collects official child welfare records.

LONGSCAN uses situational tests and samples.

Data Elements LONGSCAN assesses four domains:

o	

o	

o	

o	

Child or youth characteristics and functioning.

Caregiver characteristics and functioning.

Family microsystem (home environment and functioning).

Macrosystem (neighborhood, school, and support).

LONGSCAN provides a scientific database that is useful for policy 

decisionmaking, program planning, and targeted service delivery.

LONGSCAN is a collaborative effort to implement common measures, data 

collection methods and schedules, and analyses.

Strengths Yearly telephone interviews allow the sites to track families and assess 

yearly service use and important life events.

The combined sample is sufficiently large to provide substantial statistical 

power and flexibility.

LONGSCAN can replicate or extend its findings across multiple 

socioeconomic subgroups.
13

Longitudinal Studies of Child Abuse and Neglect 

(LONGSCAN)

• 

• 

• 

Participation of minors throughout a longitudinal study is difficult.

Challenges Only faculty and non-student research personnel at institutions with an 

institutional review board or human subjects review committee may order 

the LONGSCAN data.

Cross-System 

Issues

Coordination and collaboration from each of the five sites is crucial to the 

success of these research studies. 

Website http://www.iprc.unc.edu/longscan/
14

Center for State Foster Care and Adoption Data

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Sponsor American Public Human Services Association and Chapin Hall Center for 

Children at the University of Chicago

The Center for State Foster Care maintains a multi-State database of 

longitudinal foster care and adoption data.

This database provides information-management tools to assist in program 

evaluation.

Features The center’s database includes data from a multi-State data archive and 

current subscribers. 

State child welfare agencies that currently report their data include Alaska, 

Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Missouri, 

New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and 

Washington.

The Center for State Foster Care and Adoption Data was developed through 

a partnership of the American Public Human Services Association, Chapin 

Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago, Jordan Institute for 

Federal 

Requirements 

and Support 

Families at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the Center 

for Social Services Research at the University of California at Berkeley. An 

advisory group consisting of partner institute representatives guides the 

center’s activities.

The partners established the center in January 2004 to provide member 

child welfare agencies with information technology for performance 

measurement. 

The center provides agencies with an evidence base to assess their 

program initiatives and monitor the impact of innovation. 

Data Elements The center uses State administrative data extracted from SACWIS and 

other legacy systems pertaining to each child’s experience in foster care 

and adoption.

States collecting data on substance abuse treatment types and outcomes 

can capture these data longitudinally through enhancements to their 

databases. 

The longitudinal database allows State administrators to:

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

Analyze key child welfare outcomes, including time to reunification, time 

to adoption, placement stability, and re-entry into care.

Strengths Compare outcomes for different administrative offices within their State 

or with other States.

Trace outcomes from the aggregate to the individual child level.

Project future service patterns based on historical trends.

Test the impact of service and policy innovations.

Set performance goals and monitor progress.

Link financial decision-making to outcome measures.

Tell their story to media and make their case to legislators.

Not all States participate in reporting to this voluntary data system.

Challenges Fees paid by participating States and additional funding from the Annie E. 

Casey Foundation provide the center’s only financial support.
15

Center for State Foster Care and Adoption Data

• 

• 

State agencies receive technical assistance and training on using the 

Cross-System database.

Issues Participants become part of a professional community of child welfare 

administrators and researchers familiar with best practices in the field.

Website http://www.chapinhall.org/partners/CSFCAD
16

National Data Analysis System (NDAS)

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Sponsor Child Welfare League of America (CWLA)

CWLA developed the NDAS in 1999 to organize an abundance of 

information, provide information on how States collect data, and offer a 

knowledge base to complement other data sources.

The NDAS provides point-in-time and exit cohort child welfare data and 

statistics through the Internet.

Features

The NDAS integrates national child welfare data from AFCARS, NCANDS, 

and other sources. It presents data in customized tables and graphs.

The NDAS displays data sources and explanatory notes and provides 

descriptive text with each predefined table and graph.

Users can download any data table for more in-depth analysis.

The NDAS features general notes on each State, with additional information 

to help understand and interpret each State’s data.

The NDAS features links to websites for child welfare agencies, State 

statutes, and other sources of child welfare data and information.

Federal 

Requirements 

and Support

The NDAS is a part of CWLA’s National Center for Research, Data, and 

Technology.

Forty-six States sponsor NDAS and provide financial support.

Data topics include: 

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

Administration.

Data Elements

Adoption.

Child abuse and neglect.

Child abuse and neglect fatalities.

Child care services.

Children’s health.

Fiscal data.

Juvenile justice.

Outcomes.

Out-of-home care.

Population data.

The NDAS is a comprehensive collection of child welfare and related data 

from across the country.

Strengths The NDAS allows users to create customized tables and graphs. It also 

provides information and Web links to help users understand the data.

The NDAS provides an ongoing forum for developing uniform data 

standards in the child welfare field.

Challenges

The NDAS only provides data from recent years and does not typically 

include data from the current year.

Not all States report to this voluntary data system.

Cross-System 

Issues

The NDAS facilitates discussion of State and Federal data issues to promote 

the effective integration of research, policy, and practice.

Website http://www.cwla.org/ndas.htm
17

Alcohol and Other Drugs System Data

The Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration (SAMHSA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

sponsors the data-reporting systems for alcohol and other drug (AOD) services. 

The Drug and Alcohol Services Information System (DASIS) is the primary datareporting system for the AOD services system. The DASIS monitors the prevalence 

of use, impact, and treatment. The DASIS has three components: Inventory of 

Substance Abuse Treatment Services (I-SATS), National Survey of Substance Abuse 

Treatment Services (N-SSATS), and Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS). Other 

national data-reporting systems include the National Outcome Measures (NOMs) 

and the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). 

Like the child welfare data-reporting systems, each of these data systems has a 

different purpose. The I-SATS lists all substance abuse treatment facilities in each 

State and U.S. territory. The N-SSATS collects survey data on substance abuse 

treatment services and use from all of the facilities listed in the I-SATS. In addition, 

the N-SSATS periodically collects survey data on substance abuse treatment 

services and use from correctional facilities. States are required to report data on 

treatment admissions and discharges in a standardized format to TEDS for national 

use. Each State and U.S. territory must also collect and submit data on client-level 

outcomes to NOMs. Annual reports on AOD topics and substance abuse treatment 

services are available through the NSDUH. 

For more information on Federal and State AOD services reporting systems, visit 

http://wwwdasis.samhsa.gov/dasis2/aboutdasis.htm and 

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nhsda.htm.
18

Inventory of Substance Abuse Treatment Services 

(I-SATS)

• 

• 

• 

• The N-SSATS uses the I-SATS list of facilities in the N-SSATS data-collection 

process.

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Sponsor Office of Applied Studies, SAMHSA

The I-SATS provides a master list of all known public and private substance 

abuse treatment facilities in the United States and its territories and was 

formerly referred to as the National Master Facility Inventory.

Features The I-SATS classifies facilities as State-approved or non-State-approved.

The I-SATS is a component of SAMHSA’s DASIS. The DASIS is a cooperative 

endeavor of SAMHSA and State substance abuse agencies to collect data on 

substance abuse services.

State substance abuse agencies, the N-SSATS and mini N-SSATS (which 

collects services data from newly identified facilities between major 

N-SSAATS survey cycles), and individual treatment facilities maintain this 

list by submitting data to SAMHSA. 

Federal 

Requirements 

and Support

Information on State-approved substance abuse treatment facilities is 

available from SAMHSA’s Substance Abuse Treatment Facility Locator, 

at http://findtreatment.samhsa.gov/, or the National Directory of Drug 

and Alcohol Abuse Treatment Programs, a compilation of State-approved 

treatment facilities.

The I-SATS collects data on substance abuse treatment facilities, including:

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

Inpatient and residential rehabilitation services.

Outpatient rehabilitation services.

Detoxification services.

Opioid treatment programs (methadone or levo-alpha-acetyl-methadol 

maintenance).

Driving under the influence and driving while intoxicated programs that 

Data Elements include treatment.

Halfway house services that include treatment.

Locations of service provision can include:

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

Hospitals.

Residential facilities.

Outpatient facilities.

Mental health facilities with a substance abuse treatment program.

Other kinds of facilities with a substance abuse treatment program.

Strengths The I-SATS provides a national master list of facilities.

The I-SATS is continuously updated to keep it current and comprehensive.

The list does not provide detailed programmatic information on the services 

Challenges offered.

The list includes some non-treatment facilities.

Cross-System Cooperation with the States is important to maintain a current and 

Issues comprehensive list of facilities.

Website http://wwwdasis.samhsa.gov/dasis2/isatsonline.htm
19

National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services 

(N-SSATS)

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Sponsor Office of Applied Studies, SAMHSA

The N-SSATS collects and disseminates information on all substance abuse 

treatment facilities and their services.

Features

The N-SSATS collects and quantifies data on the location, characteristics, 

and use of substance abuse treatment facilities.

The N-SSATS provides national and State-level data on individuals who 

receive treatment and the facilities that provide treatment.

The N-SSATS was formerly referred to as the Uniform Facility Data Set.

The N-SSATS is a component of SAMHSA’s DASIS.

Federal 

Requirements 

and Support

N-SSATS data are used for program administration and policy analysis.

N-SSATS data are used to update the I-SATS, National Directory of Drug 

and Alcohol Abuse Treatment Programs, and SAMHSA’s Substance Abuse 

Treatment Facility Locator.

• 

• 

The N-SSATS collects data on treatment facility types and services, 

including:

Data Elements

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

Facility focus (e.g., substance abuse, mental health, etc.).

Facility operation (e.g., for profit, not-for-profit, etc.).

Hotline operation.

Services offered (e.g., counseling, pharmacotherapy, etc.).

Operation of an opioid treatment program.

Services in sign language.

Services in languages other than English.

Types of clients accepted for treatment.

Special programs for specific types of clients.

Types of treatment provided (e.g., inpatient, residential, outpatient, 

etc.).

The N-SSATS collects additional data on other issues, including:

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Payment options.

Receipt of public funding for substance abuse treatment programs.

Managed care participation.

Number of clients in treatment.

Number of beds designated for non-hospital residential versus hospital 

inpatient treatment.

Client substance abuse problems treated.

Facility licensure, certification, or accreditation.

Facility internet access and website availability.

Strengths

• 

• 

• 

The N-SSATS is a comprehensive database of information on all known 

treatment facilities in all U.S. States, the District of Columbia, and U.S. 

Territories. 

The N-SSATS provides information on many aspects of facilities, from their 

location and capacity to trends in client characteristics and services offered. 

Challenges The N-SSATS data do not include programmatic information on the services 

that facilities offer.
20

National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services 

(N-SSATS)

• 

• 

• 

The N-SSATS collects data on numbers of facilities that accept women, 

including pregnant or postpartum women, into treatment and that offer a 

specially designed substance abuse treatment program or group specifically 

Cross-System for these clients. 

Issues The survey does not collect detailed information on whether programs offer 

child welfare, parenting, or child-related services. 

The N-SSATS only collects data from adult and juvenile correctional 

facilities that provide substance abuse treatment periodically.

Website http://wwwdasis.samhsa.gov/webt/newmapv1.htm
21

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS)

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

•

• 

• 

Sponsor Office of Applied Studies, SAMHSA

Features

The TEDS compiles data on the substance abuse and demographic 

characteristics of individuals admitted to publicly funded treatment facilities 

in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

The TEDS provides descriptive information on the national flow of 

admissions to and discharges from substance abuse treatment providers.

Federal The TEDS is a component of SAMHSA’s DASIS.

Requirements 

and Support SAMHSA asks treatment programs to provide TEDS data on every client, 

regardless of the source of funding for the client’s treatment.

The TEDS has two main categories of data: the Admissions Data System 

(comprised of the Minimum Data Set and the Supplemental Data Set) and 

the Discharge Data System (a newer component).

The Minimum Data Set contains the following client-specific information:

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

Client and codependent information.

Number of prior treatment episodes.

Transaction type, date of admission, and principal source of referral.

Educational status.

Type of service at admission.

Employment status.

Age, sex, race, and ethnicity.

Substance problem (usual route of administration, frequency of use, age 

at first use, and use of methadone planned as part of treatment).

Data Elements The Supplemental Data Set contains this client-specific information:

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

Pregnancy, marital, and veteran status at time of admission.

Co-occurring psychiatric problems.

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV diagnosis.

Living arrangement.

Source of income or support.

Health insurance status.

Expected or actual primary source of payment.

Categories defining “not in labor force.”

Categories detailing criminal justice referrals.

Days waited to enter treatment.

Detailed drug code (primary, secondary, and tertiary).

The Discharge Data Set includes information on the type of service 

at discharge; date of last contact; date of discharge; and reason for 

discharge, transfer, or discontinuance of treatment.

Strengths

The TEDS focuses primarily on admission and discharge information, but its 

data elements can be used to create cross-tabs.

The TEDS’s primary goal is to monitor treatment episodes.

The TEDS does not collect data on the actual treatment delivered or on 

Challenges prevention or early intervention programs.

Not all States submit a TEDS report to SAMHSA.
22

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS)

Cross-System 

Issues

• 

• 

The TEDS collects information on pregnancy status but no additional 

information related to pregnant women. 

The TEDS does not collect data on the number or status of clients’ 

dependents who are admitted for treatment.

Website http://wwwdasis.samhsa.gov/webt/newmapv1.htm
23

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Sponsor 

National Outcome Measures (NOMS) for 

Co-Occurring Disorders 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

The NOMS is a performance-management tool developed through a 

partnership among States, SAMHSA, and SAMHSA grantees.

The NOMS enhances SAMHSA’s accountability while streamlining reporting 

requirements for States and community-based organizations.

Features

The NOMS includes a set of cross-cutting principles and program priority 

areas.

All States, the District of Columbia, and U.S. Territories began reporting 

NOMS data by the end of 2007.

The NOMS tracks and measures outcomes for individuals in recovery 

following mental health treatment, substance abuse treatment, and 

substance abuse prevention services.

Federal 

Requirements 

and Support

As a result of the Government Performance Results Act of 1993, SAMHSA 

established targets and goals for its programs. The NOMs grew out of this 

effort.

SAMHSA collaborated with the States to identify 10 domains that embody 

meaningful outcomes for people attempting to attain and maintain 

recovery.

Data Elements

The NOMS has 10 domains, and each has associated outcomes and 

measures for substance abuse treatment and prevention. They are: 

reduced morbidity; employment/education; crime and criminal justice; 

stability in housing; social connectedness; access/capacity; retention; 

perception of care; cost effectiveness; and use of evidence-based practices.

The NOMS covers a wide variety of issues and problem areas related to 

substance use disorders. The NOMS also includes data on measurable 

outcomes for prevention and treatment.

The NOMS is an extensive, cross-cutting set of measurable outcomes and 

essential data related to the prevention and treatment of substance use 

disorders.

The NOMS allows for the collection of clear, relevant, and current data.

Strengths The NOMS can help shape policy and practice decisions.

The NOMS offers a useful snapshot of the AOD prevention and treatment 

system.

The NOMS helps States manage their treatment and prevention systems 

and capture useful data.

Challenges

Specific measures in some domains are still under development and do 

not have defined outcomes and associated indicators (e.g., the social 

connectedness domain).

More work needs to be done to identify the relevant outcomes and, 

especially, the developmental measures related to the outcomes.
24

National Outcome Measures (NOMS) for 

Co-Occurring Disorders 

• 

• 

• 

• 

One of the program priority areas addresses the needs of children and 

families at risk of or with substance use disorders, and SAMHSA has 

created an action plan in this area.

One of the performance measures is increasing the percentage of children 

Cross-System 

Issues

living in stable family environments.

SAMHSA is developing more comprehensive measures and data capability 

such as child-parent relational data. 

Although several of the domains (such as employment and education, 

stability in housing, social connectedness, and retention) are also relevant 

to child welfare, the NOMS outcomes and measures do not directly address 

child welfare services. 

Website http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NOMsCoOccur2k6.pdf
25

National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH)

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Sponsor Office of Applied Studies, SAMHSA

The NSDUH is the primary source of statistical information on the incidence 

and prevalence of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drug use, as well as the 

associated problems, in the civilian non-institutionalized population.

The NSDUH collects information through face-to-face interviews in 

respondents’ homes.

Features The NSDUH interviews approximately 67,500 people every year.

Respondents include residents of households and non-institutional group 

quarters (shelters, rooming houses, and dormitories), as well as civilians 

living on military bases.

The NSDUH was known as the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse 

until 2002.

Federal 

Support Section 505 of the Public Health Service Act authorized the NSDUH.

The NSDUH collects data on the sociodemographic characteristics of 

users, patterns of drug use, treatment utilization, perceptions of risk and 

availability of substances, criminal behavior, and mental health.

The NSDUH presents national data in seven topic areas and related 

categories:

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

Mental health status.

Tobacco product use.

Use of illicit drugs: Prevalence by type of drug and by user age including 

youth, race and ethnicity, and employment.

Use of alcohol: Prevalence by amount used and age; driving under 

the influence; and alcohol use by youth, pregnant women, and college 

students.

Trends in initiation of substance abuse: Use of marijuana, cocaine, 

Data Elements heroin, hallucinogens, inhalants, psychotherapeutics, alcohol, and 

tobacco.

Prevention-related issues: Perceptions of substance use risk, perceived 

substance availability, perceived parental disapproval of substance use, 

fighting and delinquent behavior, religious beliefs and participation in 

religious activities, and exposure to prevention messages and programs.

Substance abuse, dependence and participation in treatment by 

user age, gender, race or ethnicity, and employment status; type of 

substance used; location of treatment received; perceived need for and 

diagnostic criteria of treatment need; and need for treatment for illicit 

drug use.

The NSDUH reports address recent and long-term trends in drug use 

prevalence and include an appendix with other sources of data on 

substance use.
26

National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH)

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

The NSDUH is the principal source of information on alcohol and drug use 

in the United States.

The NSDUH uses a private and confidential data-collection method, thereby 

ensuring honest reporting.

The NSDUH is one of the most comprehensive and extensive banks of 

Strengths information on alcohol and illicit drug use.

NSDUH data are available to researchers from the Substance Abuse and 

Mental Health Data Archive and SAMHSA’s Office of Applied Studies. 

The Office of Applied Studies conducts secondary analyses of research data 

relevant to the study of alcohol and drug use. These analyses provide an 

inexpensive and scientifically productive means for researchers to explore 

important issues in the AOD field.

The NSDUH does not include data on homeless individuals who do not use 

shelters, military personnel on active duty, and residents of institutional 

Challenges group quarters (such as jails and hospitals).

The NSDUH does not address such issues as treatment outcomes and 

family structure.

Cross-System 

Issues

The NSDUH collects data on pregnant women.

The NSDUH collects few data on child welfare and custody status related to 

parental drug abuse.

Website http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUHlatest.htm
27

Court System Information

With the passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) and the courts’ 

increased involvement in the Child and Family Services Review, courts need to know 

quickly and accurately how long children are in protective custody and how well 

courts are serving these children’s families. 

No national formal datasets are available on the court system. The following tables 

summarize initiatives undertaken to improve the courts’ capacity to track activities 

in their jurisdictions. The National Consortium on State Court Automation Functional 

Standards is helping State courts automate their case-processing systems. The 

Dependency Court Performance Measures address safety, permanency, due process, 

and timeliness. 

National Consortium on State Court Automation 

Functional Standards

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Sponsor National Center for State Courts

The consortium promotes the development and adoption of a basic set of 

case management standards, regardless of case type, that would apply to 

criminal, probation, juvenile, and dependent court cases. The consortium 

ensures that the case management system allows for the collection of 

data on such issues as case initiation and closure; scheduling; hearing 

type; service of process; document generation; and statistical reporting, 

including aggregated data on the service needs of parents and children. 

In addition, the consortium ensures that the case management system 

collects data on child and caretaker safety, permanency, and well-being, as 

well as due process and timeliness of court procedures.

Features

This 3-year effort is helping State courts automate their case-processing 

systems. 

Federal Consortium members are:

Requirements 

and Support

o	

o	

o	

o	

Conference of State Court Administrators.

National Association for Court Management.

Consortium for National Case Management Automation Functional 

Standards. 

National Center for State Courts.

The consortium recommends that court case management standards take 

into consideration both global and system levels of functioning: 

o	

o	

Global functions are high-level categories, such as case initiation and 

indexing, scheduling, hearing types (emergency removal hearings, 

adjudication, disposition, motion, review, permanency, termination of 

parental rights trials, and adoption), case closure, security, document 

Data Elements generation and processing, and management and statistical reporting. 

System functions are the operations that the system performs to 

support the global functions. System functions include storing and 

reporting information on individual cases and aggregated data (e.g., 

case number, involved parties, demographic information, complaints, 

allegations, dispositions, motions, placements, and profiles of children 

and parents or caregivers).
28

National Consortium on State Court Automation 

Functional Standards

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

The consortium recommends that court case management systems track 

cases in accordance with ASFA, performance measures, and statutory 

timelines. Data to collect on cases involving children include:

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

Number of months that the child has been in care.

Parent’s past and current allegations.

Length of time from petition filing to adjudication, disposition, 

permanent placement, case closure, or termination of parental rights.

Length of time from adjudication to disposition.

Data Elements

Number of children who do not achieve permanency.

Length of time from filing termination of parental rights petition to 

written termination order.

Length of time from termination order to filing of adoption petition.

Length of time from filing adoption petition to finalized adoption.

Number of hearings, by type, not completed within required timeframes.

Number of children and length of time between active cases for children 

who return to foster care after being returned home.

Number of children and length of time between active cases for children 

who return to foster care after being adopted or placed with permanent 

guardian(s).

The consortium recommends that courts report on performance issues, 

including:

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

Continuances granted by judges or hearing officers, including reasons 

for continuances.

Continuances requested by attorneys and reasons for requests.

Case plans submitted in a timely way and reviewed by a judge or 

hearing officer within established timeframes.

Legal counsel appointments and changes for parents and children.

Presence of legal counsel for parents and children at each hearing.

Changes in judge or hearing officer for family.

According to the consortium, courts should create and track notices, 

including:

o	

o	

o	

Written service of process for parents within required time standards.

Strengths Documentation that notice was issued in advance of the next hearing.

Documentation of legal counsel provided to children and parents, 

guardian ad litem, or court-appointed volunteer advocate (CASA) in 

advance of the preliminary protective hearing or equivalent.

The consortium recommends that courts produce orders at the end of each 

hearing for distribution to parties.

The consortium believes that courts should report on issues that could 

result in service needs for parents and children, such as:

o	

o	

For parents: Criminal activity, housing type and condition, parenting 

skills, substance abuse, and cognitive abilities.

For children: Cognitive and physical disabilities, mental health issues, 

school profile, and delinquency issues.

The consortium recommends that courts develop systems for management 

and statistical reporting to address performance measures, ASFA timelines, 

and statute or court rules.
29

National Consortium on State Court Automation 

Functional Standards

• 

• 

These standards do not address the business processes of each court type. 

No published standards are available for abuse and neglect courts that 

Challenges address business rules and identify all the data elements that these courts 

need to track to have meaningful, accurate, and timely information about 

the families that these courts serve.

Cross-System Courts need quality assurance reports to ensure that their data entry is 

Issues ate.accurate.

Website http://www.ncsconline.org/d_tech/standards/default.asp
30

• 

• 

Federal • The sponsors, with the support of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, 

jointly created a set of recommended dependency court performance 

measures.

Requirements 

and Support

The data elements in the recommended performance measures are:

• Safety: Percentage of children who:

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

Do NOT have a subsequent petition filed after the initial petition is filed.

Are the subjects of new petitions within 12 months after the initial 

petition is closed.

Permanency: Percentage of children who:

Reach legal permanency within 6, 12, 18, and 24 months from removal.

Do NOT achieve permanency in the foster care system (e.g., court 

jurisdiction ends because the child reaches the age of majority).

Re-enter foster care pursuant to a court order within 12 and 24 months 

of being returned to their families.

Return to foster care pursuant to a court order within 12 and 24 months 

of case closure after being adopted or placed with permanent guardians.

Are transferred among one, two, three, or more placements while under 

Data Elements court jurisdiction.

• Due process: Percentage of cases in which:

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

Both parents receive written service of process within required time 

standards.

Notice was given to parties in advance of the next hearing.

The court reviewed case plans within the established time guidelines.

Children and guardians ad litem or CASA volunteers received legal 

counsel in advance of the preliminary protective hearing or equivalent.

Counsel for parents was appointed prior to the preliminary protective 

hearing.

Counsel for parents changed between assignment of counsel and case 

closure.

Counsel for children changed between assignment of counsel and case 

closure.

Counsel for parents, children, and agencies was present at each hearing.

All hearings for children were held before one judicial officer.

Sponsor American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law, National Center 

for State Courts, and National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

This program provides dependency courts with performance measures for 

four basic outcomes:

o	

o	

o	

o	

Safety: To ensure that children are safe from abuse while under court 

jurisdiction.

Features Permanency: To ensure that children have permanency and stability in 

their living situations.

Due process: To ensure that cases are decided impartially and 

thoroughly, based on evidence brought before the court.

Timeliness: To expedite permanency by minimizing the time from the 

filing of the petition to the achievement of permanency.

Dependency Court Performance Measures
31

1 The well-being measures presented are not part of the national dependency court performance measures that 

the American Bar Association, Center on Children and the Law, National Center for State Courts, and National 

Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges developed and published in Building a Better Court. Rather, we suggest 

that courts use these measures when the petition or case plan identifies substance abuse or substance abuse is a 

significant issue in the court’s decision to intervene in the disposition.

Dependency Court Performance Measures

• 

• 

Timeliness:

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

Median time from filing of the original petition to adjudication.

Median time from filing of the original petition to disposition.

Percentage of cases that were adjudicated within 30, 60, and 90 days 

after the filing of the dependency petition.

Percentage of cases that receive a disposition within 10, 30, and 60 days 

after the dependency adjudication.

Median time from filing of the original petition to permanent placement.

Median time from petition filing to finalized termination of parental rights.

Percentage of cases for which the termination petition was filed within 3, 

6, 12, and 18 months after the dependency disposition.

Percentage of cases that received a termination order within 30, 90, 120, 

and 180 days after the filing of the termination petition.

Percentage of cases for which an adoption petition was filed within 1, 3, 

and 6 months after the termination order.

Percentage of cases for which the adoption was finalized within 1, 3, 6, 

and 12 months after the adoption petition.

Percentage of hearings, by hearing type, not completed within timeframes 

set forth in statute or court rules.

Caretaker well-being1: Percentage of caretakers who: 

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

Had a petition filed for abuse/neglect or dependency and the caretaker 

had a drug or alcohol use issue.

Started abstinence (treatment) from use of drugs, alcohol, or both 

Data Elements at 30-day intervals from the date of the filing of the petition to case 

closure.

Had a relapse in the use of drugs, alcohol, or both at 30-day intervals 

from the date of the petition filing to case closure.

Had one, two, three, or more relapses in the use of drugs, alcohol, or 

both from the date of abstinence (treatment) start to case closure.

Had a petition filed for abuse/neglect or dependency and the caretaker’s 

lack of employment is an issue.

Were employed at case closure.

Had achieved or were seeking additional education at case closure.

Had a petition filed for abuse/neglect or dependency and the caretaker’s 

criminal activity or criminal justice involvement was an issue.

Had criminal activity or criminal justice involvement at the time the 

petition was filed but had decreased or no criminal activity or criminal 

justice involvement at case closure.

Had a petition filed for abuse/neglect or dependency and the caretaker’s 

lack of housing was an issue.

Achieved appropriate housing by case closure.

Were involved outside the home with a social or community organization 

at the time the petition was filed.

Were involved outside the home with a social or community organization 

(such as a school group, church group, nonprofit organization, or 

YMCA).

Thought at time of case closure that the services rendered for substance 

abuse, mental health, or housing were helpful.
32

Dependency Court Performance Measures

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• Child well-being: Percentage of children who: 

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

o	

Had a petition filed for abuse/neglect or dependency and the children’s 

alcohol or other drug use was an issue.

Started abstinence (treatment) from alcohol or other drug use at 30-

day intervals from the date of petition filing to case closure.

Had a relapse at 30-day intervals from the petition filing date to case 

closure.

Had one, two, three, or more relapses in the use of drugs, alcohol, or 

both from the beginning of abstinence (treatment) to case closure.

Had a mental health issue identified between the petition filing and case 

closure.

Data Elements Received mental health services between the petition filing and case 

closure.

(Under court jurisdiction) were enrolled in public or private school and 

attended regular classes at grade level, were behind by 1 year, were 

behind by 2 or more years, dropped out of school, or were achieving 

their GED.

(Under court jurisdiction) who were truant from school.

Had been adjudicated for a felony or non-felony within 12 months of the 

time the petition was filed.

Had been adjudicated for a felony or non-felony from the time the 

petition was filed to case closure.

Returned to court jurisdiction after case closure due to their substance 

abuse.

Additional insight will provide a stronger understanding of the factors that 

Strengths can produce adverse or favorable effects on the outcome of the abuse/

neglect or dependency court case.

The measures are compatible with AFCARS data and CFSR measures.

Some courts are unable to collect well-being data because much of this 

information is not reported to the court.

Challenges Current case management systems need to be altered or overhauled to 

manage the new data. Workflow processes need to be examined and 

altered to effectively collect the data.

Cross-System The standards include that courts are expected to collaborate with child 

Issues welfare agencies to apply these performance measures.

Website http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/publications/courttoolkit.html
33

Tribal Child Welfare Data

According to the Child Abuse and Prevention Treatment Act (CAPTA), States may 

develop their own definitions of child abuse and neglect and data-collection strategies, 

resulting in a wide variety of both definitions and data-collection strategies. According 

to Howing and Wodarski (1992), “no universal agreement on what constitutes child 

abuse or neglect” exists. Similar to the States, American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN)2

communities have no universal definitions of child abuse and neglect. Although the 

Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act of 1990 required reporting 

of child abuse and neglect in Indian Country and included definitions of child abuse and 

neglect, little funding has been provided for the act’s implementation; as a result, AI/AN 

communities define and treat child abuse and neglect differently from State agencies 

and from one another. 

Currently, no reliable or accurate data are available on the true extent and nature 

of child abuse and neglect in AI/AN communities (Earle & Cross, 2001; Fox, 2003). 

Most American Indian tribes and Alaska Native corporations and villages, as sovereign 

nations, provide their own child protection services. However, data from many of these 

services are not part of any national child abuse and neglect data system such as the 

NCANDS (Earle, 2000; Earle & Cross, 2001; Fox, 2003). Nationally, reported statistics 

on child abuse in Indian Country come from the NCANDS, which was designed only for 

State reporting of child abuse and neglect; tribal child welfare programs do not have a 

comparable data collection system. Therefore, the only data reported on tribal children 

in this national system are data that States report. States only report data on AI/AN 

children in the State child welfare system who are identified as AI/AN children by a child 

protective services worker. 

A review of published Federal government reports found that virtually all of the national 

statistics describing the abuse and neglect of AI/AN children come from the NCANDS 

and that data from different sources from the same States differ, depending on who 

collected the data (Earle & Cross, 2001). Furthermore, a quantitative study using a 10% 

stratified random sample of tribes found that, at best, only 61% of the child abuse and 

neglect data on AI/AN children are reported (Earle, 2000; Fox 2003). 

Another issue that adds to the complexity of collecting reliable tribal child abuse and 

neglect data is the fact that tribes do not have access to the Federal resources that 

States have used to develop the infrastructure necessary to collect and report child 

abuse and neglect data. CAPTA was amended in 1988 to establish a voluntary collection 

and analysis system that would make State child abuse and neglect reporting data 

available, resulting in the development of the NCANDS. Tribal child welfare programs 

were not included in the CAPTA amendments and have received no Federal funding 

to develop the infrastructure necessary to capture and analyze tribal child abuse and 

neglect data. 

2 We use the term “American Indian/Alaska Native” to refer to the 334 federally recognized American Indian tribes and 

associated tribal members in the contiguous 48 States, as well as the 229 Federally recognized tribal governments and 

associated tribal members in Alaska. We prefer this term because many pieces of Federal legislation and policies use it. 

The popular alternative, “Native American,” can be confusing because it often includes Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders who are legally and politically distinct from American Indians/Alaska Natives and tribal governments.
34

Bureau of Indian Affairs

An examination of tribal reports submitted to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

reveals major difficulties in obtaining tribal data regarding child abuse and neglect. 

Until very recently, reports completed by tribes and submitted to the BIA were 

kept at the regional offices. Reports forwarded to the national BIA office were 

reviewed and returned to the regions but no centralized data base was maintained. 

The types of data that tribal communities do gather on the children served in their 

communities are generally maintained within the community and are only reported 

to specific agencies outside of the tribe if there are written commitments or 

agreements with a State or a funding agency to provide certain data as a condition 

of funding. 

Tribal governments submit periodic reports to the BIA regional offices regarding 

number of families served, type of services provided, etc., but only for those 

programs funded by the BIA. When asked to submit data to outside funders or the 

States, many tribal communities gather aggregate data only, for a limited number 

of services, and do not address the specific allocation of resources. Areas in which 

most tribal communities with a substantial child welfare obligation gather aggregate 

data include:

Substance abuse

Alcoholism

Child abuse

Sexual abuse

Family violence

Domestic conflicts

Suicide

Unemployment

Single parent families

Teenage pregnancy

Parenting skills

School-related issues

State not complying with 

the Indian Child Welfare Act 

(ICWA)

State not reporting ICWA 

cases to the tribe

Amount of daycare resources

Number of Indian adoptive 

homes

Number of Indian foster 

homes

Legal issues

Children’s code

Placements not prioritized 

per ICWA

Nutrition

Housing

Crowded living

Low educational attainment

Transience

Transportation

Isolation

Barriers to resources

Cultural conflict

Language barriers

Other

Tribal programs do not generally collect data that accurately reflect the number of 

families with each primary problem identified. As an example, in their reports to 

the BIA, tribes are supposed to describe the types of services provided to address 

three primary problems. But they are not required to collect data on the number of 

unduplicated clients that received each service to resolve the problems noted in the 

report. Furthermore, the problems listed in the reports rarely match the services 

available. The report does not include information on the tracking of families 

who have received services for substance abuse or alcohol abuse. Instead, tribes 

briefly describe the program and the client population. These brief descriptions are 

generally not conducive to understanding how to target services to the multiple 

needs of families. 
35

Tribal child welfare reports to the BIA do allow an examination of resources used 

that meet client needs specific to PL 83-280 (which gives States jurisdiction 

over certain issues in Indian reservations), contracted social service programs 

from States and counties, and the BIA. Tribes must identify barriers to service 

coordination and rate existing relationships with local or State partners.

IHS Resource and Patient Management System

Tribal data related to child welfare are also reported to the Indian Health Service 

(IHS) and are included in the Resource and Patient Management System (RPMS). 

The RPMS consists of more than 60 software applications used at approximately 

400 IHS, tribal, and urban locations. Local RPMS data are used to evaluate clinical 

quality and population and public health. IHS uses these aggregate data to report 

on clinical performance measures to Congress.

Clinical services provided through IHS include primary health care, integrated 

behavioral health care (including mental health, social work, and alcohol and 

substance abuse treatment), dental care, prevention and treatment, injury 

prevention, and optometry. These areas, especially mental health, social work, and 

alcohol/substance abuse treatment, may overlap with child welfare, so that some of 

the tribal child welfare data is part of the RPMS. 

The goal of the IHS is to ensure that comprehensive, culturally acceptable personal 

and public health services are available and accessible to all AI/AN people. Passage 

of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act in 1976 gave tribes the option to 

assume from IHS the administration and operation of health services and programs 

in their communities, and many have taken that step. As a result, the tribes now 

have the responsibility for collecting the data to be sent to the IHS.

Developing a data export program that can accommodate multiple data sources 

requires frequent modification and consistent resources. Some of the challenges 

include the varying degrees of computer access, various operating systems, a wide 

range of competency skills in entering data among local service providers, and 

various levels of information technology support at multiple locations. 

According to the Indian Self-Determination Act amendments of 1994, selfgovernance tribes have the legal right to negotiate reporting requirements during

negotiations around reporting data with the IHS. IHS can strongly encourage 

participation in the RPMS, but self-governance tribes may use any type of software 

they choose to collect and report data to IHS. The IHS is working with tribes and 

other organizations to enhance information systems in ways that will improve 

clinical practice management and administrative reporting systems at all sites.

Since IHS data at the local level can potentially contain information on child abuse 

and integrated behavioral health care (including mental health care, social services, 

and alcohol and substance abuse treatment), there is a need to determine the IHS 

programs in which each tribe participates, how tribes collect and report data to 

IHS, and the data definitions that each tribe uses for child abuse. Caution should 

be exercised in analyzing tribal data from the RPMS because tribal members can 

choose to receive services from IHS facilities or other tribal or non-tribal programs. 
36

In summary, Tribal communities are just starting to be in the position to collect 

comprehensive data regarding the welfare of their families and children, but there 

are several issues that will make this process difficult. These issues include:

•	

•	

•	

•	

Lack of resources to develop the necessary infrastructure.

Overlapping program jurisdictions, in which many different programs may 

address child welfare families and cases, in some cases the same ones.

Overlapping requirements for reporting and methodology, in which different 

funders require different data elements or the use of different software 

packages to report the same or similar data. 

Lack of individual case-level data currently collected at the tribal level.

Most importantly, the greatest barrier to the collection of tribal child welfare data 

may well be that many tribal communities, as sovereign Nations, are reluctant to 

provide personal data about their citizens to State or Federal governments without 

considerable incentives to do so. These incentives do not have to be financial, 

although support is needed for the necessary hardware and software, but incentives

can also be the utility to the tribal community itself. Currently, most communities 

in Indian Country now recognize the need for good information in order to improve 

services to children and families and many are taking steps to improve their 

information system.
37

Tribal Health System Data

Resource and Patient Management System (RPMS)

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Sponsor Indian Health Service (IHS)

The RPMS is the IHS enterprise health information system. RPMS consists 

of more than 60 software applications used at approximately 400 IHS, 

tribal, and urban locations. Local RPMS data are used to evaluate clinical 

quality and population and public health. IHS uses these aggregate data to 

report on clinical performance measures to Congress.

The IHS currently provides health services to approximately 1.5 million AI/

ANs who belong to more than 557 federally recognized tribes in 35 States.

IHS provides services directly and through tribally contracted and operated 

health programs, as well as by purchasing services from private providers. 

Features The IHS system consists of 33 hospitals, 59 health centers, and 50 health 

stations. In addition, 34 urban Indian health projects provide a variety 

of health and referral services. Through PL 93-638 self-determination 

contracts, American Indian tribes and Alaska Native corporations administer 

15 hospitals, 221 health centers, 9 residential treatment centers, 97 health 

stations, and 176 Alaska village clinics. 

Clinical services provided through IHS include primary health care, 

integrated behavioral health care (including mental health, social work, 

and alcohol and substance abuse treatment), dental care, prevention and 

treatment, injury prevention, and optometry.

IHS provides Federal health services for AI/AN people. In addition, IHS is 

the principal Federal health care provider and health advocate for AI/ANs.

IHS was founded to uphold the Federal government’s obligations to 

promote healthy AI/AN people, communities, and cultures and to honor 

and protect the inherent sovereign rights of tribes. Its goal is to ensure that 

comprehensive, culturally acceptable personal and public health services 

are available and accessible to all AI/AN people.

Federal Legislation authorizing Federal funds for health services to recognized 

Indian tribes include the Snyder Act of 1921 and the Indian SelfDetermination and Education Assistance Act (PL 93-638). In addition, the 

Indian Health Care Improvement Act gives tribes the option of assuming 

from IHS the administration and operation of health services and programs 

in their communities or remaining within the IHS administered direct health 

system.

Requirements 

and Support

AI/ANs, as citizens of the United States, are eligible to participate in 

all public, private, and State health programs available to the general 

population. In addition, they have treaty rights to Federal health care 

services through IHS.
38

Resource and Patient Management System (RPMS)

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• According to the Indian Self-Determination Act amendments of 1994, selfgovernance tribes have the legal right to negotiate reporting requirements 

during compact negotiations. However, self-governance tribes must 

consider provisions that would ensure that they report information to 

IHS that it needs to provide to the Congress. IHS can strongly encourage 

participation in the RPMS, but self-governance tribes may use any type of 

software they choose to collect and report data to IHS. 

To be classified as American Indian, Alaska Native, or both, a person must 

have one or more of the following characteristics:

o	

o	

o	

o	

o Has any other reasonable factor indicative of Indian descent.

o	

o	

o	

Is regarded by the community in which he or she lives as American 

Indian or Alaska Native.

Is a member, enrolled or otherwise, of an AI/AN tribe or group under 

Federal supervision.

Resides on tax-exempt land or owns restricted property.

Federal 

Requirements 

Actively participates in tribal affairs.

Is an Indian of Canadian or Mexican origin and recognized by any tribe 

or group as a member of an Indian community served by the Indian 

health program.

and Support

Is a non-AI/AN woman pregnant with an eligible AI/AN’s child for the 

duration of her pregnancy through the postpartum period (usually 6 

weeks).

Is a non-AI/AN member of an eligible AI/AN’s household and the 

medical officer in charge determines that services are necessary to 

control a public health hazard or an acute infectious disease that 

constitutes a public health hazard.

The RPMS information technology infrastructure incorporates government 

and industry standards for the collection, processing, and transmission of 

information.

All IHS facilities and most tribal facilities use the Resource and Patient 

Management System (RPMS), American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI), Massachusetts General Hospital Utility Multi-programming System 

(MUMPS) for data collection and transmission. Tribal communities and IHS 

can generate local, programmatic, regional, and national reports using the 

data entered.

Data Elements

Strengths IHS has a large network of service providers.

Developing a data export program that can accommodate multiple data 

sources (with varying degrees of computer access, various operating 

systems, a wide range of competency skills in entering data among local 

service providers, and various levels of information technology support at 

multiple locations) requires frequent modification and consistent resources. 

Challenges
39

Resource and Patient Management System (RPMS)

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

IHS is working with tribes and other organizations to enhance information 

systems in ways that will improve clinical practice management and 

administrative reporting systems at all sites.

IHS data at the local level can potentially contain information on child 

abuse and integrated behavioral health care (including mental health care, 

social services, and alcohol and substance abuse treatment). 

Cross-system 

Issues

Need to determine the IHS programs in which each tribe participates, how 

tribes collect and report data to IHS, and the data definitions that each 

tribe uses for child abuse. 

Need to discuss how tribes share these data with the tribal child welfare 

programs to identify duplicate data possibilities.

Caution should be exercised in analyzing tribal data because tribal 

members can choose to receive services from IHS facilities or other 

public agencies or programs. As a result, obtaining and identifying a 

comprehensive picture of tribal results can be challenging.

Website http://www.ihs.gov/RPMS
40

References

Earle, K. A. (2000). Child abuse and neglect: An examination of American Indian data. 

Portland, OR: National Indian Welfare Association and the Casey Family Programs.

Earle, K. A., & Cross, A. (2001). Child abuse and neglect among American Indian/Alaska 

Native children: An analysis of existing data. Seattle, WA: Casey Family Programs.

Fischler, R. S. (1985). Child abuse and neglect in Indian communities. Child Abuse & 

Neglect, 9, 95-106.

Fox, K. A. (2003). The Collection of Data on the Abuse and Neglect of American Indian 

Children. Child Welfare, 82, 707-726.

Fox, K. A. (2004). Are they really neglected? A look at worker perceptions of neglect 

through the eyes of a national data system. First Peoples Child and Family Review, 1, 73-

82. From 

http://www.fncfcs.com/sites/default/files/online-journal/vol1num1/Fox_pp73-82.pdf.

Howing, P., & Wodarski, J. (1992). Legal requisites for social workers in child abuse and 

neglect situations. Social Work, 37(4), 330-336.

National Center on Child Abuse Prevention Research. (2001). Current trends in child abuse 

prevention, reporting, and fatalities: The 1999 fifty state survey. Chicago: Prevent Child 

Abuse America.

National Center for State Courts and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court 

Judges. (2004). Building a better court: Measuring and improving court performance and 

judicial workload in child abuse and neglect cases. From 

http://www.ncjfcj.org/images/stories/dept/ppcd/pdf/buildingabettercourt.pdf.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2008). National Outcome 

Measures. From 

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NOMsCoOccur2k6.pdf.

Tyson, K. (1995). New foundations for scientific social and behavioral research: The

heuristic paradigm. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1999). Blending perspectives and 

building common ground: A report to Congress on substance abuse and child protection. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
41
42

HHS Publication No. SMA-11-4630

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Printed 2011