Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 61241 

1AFCARS collects case-level information from 

state and Tribal title IV–E agencies on all children 

in foster care and those who have been adopted 

with title IV–E agency involvement. Title IV–E 

agencies must submit AFCARS data to the 

Children’s Bureau twice a year. 

2NCANDS collects child-level information on 

every child who receives a response from a child 

protective services agency due to an allegation of 

abuse or neglect. States report this data to the 

Children’s Bureau voluntarily. In FFY 2013, all 50 

states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico 

submitted NCANDS data. 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Administration for Children and 

Families 

45 CFR Part 1355 

Statewide Data Indicators and National 

Standards for Child and Family 

Services Reviews 

AGENCY: Children’s Bureau (CB), 

Administration for Children and 

Families (ACF), Administration on 

Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS). 

ACTION: Final notice of statewide data 

indicators and national standards for 

Child and Family Services Reviews. 

SUMMARY: On April 23, 2014, the 

Administration of Children and 

Families (ACF) published a document 

in the Federal Register (79 FR 22604). 

The document provided the Children’s 

Bureau’s plan to replace the statewide 

data indicators used to determine a 

state’s substantial conformity with titles 

IV–B and IV–E of the Social Security 

Act through the Child and Family 

Services Reviews (CFSRs). After 

consideration of the public comments 

and additional Children’s Bureau 

analysis, the Children’s Bureau is now 

publishing its final plan. Where 

relevant, this document addresses key 

comments from the field in response to 

the April 23, 2014 Federal Register 

document. 

DATES: Effective October 10, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Miranda Lynch Thomas, Children’s 

Bureau, 1250 Maryland Ave. SW., 8th 

Floor, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 

205–8138. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Children’s Bureau (CB) 

implemented the CFSRs in 2001 in 

response to a mandate in the Social 

Security Amendments of 1994. The 

legislation required the Department of 

Health and Human Services to issue 

regulations for the review of state child 

and family services programs under 

titles IV–B and IV–E of the Social 

Security Act (see section 1123A of the 

Social Security Act). The reviews are 

required for CB to determine whether 

such programs are in substantial 

conformity with title IV–B and IV–E 

plan requirements. The review process, 

as regulated at 45 CFR 1355.31–37, grew 

out of extensive consultation with 

interested groups, individuals, and 

experts in the field of child welfare and 

related areas. 

The CFSRs enable CB to: (1) Ensure 

conformity with federal child welfare 

requirements; (2) determine what is 

actually happening to children and 

families as they are engaged in child 

welfare services; and (3) assist states to 

enhance their capacity to help children 

and families achieve positive outcomes. 

CB conducts the reviews in partnership 

with state child welfare agency staff and 

other partners and stakeholders 

involved in the provision of child 

welfare services. We have structured the 

reviews to help states identify strengths 

as well as areas needing improvement 

within their agencies and programs. 

We use the CFSR to assess state 

performance on seven outcomes and 

seven systemic factors. The seven 

outcomes focus on key items measuring 

safety, permanency, and well-being. The 

seven systemic factors focus on key state 

plan requirements of titles IV–B and IV– 

E that provide a foundation for child 

outcomes. If we determine that a state 

has not achieved substantial conformity 

in one or more of the areas assessed in 

the review, the state is required to 

develop and implement a program 

improvement plan within two years 

addressing the areas of nonconformity. 

CB supports the states with technical 

assistance and monitors implementation 

of their program improvement plans. 

We withhold a portion of the state’s 

federal title IV–B and IV–E funds if the 

state is unable to complete its program 

improvement plan successfully. 

Most relevant to this document are 

the national standards for state 

performance on statewide data 

indicators CB uses to determine whether 

a state is in substantial conformity with 

certain child outcomes. We are 

authorized by the regulations at 45 CFR 

1355.34(b)(4) and (5) to add, amend, or 

suspend any of the statewide data 

indicators and to adjust the national 

standards when appropriate. Statewide 

data indicators are aggregate measures 

and we calculate them using 

administrative data available from a 

state’s submissions to the Adoption and 

Foster Care Analysis and Reporting 

System (AFCARS),1 the National Child 

Abuse and Neglect Data System 

(NCANDS),2 or a CB-approved alternate 

source for safety-related data. If a state 

is proposing to use alternative source 

data for NCANDS, such data must be 

child-level data and contain all of the 

data elements necessary for CB to 

calculate performance for an indicator. 

If we determine that a state is not in 

substantial conformity with a related 

outcome due to its performance on an 

indicator, the state will include that 

indicator in its program improvement 

plan. The improvement a state must 

achieve is relative to the state’s baseline 

performance at the beginning of the 

program improvement plan period. 

In an April 23, 2014 Federal Register 

document (79 FR 22604) we provided a 

detailed review of the consultation with 

the field and information considered in 

developing the third round of the 

CFSRs. We also proposed a plan for 

using statewide data indicators and 

national standards that is different than 

those used in prior rounds including the 

method to calculating such indicators 

and standards and our rationale. During 

the 30-day public comment period 

following the Federal Register 

document, we received 52 unique 

responses from state and local child 

welfare agencies, national and local 

advocacy and human services 

organizations, researchers and other 

interested persons. CB’s reviewed all 

public comments and questions before 

making final decisions regarding the 

statewide data indicators and the 

methodology. This public notice 

includes a summary of our response. 

The public comments and questions 

that were submitted are available in 

their original form on 

www.regulations.gov. 

Summary of Final Statewide Data 

Indicators and Methods 

We have changed two indicators in 

response to the public comments. CB 

will measure the recurrence of 

maltreatment instead of repeat reports of 

maltreatment as we proposed in the 

April Federal Register document. We 

will also add a new indicator to measure 

permanency in 12 months for children 

in foster care for 12 months to 23 

months. 

Therefore our final plan is to use two 

statewide data indicators to measure 

maltreatment in foster care and 

recurrence of maltreatment in 

evaluating Safety Outcome 1: Children 

are, first and foremost, protected from 

abuse and neglect. We will use 

statewide data indicators to measure 

achievement of permanency in 12 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

61242 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

months for children entering foster care, 

permanency in 12 months for children 

in foster care for 12 months to 23 

months, permanency in 12 months for 

children in foster care for 24 months or 

more, re-entry to foster care in 12 

months, and placement stability. These 

five permanency indicators will be used 

in evaluating Permanency Outcome 1: 

Children have permanency and stability 

in their living situations. 

A description of each of the seven 

statewide data indicators, how we will 

calculate them, a summary of relevant 

public comments, and our rationale for 

the final indicators and response to the 

public comments follows. This 

document includes our approach to 

measuring a state’s program 

improvement on the indicators should 

the state not meet a national standard. 

We also provide information on how we 

will share data and information related 

to state performance as well as data 

quality issues that may impact the 

indicators and methods. 

Attachment A provides a summary of 

each final statewide data indicator 

including the numerators, 

denominators, adjustments and data 

periods used to calculate the national 

standards. Attachment B provides a 

comparison of the data measures used 

during CFSR Round 2 with the 

statewide data indicators we will use 

during Round 3. Attachment C provides 

information on the AFCARS and 

NCANDS data elements that are used to 

calculate the indicators and national 

standards. Attachment D provides 

information on the data quality 

thresholds applied in determining 

whether to include state data for 

calculating the indicators. 

Finally we are issuing concurrent to 

this document, CFSR Technical Bulletin 

#8 that expands on this document with 

additional technical information and 

discussion relevant to the statewide data 

indicators, national standards and 

states’ performance on them. The 

technical bulletin will be available on 

CB’s Web site www.acf.hhs.gov/

programs/cb. 

Statewide Data Indicators for CFSR 

Safety Outcome 1: Children Are, First 

and Foremost, Protected From Abuse 

and Neglect 

Safety Performance Area 1: 

Maltreatment in Foster Care 

Indicator Description: Of all children 

in foster care during a 12-month period, 

what is the rate of victimization per day 

of foster care? 

Calculation: The denominator is of 

children in foster care during a 12- 

month period, the total number of days 

these children were in foster care as of 

the end of the 12-month period. The 

denominator is drawn from AFCARS. 

The numerator is of children in the 

denominator, the total number of 

substantiated or indicated reports of 

maltreatment (by any perpetrator) 

during a foster care episode within the 

12-month period. Rates are calculated 

per day of foster care. However, we will 

multiply the rate by 100,000 to produce 

larger and more readily understood 

numbers. This indicator is calculated 

using data that match children across 

AFCARS and NCANDS using the 

AFCARS record number. 

Some states provide incident dates in 

their NCANDS data submissions. If a 

state provides incident dates that are 

associated with the maltreatment report, 

those records with an incident date 

occurring outside of the removal 

episode will be excluded, even if the 

report dates fall within the episode. We 

will also exclude the following: 

Complete foster care episodes lasting 

less than 8 days, any report of 

maltreatment that occurs within the first 

7 days of removal, victims who are age 

18 or more and youth in foster care at 

age 18 or more. For those youth who at 

the beginning of an included report 

period are 17 years of age and turn age 

18, any time spent in foster care beyond 

the young person’s 18th birthday is not 

counted in the denominator. 

Justification for Inclusion: This 

indicator provides a measure of whether 

the state child welfare agency is able to 

ensure that children do not experience 

abuse or neglect while in the state’s 

foster care system. The indicator holds 

states accountable for keeping children 

safe from harm while under the 

responsibility of the state, no matter 

who perpetrates the maltreatment while 

the child is in foster care. 

Public Comments and CB Response: 

Many commenters supported the 

statewide data indicator for 

maltreatment in foster care that we 

proposed originally. Such commenters 

endorsed how the rate will be 

calculated, the inclusion of all 

maltreatment types by any perpetrator 

(including parents), the exclusion of 

children in foster care less than eight 

days, and the use of incident dates. 

Regarding incident dates, some of the 

comments noted concern that not all 

states were consistently reporting 

incident dates and some states have 

difficulty identifying those dates. CB 

acknowledges that there is variation in 

states’ capacity to report and actual 

reporting of incident dates. We are 

committed to continuing technical 

assistance to states so that they can 

improve their ability to report incident 

dates. Since the report of an actual 

incident date can clarify whether an 

occurrence of maltreatment is actually 

separate from another or whether there 

were multiple reports that refer to the 

same incident in the data, we are 

compelled to use this information where 

it exists. Additionally, to prevent 

potential over-counting of reports that 

are made when a child first enters foster 

care that reflect what may have occurred 

prior to the child’s foster care entry, we 

will exclude all reports of maltreatment 

that occur within the first 7 days of a 

child’s removal from home. We will 

apply this exclusion consistently for all 

states. 

Some commenters also expressed 

concern about the variation in how 

states decide to accept a report for 

investigation and define substantiated 

or indicated maltreatment to classify 

incidents of abuse or neglect. One 

commenter suggested that CB should 

have a consistent definition of 

substantiation or indication. We 

acknowledge that there is variation in 

how states screen in reports of 

maltreatment, define maltreatment, and 

substantiate maltreatment. This 

variation reflects the discretion that 

states have to define abuse and neglect 

and build a responsive child protective 

services system. CB does not have 

authority to mandate a singular 

definition or process. Further, doing so 

would result in skewing our 

understanding of how state child 

protective systems respond to alleged 

maltreatment. It may be helpful to think 

about this indicator as capturing how 

well the state is able to prevent child 

maltreatment, as it defines it, once the 

state has made a determination that a 

child needs the protection of the state’s 

foster care system. How well the state is 

able to prevent child maltreatment in 

this circumstance is relative to a 

national standard based on how all 

states perform in preventing 

maltreatment in foster care as each state 

has defined maltreatment. 

A couple of commenters were 

concerned that this indicator did not 

seem to capture how the agency protects 

children from maltreatment if such 

children do not enter foster care. It is 

accurate that this indicator is focused on 

protection from subsequent 

maltreatment for children who are 

already in the state agency’s custody. 

We have another indicator that looks at 

victims of abuse and neglect more 

broadly to address the recurrence of 

maltreatment. We believe it is important 

to emphasize, however, that the set of 

indicators that are used for CFSR 

purposes are limited. We encourage 

states to have a more comprehensive set 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 61243 

of indicators in their own CQI systems 

as measures of their performance for 

improvement and/or public 

accountability purposes. CB, through 

joint planning with states and the 

provision of technical assistance can 

assist states as they consider appropriate 

indicators and measures to be included 

in their Child and Family Services Plan. 

Two commenters questioned how 

trial home visits would impact the 

indicator. One commenter advocated for 

the inclusion of trial home visits in the 

denominator while the other suggested 

that it should be excluded since the 

public may consider children on trial 

home visits to be at home. Since this 

indicator is intentionally capturing the 

maltreatment of a child while in the 

placement and care responsibility of the 

state agency, including when the child 

is visited by his parent or on a trial 

home visit, we have factored in the 

entire length of the trial home visit 

(until discharge) in the indicator. As 

such we will not apply a trial home visit 

adjustment to this indicator. 

One commenter expressed concern 

that this indicator will make it more 

difficult for children in foster care to 

achieve normalcy in their lives. The 

concern was that a national measure of 

maltreatment in foster care may 

influence child welfare agencies to 

require all adults who a child comes 

into contact with to have criminal and 

child abuse background checks. CB is 

supportive of ensuring that children in 

foster care are afforded normalcy to the 

extent practicable. We would like to 

work with states that may have higher 

rates of maltreatment in foster care to 

analyze which populations appear at 

risk of such harm and the circumstances 

in which maltreatment is occurring. 

That way we can help states strategize 

how to address these issues 

programmatically while balancing the 

well-being and other needs of the 

children the state serves. 

Finally, a few commenters were 

concerned that the difficulty some states 

experience in using a common identifier 

in the AFCARS and NCANDS files 

could impact the accuracy of this 

measure. We have set data quality 

thresholds (see attachment D) to ensure 

that states’ data quality issues do not 

affect the integrity of the standard. We 

have required states to have consistent 

identifiers of children used in the 

reporting of AFCARS data since it began 

(1993) and we have requested the 

AFCARS record number in the 

NCANDS child files since FY 2003. In 

the last round of CFSRs, we provided 

states with data profiles that indicated 

the percentage of records with AFCARS 

record numbers reported in the 

NCANDS child file. This was a means 

of improving state reporting and 

providing context to the data that was 

provided to states on maltreatment by 

parents in foster care. As such, we 

proposed this indicator noting that 

states had improved their reporting of 

AFCARS record numbers which made 

viable using an indicator with this link 

in this round of reviews. We have 

identified the states for which using a 

consistent identifier is an issue and will 

be engaging in discussions with them on 

how they can improve their reporting of 

AFCARS record numbers. 

Safety Performance Area 2: Recurrence 

of Maltreatment 

Indicator Description: Of all children 

who were victims of a substantiated or 

indicated report of maltreatment during 

a 12-month reporting period, what 

percent were victims of another 

substantiated or indicated maltreatment 

allegation within 12 months of their 

initial report? 

Calculation: The denominator is the 

number of children with at least one 

substantiated or indicated report of 

maltreatment in a 12-month period. The 

numerator is the number of children in 

the denominator that had another 

substantiated or indicated report of 

maltreatment within 12 months of their 

initial report. This indicator is 

calculated using data from NCANDS. 

We will use report dates as the 

primary data element to determine 

when the maltreatment occurred, and 

include only reports occurring in the 12- 

month period. Substantiated or 

indicated maltreatments reports with 

report dates in the 12-month period 

with disposition dates after the 12- 

month period are included, as well. If 

there is a subsequent report of 

maltreatment within 14 days of the 

earlier report we will not count it as 

recurrent maltreatment. If the state 

provides the incident date and it 

indicates that multiple reports refer to 

the same incident, we will also not 

count it as recurrent maltreatment. 

Youth who are age 18 or more are 

excluded from the calculation of the 

indicator. 

Justification for Inclusion: This 

indicator provides an assessment of 

whether the agency was successful in 

preventing subsequent maltreatment for 

a child if the child is the subject of a 

substantiated or indicated report of 

maltreatment. 

Summary of Public Comments: We 

proposed originally an indicator of the 

percent of children with a screened-in 

report of alleged maltreatment that 

occurs within 12 months of an initial 

screened-in report. We justified the 

proposed indicator to replace the 

recurrence of maltreatment indicator 

used in prior CFSRs as we thought it 

could better assess the scope of the 

child welfare agency’s protection 

response to incoming reports of 

maltreatment. We also believed the 

proposed indicator would address 

potential measurement problems of a 

substantiation-based indicator should a 

state change to a differential response 

approach during the course of a CFSR 

program improvement period. 

A couple of commenters supported 

the re-report of maltreatment indicator 

as we proposed it originally. However, 

the majority of commenters, particularly 

state child welfare agencies, expressed 

their concerns with the proposed 

indicator. Many commenters were 

concerned about several unintended 

consequences or challenges in 

messaging what the results of this 

indicator mean. 

One concern expressed by 

commenters was the potential for any 

state changes in the policy or program 

criteria for screening in reports to 

impact a state’s performance on the 

indicator, either negatively or 

positively. Another concern was that the 

indicator was perceived as contrary to 

state and federal laws that encourage 

and support reporting of potential child 

maltreatment. Similarly, some 

commenters believed that the indicator, 

if constructed as a measure of safety, 

could be interpreted to mean that 

agencies that had high rates of screenedin reports of maltreatment were not 

ensuring child safety and that there 

were higher rates of actual recurrence of 

substantiated maltreatment. These 

commenters noted that some states 

screen in reports for children who are at 

little to no risk of maltreatment, such as 

for community or public service 

referrals. They noted that such referrals 

should not be thought of in the same 

way as actual allegations of 

maltreatment. 

Secondary concerns raised by 

commenters were around the variation 

in state responses to screened-in reports 

as a matter of practice that could make 

interpretation of the indicator 

challenging. For example, commenters 

identified challenges associated with 

the variation in state screening 

decisions and unsubstantiated report 

expunction requirements. Several 

commenters provided suggestions for 

retaining the re-report of maltreatment 

indicator including: Requiring a 

substantiated report to follow the initial 

screened-in report to qualify as a rereport of maltreatment; risk adjusting 

based on the state’s screen-in rate; and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

61244 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

allowing for a defined period of time 

between a report and subsequent report. 

We believe that there is good reason 

for a revision to our approach. We are 

mindful that an indicator must be 

readily explainable to the field and the 

public in terms of what it tells us about 

a child welfare system’s response to 

vulnerable children and families. We 

also were concerned about the potential 

for unintended consequences with the 

proposed measures. We considered 

some of the commenter’s suggestions for 

improving a re-report indicator but each 

proposed solution raised some level of 

concern. Still, CB believes that this 

indicator does hold potential to shed 

light on how well states are providing 

services to the larger population of 

children at risk. As such, we will 

include the re-report indicator as 

originally proposed as a context 

measure in the state’s data profile. 

CB will return to an indicator of 

recurrence of maltreatment, similar to 

that used in the prior two rounds. One 

of the modifications to this indicator 

over the one used in prior rounds will 

be to have an expanded timeframe— 

looking at substantiated or indicated 

reports in an initial 12-month period 

and whether there is a subsequent one 

within 12 months. We are also using 

similar adjustments as used in the 

recurrence of maltreatment indicator. 

We will use incident dates where 

available, exclude reports made within 

14 days of an earlier report, and exclude 

youth age 18 and older. With this 

indicator, however, we are not able to 

address one of our concerns about the 

potential impact of a state implementing 

differential or alternative response on 

the measure. Where states implement 

differential response during program 

improvement, we will consider on a 

case-by-case basis the situation and its 

implications for accurate depictions of 

compliance and/or meeting 

improvement goals. 

CFSR Permanency Outcome 1: Children 

Have Permanency and Stability in 

Their Living Situations 

Permanency Performance Area 1: 

Permanency in 12 Months for Children 

Entering Foster Care 

Indicator Description: Of all children 

who enter foster care in a 12-month 

period, what percent discharged to 

permanency within 12 months of 

entering foster care? 

Calculation: The denominator is the 

number of children who enter foster 

care in a 12-month period. The 

numerator is the number of children in 

the denominator who discharged to 

permanency within 12 months of 

entering foster care and before turning 

age 18. This indicator is calculated 

using data from AFCARS. For the 

purposes of this indicator, discharged to 

permanency includes the AFCARS 

foster care discharge reasons of: 

Reunification with parents or primary 

caretakers, living with other relative(s), 

adoption and guardianship. This 

indicator excludes youth who enter 

foster care at or after age 18 and 

children who have a complete foster 

care episode lasting less than 8 days. 

For children with multiple foster care 

episodes in the 12-month period, this 

indicator will use the first episode 

reported. 

We apply a trial home visit 

adjustment to this indicator. This means 

that if a child discharges from foster 

care during the 12-month period to 

reunification with parents or other 

caretakers after a placement setting of a 

trial home visit, any time in that trial 

home visit that exceeds 30 days is 

discounted from the length of stay in 

foster care. A similar trial home visit 

adjustment has been applied to 

permanency indicators in prior rounds 

of CFSRs. The adjustment is made to 

address variations in state policy 

regarding returning children to their 

families for a period of time before the 

state makes a formal discharge from 

foster care ending the agency’s 

placement and care responsibility. 

Justification for Inclusion: This 

indicator provides a focus on the child 

welfare agency’s responsibility to 

reunify or place children in safe and 

permanent homes as soon as possible 

after removal. 

Public Comments and CB Response: 

Many commenters expressed support 

for one or more aspects of the 

permanency in 12 months for children 

entering foster care indicator. In 

particular, commenters supported the 

inclusion of guardianship and adoption 

within the concept of permanency and 

the use of an entry cohort to assess the 

state’s achievement of permanency for 

children. A few commenters requested 

clarification on whether we would 

apply the trial home visit adjustment to 

this indicator, which we have confirmed 

above. 

A significant number of commenters 

believed that this indicator, in 

combination with the permanency in 12 

months indicator for children who have 

been in foster care for 24 months or 

more, left a significant gap in 

understanding the experiences of 

children who have been in foster care 

for 12 to 23 months. We are addressing 

these comments by adding an indicator. 

We provide details on the new indicator 

in the next section. 

Two commenters pointed out issues 

with our original description of the 

indicator as evaluating the first episode 

within the period for children who have 

multiple episodes during the same 12- 

month period. One commenter noted 

that we indicated in an attachment that 

we would rely on the ‘‘date of most 

recent removal’’ data element and 

questioned whether the description of 

capturing episodes was accurate. 

Another commenter pointed out that 

multiple episodes within a six-month 

period may be masked since you cannot 

duplicate children within a report 

period. Both commenters are accurate 

about the limits of the AFCARS data. 

Each six-month report period from 

AFCARS includes detail on the most 

recent foster care episode as of the end 

of the six-month period. We do not have 

information in AFCARS about any 

intervening foster care episodes. These 

‘masked’ episodes represent a very 

small percentage of all episodes 

reported to AFCARS. When we refer to 

using the first episode within the 

period, we mean we will use the 

episode provided in the first six-month 

report period of the year. We are using 

the earliest one available to us, given the 

structure of AFCARS. In the past, when 

we merged six-month submissions 

together we kept only the most recent 

reported episode for the 12-month 

period, so this represents a change from 

that practice. 

Permanency Performance Area 2: 

Permanency in 12 Months for Children 

in Foster Care 12 to 23 Months 

Indicator Description: Of all children 

in foster care on the first day of a 12- 

month period who had been in foster 

care (in that episode) between 12 and 23 

months, what percent discharged from 

foster care to permanency within 12 

months of the first day of the 12-month 

period? 

Calculation: The denominator is the 

number of children in foster care on the 

first day of a 12-month period who had 

been in foster care (in that episode) 

between 12 and 23 months. The 

numerator is the number of children in 

the denominator who discharged from 

foster care to permanency within 12 

months of the first day of the 12-month 

period and before turning 18. This 

indicator is calculated using data from 

AFCARS. For the purposes of this 

indicator, discharged to permanency 

includes AFCARS foster care discharge 

reasons of: Reunification with parents or 

primary caretakers, living with other 

relative(s), adoption and guardianship. 

Youth who are aged 18 years or more on 

the first day of the 12-month period are 

excluded from the calculation. We 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 61245 

apply the trial home visit adjustment, as 

defined earlier, to this indicator. 

Justification for Inclusion: This 

indicator provides a focus on the child 

welfare agency’s responsibility to 

reunify or place children in safe and 

permanent homes timely if not achieved 

in the first 12 months of foster care. 

Public Comments and CB Response: 

As noted above a number of 

commenters were concerned about the 

potential for a significant gap in the 

understanding and measurement of 

performance for children who may 

achieve permanency between 12 and 23 

months. Some of the concerns expressed 

noted that a significant portion of 

children who remain in care beyond a 

year achieve permanency within the 

next year and that could not be captured 

with the two originally proposed 

indicators. Some made a programmatic 

argument about the requirements in title 

IV–B and IV–E of the Social Security 

Act (primarily due to amendments made 

by the Adoption and Safe Families Act) 

that focus on procedural safeguards for 

children who remain in care beyond 12 

months. These include requirements for 

permanency hearings every 12 months 

that focus on moving a child to 

permanency and requirements to file 

petitions for termination of parental 

rights once a child has been in foster 

care for 15 out of the most recent 22 

months, unless exceptions apply. 

Similarly, some commenters noted that 

guardianships and adoptions often take 

more than 12 months due to procedural 

and legal requirements, but could still 

be considered timely if occurred within 

18 to 24 months. These commenters 

advocated for adding an indicator that 

incorporates the performance of the 

state in achieving permanency for 

children between their 1st and 3rd year 

of foster care. We found these arguments 

to be compelling and have added this 

2nd indicator to be responsive to these 

points. 

Before adding this indicator, we 

considered whether to extend either the 

permanency achievement indicator for 

the entry cohort to include children 

who enter foster care in a 24-month 

period, or to expand the cohort of 

children in care 24 months or more to 

include children in care 12 months or 

more. With the former option, we 

believed that the longer cohort would 

weaken the focus on the large group of 

children who are likely to exit to 

permanency quickly. We also noted that 

by changing the cohort we could no 

longer pair it with a companion measure 

of re-entry to foster care within 12 

months (discussed later). With the latter 

option we were similarly concerned that 

we would no longer be able to focus 

attention to the children who have been 

in care for long periods of time and are 

must likely to grow up in foster care. 

Thus we chose to add a new cohort 

rather than expand one of the originally 

proposed indicators. 

Permanency Performance Area 3: 

Permanency in 12 Months for Children 

in Foster Care 24 Months or More 

Indicator Description: Of all children 

in foster care on the first day of a 12- 

month period, who had been in foster 

care (in that episode) for 24 months or 

more, what percent discharged to 

permanency within 12 months of the 

first day of the 12-month period? 

Calculation: The denominator is the 

number of children in foster care on the 

first day of a 12-month period who had 

been in foster care (in that episode) for 

24 months or more. The numerator is 

the number of children in the 

denominator who are discharged from 

foster care to permanency within 12 

months of the first day of the 12-month 

period and before turning 18. This 

indicator is calculated using data from 

AFCARS. For the purposes of this 

indicator discharged to permanency 

includes AFCARS foster care discharge 

reasons of: Reunification with parents or 

primary caretakers, living with other 

relative(s), adoption, and guardianship. 

Young people who are aged 18 years or 

more on the first day of the 12-month 

period are excluded from the 

calculation. The trial home visit 

adjustment, as defined earlier, is 

applied to this indicator. 

Justification for Inclusion: This 

indicator monitors the effectiveness of 

the state child welfare agency in 

continuing to ensure permanency for 

children who have been in foster care 

for longer periods of time. 

Public Comments and CB Response: 

Several commenters expressed support 

for this indicator as a useful measure 

because we have a singular concept of 

permanency to include permanent 

placement with a relative, reunification, 

adoption and guardianship. 

Commenters agreed with using this 

measure in parallel with the 

permanency in 12 months for children 

entering foster care indicator. 

Commenters also appreciated the 

indicator’s potential to maintain a focus 

on those children who experience long 

lengths of stay in foster care. The field 

expressed concerns similar to those for 

the permanency in 12 months for 

children entering foster care indicator. 

Some commenters also expressed a need 

to adjust for trial home visits. A few 

commenters raised concerns about how 

the experiences of children age 17 and 

older could impact the measure and if 

including this group of children in the 

statewide data indicator would 

disadvantage states that extend foster 

care beyond age 18. 

CB has specified that this indicator 

will include the trial home visit 

adjustment as do the other two 

permanency achievement indicators. 

We have also addressed the concern 

regarding the gap in cohorts by adding 

another indicator as explained 

previously. Although we have excluded 

from the calculation of this indicator 

young people age 18 or older on the first 

day of the 12-month period, we will not 

exclude from the denominator young 

people who turn age 18 during the 12- 

month period. Regardless of federal and 

state provisions that provide young 

people avenues to remain in foster care 

beyond 18 for care and services while 

they transition to adulthood, when 

young people do not achieve 

permanency by 18 they cannot be 

considered to have achieved 

permanency. While we can agree that 

providing such extended care can mean 

better well-being outcomes for youth 

based on existing research, extending 

care does not address the young 

person’s need for permanency, which is 

the focus of this indicator. 

Permanency Performance Area 4: Reentry to Foster Care in 12 Months 

Indicator Description: Of all children 

who enter foster care in a 12-month 

period who discharged within 12 

months to reunification, living with a 

relative(s), or guardianship, what 

percent re-enter foster care within 12 

months of their discharge? 

Calculation: The denominator is the 

number of children who entered foster 

care in a 12-month period and 

discharged within 12 months to 

reunification, living with a relative(s), or 

guardianship. The numerator is the 

number of children in the denominator 

who re-entered foster care within 12 

months of their discharge from foster 

care. We exclude children in foster care 

for less than 8 days from this indicator 

and children who enter or exit foster 

care at age 18 or more. If a child reenters foster care multiple times within 

12 months of their discharge, only the 

first reported re-entry into foster care is 

selected. This indicator is calculated 

using data from AFCARS. 

Justification for Inclusion: This 

indicator enables CB to monitor the 

effectiveness of programs and practice 

that support reunification and other 

permanency goals so that children do 

not return to foster care. 

Public Comments and CB Response: 

Some commenters expressed support for 

the re-entry to foster care statewide data 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

61246 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

3 In particular, see the Child Welfare Policy 

Manual Section 1.2B.7, AFCARS, Data Elements 

and Definitions, Foster Care Specific Elements, 

Placements found at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/cwpm/ 

programs/cb/laws_policies/laws/cwpm/index.jsp. 

indicator as its own measure and as a 

companion measure to permanency 

performance area 1 as we proposed. 

Companion measures are discussed in 

the program improvement plan section 

of this document. Several commenters 

shared concerns about the possibility 

that the indicator overlooks the re-entry 

to foster care for children who did not 

achieve permanency quickly. Comments 

in this area point out that, because the 

indicator focuses on children who 

achieve permanency within one year, 

children who leave foster care after a 

year are not considered. They argued 

that this creates a truncated view of reentry to foster care. Some of these 

commenters noted that the indicator 

used in the prior round of reviews had 

this more expanded cohort of children 

included and provided the state with a 

better perspective of the children who 

returned to foster care. A number of 

alternative approaches to measuring reentry to foster care were suggested 

including revising the cohort of focus or 

adding cohorts or indicators that looked 

at re-entries into foster care more 

comprehensively. 

During CFSR Round 2, this 

performance area was evaluated using a 

similar measure as a part of a composite. 

For that measure, we calculated the 

percent of all children discharged from 

foster care to reunification or living with 

a relative in a 12-month period, who reentered foster care in less than 12 

months from the date of discharge. The 

CFSR round 3 indicator differs from the 

measure used previously, in part, by 

limiting the children included in the 

indicator to the 12-month entry cohort. 

We intentionally limited the indicator to 

focus on children that enter foster care 

within a 12-month period to better align 

it with the other cohorts. We also note 

again that since most children return to 

their homes or achieve permanency 

within the first year of entry into foster 

care, this indicator will capture the 

majority of the population that may reenter foster care. 

Proposed Permanency Performance 

Area 4: Placement Stability 

Indicator Description: Of all children 

who enter foster care in a 12-month 

period, what is the rate of placement 

moves per day of foster care? 

Calculation: The denominator is of 

children who enter foster care in a 12- 

month period, the total number of days 

these children were in foster care as of 

the end of the 12-month period. The 

numerator is of children in the 

denominator, the total number of 

placement moves during the 12-month 

period. The days in care and moves 

during the placement episodes are 

cumulative across episodes reported in 

the same year. Rates are calculated per 

day of foster care. However, we will 

multiply the rate by 1,000 to produce 

larger numbers that are easier to 

understand. Only those placement 

settings that are required to be counted 

in the AFCARS file are used for this 

indicator. If the child is moved to a 

living arrangement or setting that would 

not result in the state increasing the 

number of placement settings reported 

in AFCARS such moves are not 

included in this indicator. Children in 

foster care for less than 8 days are 

excluded from the calculation. Youth 

who turn 18 during the 12-month period 

will not have time in care beyond their 

18th birthday or moves after their 18th 

birthday counted. 

Justification for Inclusion: This 

indicator emphasizes states’ 

responsibility to ensure that children 

whom the state removes from their 

homes experience stability while they 

are in foster care. 

Public Comment and CB Response: 

Several commenters expressed support 

for the placement stability data 

indicator citing it as an improvement 

over the previous measure and 

empirically-based. Some commenters 

agreed with the use of entry cohorts and 

the move to a rate of placements 

controlling for the length of stay. A few 

commenters asked for clarity on which 

moves in foster care are included in the 

indicator. In response, we have added to 

the description above. In general, there 

are placement settings that are reported 

in AFCARS but which are not ‘counted’ 

in terms of a move. These include trial 

home visit episodes, runaway episodes, 

respite care and changes in a single 

foster family home’s status, for example 

to reflect a licensing change from a 

foster care home to a home dually 

licensed for adoption. Additional 

information on AFCARS placement 

setting changes can be found in the CB’s 

Child Welfare Policy Manual.3

A few commenters voiced concerns 

about using only entry cohorts for 

placement stability, which overlooks 

children who have been in foster care 

for longer periods of time. Other 

commenters pointed out that states 

could track additional cohorts of 

children without it being a federal 

indicator for CFSR purposes. During 

CFSR Round 2, we evaluated placement 

stability through three individual 

measures that made up a composite. All 

three of the measures, differentiated by 

length of stay in foster care, looked at 

the percent of children with two or 

fewer placement settings. The new 

indicator controls for the length of time 

children spend in foster care so only 

one indicator is needed. Further, it 

looks at moves per day of foster care, 

rather than children as the unit of 

analysis, as was employed during CFSR 

Round 2. The measure used for CFSR 

Round 2 was unable to differentiate 

between children who moved twice 

from children who moved more. The 

new indicator does not count initial 

placements, but counts each subsequent 

move to capture accurately the rate of 

placement moves given the amount of 

time they were at risk of moving, rather 

than the number of children affected. 

CB believes that placement stability is 

important to the permanency and wellbeing of children in foster care 

regardless of how long they have been 

in foster care. Even so, our analysis of 

AFCARS data indicates that most 

placement moves occur within a child’s 

first 12 months of foster care, which is 

why we focused this indicator on that 

time period. With this refined focus, CB 

and states can monitor the period 

during which placement moves are most 

likely to occur and the state’s most 

recent performance. Since the CFSR 

Round 2 measures will still be included 

as a context measures in the data 

profile, states can use such information 

to analyze their trends, practice and 

target areas for improvement. 

Some commenters questioned how to 

calculate the measure and whether the 

data were available to do so accurately. 

One concern was whether all placement 

days could be counted across all 

episodes in a year. Although the 

structure of AFCARS obscures some 

short-term episodes from view, we are 

using all available information to sum 

placement days and moves across 

episodes, to the extent practicable. The 

number of placement settings is always 

relevant to the reported episode, so this 

does not bias the results. Further, it is 

the same for all states, so we treat states 

equally methodologically. 

Another commenter asked for 

clarification on whether the indicator 

would track children for 12 months 

from entry date, or simply count 

placement days during the 12-month 

period for children entering during that 

period. The calculation is the latter; we 

will count only the care days used 

within the 12-month period. Even if the 

child entered late in the 12-month 

period, we will count only those days 

and moves within the 12-month period. 

This measure allows for this because it 

controls for time in care. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 61247 

4See the CFSR Onsite Review Instrument, 

Stability of Foster Care Placement (item 4) at 

https://training.cfsrportal.org/resources/3044. 

5U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, 

Child and Family Services Reviews Aggregate 

Report, Findings for Round 2 Fiscal Years 2007– 

2010. December 16, 2011. Located online at 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/fcfsr_

report.pdf. 

Some commenters were apprehensive 

about how the placement stability 

indicator might impact beneficial 

placement moves in foster care. Several 

commenters pointed out that there are 

circumstances when placement changes 

might produce better outcomes for 

children or best address their well-being 

needs such as when children may be 

moved to be with siblings or to meet the 

placement Indian Child Welfare Act’s 

placement preferences. These 

commenters noted that the data 

generated by the placement stability 

indicator might not adequately explain 

these situations or create disincentives 

to move a child when such moves are 

appropriate. 

As we have noted in response to 

similar comments on the indicators of 

placement stability used in prior rounds 

of review, AFCARS does not have 

information about whether a placement 

change reflects a positive move that is 

made for the best interests of the child 

and/or towards the achievement of the 

child’s permanency and well-being 

needs. The current administrative data 

collection does not capture all of the 

contextual information necessary for us 

to understand the dynamic needs of the 

child or the conditions of the child’s 

placement. We have always used the 

onsite case review component of the 

CFSR to provide more evaluative 

information about a child’s moves in 

foster care and continue to do so in this 

round of reviews.4 In so doing, we 

consider whether moves that 

legitimately support the child’s best 

interests rather than an agency’s 

resource limitations or other concerns 

justify the move. States past 

performance during the onsite case 

review in this area indicates that 

children experience many moves that 

are not for the purposes of meeting their 

needs.5

Finally, a couple of commenters noted 

that state administrators might have 

difficulty in explaining this indicator to 

stakeholders or thinking through how it 

relates to practice since it is expressed 

as a rate as opposed to the prior 

placement stability measure. We 

understand that the new indicators, 

particularly those that are expressed as 

a rate, will require states to acquire new 

strategies to communicate with the field 

about how we measuring performance. 

We will work with states to do so in the 

data profiles and in the ongoing 

assistance we provide to states and their 

stakeholders around practice 

implications. 

Additional Comments on Cross-Cutting 

Issues or Multiple Indicators 

Some commenters opined on crosscutting issues or requested that CB 

address other issues in connection with 

the indicators that are relevant as 

general concerns or to multiple 

indicators. There were several 

additional comments that were outside 

the scope of this Federal Register 

document and relate to comments or 

perspectives on child welfare policy 

that are inappropriate for us to address 

in this document. 

Use of individual indicators and fewer 

indicators. Many commenters expressed 

strong support for our proposal to 

replace the composites used for 

permanency in round 2 with individual 

indicators of permanency in this round. 

Many appreciated our responsiveness to 

feedback from the field on their 

challenges with translating composite 

measures and noted that individual 

indicators had more promise for 

engaging their workers and partners in 

understanding performance and 

working together towards improvement. 

Similarly there were several 

commenters who supported using fewer 

indicators as part of the CFSR. Some 

noted that a limited number of 

indicators would also reduce challenges 

in the interpretation of multiple 

measures, which may sometimes appear 

to offer conflicting perspectives on 

performance. 

Greater reliance on entry cohorts. 

Commenters generally supported CB’s 

intention to rely more on entry cohorts 

as a method for measuring performance 

and gauging state improvement. 

However, a commenter suggested that 

CB be more precise in its terminology, 

noting that the term ‘‘entry cohort’’ was 

overbroad to describe the cohorts of 

interest the indicators include. While 

we agree that this term is broad, we 

included the term to reflect our general 

change in approach to measurement in 

some areas. As we have described each 

indicator’s cohort specifically in terms 

of which children and circumstances 

are included in the numerator and the 

denominator we do not believe it is 

necessary to go into greater detail in 

naming the type of cohorts used. 

Federal data elements and 

consistency of state practice. A few 

commenters requested that CB define 

terms that are referenced in the 

indicators or require states to have 

consistency in what is captured in 

AFCARS. One agency asked for CB to 

evaluate how to define ‘‘foster care 

placement’’ to ensure that the states 

report consistently who is in foster care 

across the country. In particular, the 

commenter noted that a child’s 

placement outside of his or her own 

home and with a relative is not always 

included in the reporting population 

depending on the circumstances. 

Another requested that we provide more 

clarity regarding the discharge reason of 

‘living with relatives’ within AFCARS. 

CB is not defining those terms further 

in this document. However, we will 

consider how to provide additional 

technical assistance and guidance to 

states on how to report AFCARS data 

accurately consistent with existing 

policy and also consider whether 

additional policy is necessary. We note 

that in defining AFCARS data elements 

and guidance, CB has intentionally 

considered the range of states’ child 

welfare practices, authorities and 

responsibilities. For example, the issue 

of whether a child ‘placed’ with a 

relative is reported as in foster care to 

AFCARS depends in part on whether 

the state child welfare agency has 

placement and care responsibility of the 

child and not whether the child is 

residing in his own home. We want all 

states to understand and apply AFCARS 

reporting populations, data element 

definitions and other related guidance 

consistently. However, the application 

of that guidance will reflect the unique 

aspects of a state’s foster care program 

and population. 

Well Being indicators. One 

organization recommended that CB 

improve well-being metrics used in the 

CFSR. Particular suggestions included 

tracking states’ implementation of 

provisions of the Fostering Connections 

to Success and Increasing Adoptions 

Act of 2008 (Public Law 112–34) related 

to health including that children in 

foster care receive health screenings, 

have up-to-date health information and 

records, and states have processes for 

health oversight plans including 

monitoring children’s use of 

psychotropic medications. Another 

suggestion was for CB to work with the 

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 

Services (CMS) and the National 

Collaborative for Innovation in Quality 

to develop effective well-being 

measures. 

CB focuses on how states are 

providing for children’s well-being 

needs in the CFSR even though we do 

not have data elements in AFCARS or 

NCANDS that support the development 

of meaningful statewide data indicators 

relevant to child well-being at this time. 

Through the onsite review component 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

61248 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

6See the CFSR Onsite Review Instrument, 

Physical Health of the Child and Mental/Behavioral 

Health of the Child (items 17 and 18). Available 

online at https://training.cfsrportal.org/resources/

3044. 

7See for example ACYF–CB–IM–12–04, 

Promoting Social and Emotional Well-Being for 

Children and Youth Receiving Child Welfare 

Services. April 17, 2012. Available at http://www.

acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/im1204.pdf. 

of the CFSR, CB examines whether the 

state has appropriately assessed a 

child’s health (including dental) and 

mental health needs, and if applicable, 

whether the state also identified and 

managed any health and mental health 

issues by facilitating the provision of the 

necessary services for all children in 

foster care and applicable children 

receiving services in their own homes. 

In the evaluation, we consider whether 

the state conducted initial and periodic 

health/mental health screenings for the 

child, the presence or lack thereof of up 

to date health information and oversight 

of medications, if applicable. More 

information on the particular 

assessment questions in the onsite 

review can be found in the CFSR Onsite 

Review Instrument.6 CB has described 

some of our efforts to focus child wellbeing issues in an issuance in 2012.7 CB 

will continue to work in collaboration 

with CMS and other appropriate 

partners to strengthen our ability to 

support states in measuring and 

ensuring positive outcomes in these 

areas. 

Framing indicators in a positive 

direction. There were several comments 

along the theme of reframing some of 

the indicators so that they were stated 

positively. For example, one commenter 

suggested that the indicator be renamed 

to ‘permanency maintained’ and change 

the calculation of the indicator to be 

positively framed so that the 

denominator includes children exiting 

care to permanency and the numerator 

includes those that do not re-enter. 

Regarding placement stability, two 

commenters noted that although the 

indicator nomenclature is positively 

stated as placement stability, the 

description clarifies that the indicator 

itself is calculated negatively as 

placement instability. These 

commenters suggested switching the 

numerator and denominator so that the 

indicator could be expressed in a 

positive fashion. CB chose not to revise 

the indicators or their descriptions in 

this way. Communicating these 

indicators can be challenging, and 

reversing the direction of the indicator 

makes it less intuitive and more 

complicated to measure and 

communicate. Second, maintaining 

these indicators as described allows us 

to remain consistent with the concepts 

as measured during prior CFSR rounds, 

promoting greater ease of use. In other 

cases, the measures simply cannot be 

reversed. As such we are keeping the 

indicators framed as described. 

Applicability to particular 

populations. We received comments of 

concern about how the data indicators 

were perceived to apply to specific 

groups of children. One organization 

sought additional consultation with 

Indian tribes on the data indicators and 

revisions to round 3 overall to inform 

our thinking on applicability to Indian 

children. CB conducted in-person 

consultation with Indian tribes in 2011 

regarding improvements in the CFSR in 

the areas use of data and performance 

monitoring overall. We used this 

feedback, in conjunction with feedback 

from states and other stakeholders in 

revising round 3 and the data indicators. 

However, we understand the need to 

further engage Indian tribes in meeting 

the needs of Indian children, 

particularly those in state custody. In 

addition to reinforcing with states the 

importance of engaging and 

collaborating Indian tribes throughout 

the CFSR process, CB will work directly 

with Indian tribes and organizations 

that advocate on behalf of Indian 

children to ensure that Indian tribes are 

informed about the CFSRs and the 

opportunities to participate in them. 

We also received comments of 

concern about how data indicators can 

miss how states are performing with 

regard to Native American children, 

LGBTQ populations and older youth. 

We also heard concerns that state results 

on such indicators could be used as 

justification for the state to focus their 

attention on other groups of children or 

avoid work in accordance with best 

practices for such populations. We 

understand that the data indicators are 

limited and provide generalized 

information about a state’s performance. 

CB is committed to consulting with 

states to understand what their 

statewide performance is or is not 

revealing about its programs, practice 

and results for the particular 

populations of children served by the 

state. Although the assessment of the 

state’s performance on national 

indicators is part of our monitoring 

efforts, it must be paired with a state 

analysis of cases reviewed during the 

onsite review and other data or 

information that the state has its 

disposal to better understand what is 

the experience of children involved in 

the child welfare system. 

National Standards and State 

Performance 

We have set the national standard at 

the national observed performance for 

each of the seven indicators. 

For indicators in which the outcome 

for a child either occurred or did not 

occur the standard is calculated as the 

number of children in the nation 

experiencing the outcome divided by 

the number of children in the nation 

eligible for and therefore at risk of the 

outcome. This is the case for the 

indicators that measure permanency (for 

all cohorts) in 12 months, re-entry to 

foster care in 12 months and recurrence 

of maltreatment. The result of the 

calculation is a proportion. However, 

we present the standard as a percentage 

by multiplying the proportion by 100. 

For indicators in which the outcome 

for a child is a count per day in care the 

standard is calculated as the sum of 

counts for all children in the nation 

divided by the sum of days these 

children were in care. This is the case 

for the indicators for placement stability 

(moves per day in care) and 

maltreatment in foster care (number of 

victimizations per day in care). The 

result of the calculation is a rate. We are 

multiplying the rates to yield more 

understandable numbers: for placement 

stability by 1,000 to yield a rate of 

moves per 1,000 days; and, for 

maltreatment in foster care by 100,000 

to give a rate of victimizations per 

100,000 days in care. 

The following table shows the 

national standards for each indicator. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 61249 

8Population estimates can be downloaded from 

the U.S. Census Bureau’s Web site at https://www.

census.gov/popest/index.html. 

TABLE 1—NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR CFSR ROUND 3 STATEWIDE DATA INDICATORS

Statewide data indicators for safety outcome 1 National standard 

Maltreatment in Foster Care ........................................................... 8.04 victimizations per 100,000 days in care. 

Recurrence of Maltreatment ........................................................... 9.0%. 

Statewide data indicators for permanency outcome 1 National standard 

Permanency in 12 Months for Children Entering Foster Care ....... 40.4%. 

Permanency in 12 Months for Children in Foster Care 12 to 23 

Months.

43.7%. 

Permanency in 12 Months for Children in Foster Care 24 Months 

or More.

30.3%. 

Re-Entry to Foster Care in 12 Months ........................................... 8.3%. 

Placement Stability ......................................................................... 4.12 moves per 1,000 days in foster care. 

Public Comment and CB Response: 

Some commenters stated that using the 

national observed performance as the 

national standard for state performance 

was an improvement over CFSR round 

2. A few others argued that the state 

should be held to higher standards 

believing that was consistent with 

legislative intent in requiring 

‘‘substantial conformity’’ with federally 

mandated state plan requirements. 

As we considered how to set national 

standards, we attempted to balance the 

need for standards that were ambitious 

yet feasible. We also were mindful of 

the states’ collective historical 

performance and our historical 

expectations of substantial conformity. 

As we noted in the prior document, we 

believe that the national observed 

performance is a reasonable benchmark 

and would appropriately challenge 

states to improve their performance. 

Some commenters urged us to allow 

states to be measured against their own 

performance rather than using a 

national comparison due to the 

disparate ways states across the country 

conduct child welfare activities. 

Although we acknowledge that there are 

disparities in child welfare activities in 

the states, we believe it is appropriate 

for CB to set consistent expectations for 

states’ performance in its title IV–B and 

IV–E programs. We also note that the 

regulation that governs CFSRs requires 

that we determine substantial 

conformity based in part on national 

standards versus state-specific 

benchmarks (45 CFR 1355.31(a) and (b)). 

CB has, however, set improvement goals 

based on how each state has performed 

historically. 

Multi-level modeling approach. State 

performance on each statewide data 

indicator will be assessed using a multilevel (i.e., hierarchical) model 

appropriate for that indicator. A multilevel logistic regression model will be 

used for indicators in which the 

outcome for a child either occurred or 

did not occur. A multi-level Poisson 

regression model will be used for 

indicators in which the outcome is a 

count per unit of time. We chose multilevel modeling because it is a widely 

accepted statistical method that enables 

fair evaluation of relative performance 

among states with different case mixes. 

The multi-level model that we employ 

when assessing each state’s performance 

takes into account: (1) The variation 

across states in the age distribution of 

children served for all indicators, and 

the state’s entry rate for select indicators 

(risk adjustment); (2) the variation 

across states in the number of children 

they serve; and, (3) the variation in 

child outcomes between states. The 

result of this modeling is a performance 

value that is a more accurate and fair 

representation of each state’s 

performance than can be obtained with 

simply using the state’s observed 

performance. 

Public Comments and CB Response: 

No specific comments were received on 

using a multi-level approach. 

Risk Adjustment. We will risk adjust 

on child’s age for each indicator 

(depending on the indicator it is the 

child’s age at entry, exit, or on the first 

day). See appendix A for details on risk 

adjusters. We will also risk adjust on the 

state’s foster care entry rate for two 

indicators: Permanency in 12 months 

for children entering foster care and reentry to foster care in 12 months. 

Adjusting on age allows us to control 

statistically for the fact that children of 

different ages have different likelihoods 

of experiencing the outcome, regardless 

of the quality of care a state provides. 

Adjusting on foster care entry rate 

allows us to control for the impact of the 

states’ case mixes as far as the overall 

risk children in that state have of 

experiencing the outcome. We use entry 

rate to account for the fact that states 

with lower entry rates tend to have 

children at greater risk for poor 

outcomes. 

We use a separate ‘‘dummy’’ variable 

for each age when calculating the risk 

adjustment for age. Use of dummy 

variables is a common strategy in 

regression models to measure the 

impact of a characteristic on an 

outcome. A dummy variable has a value 

of 1 or 0 to indicate the presence or 

absence of the characteristic. For 

example, a child who entered care at age 

2 will have a ‘‘1’’ for the ‘‘age 2’’ 

variable and a ‘‘0’’ for all others. For all 

but the first day permanency indicators, 

19 age dummy variables are used to 

represent the ages from birth to 3 

months, four to 11 months, and each 

year from age 1 through 17. The first day 

permanency measure for children in 

care 12 to 24 months uses 17 age 

dummy variables (ages 1 through 17), 

and the first day permanency indicator 

for children in foster care 24 months of 

more uses 16 age dummy variables (ages 

2 through 17). The method requires 

specifying a base or reference age group 

and for that we use the median age. 

We calculate the entry rate as the 

number of children entering foster care 

during the 12-month period divided by 

the number of children in the state’s 

child population, multiplied by 1,000. 

We obtain the child population data 

from the population division of the U.S. 

Census Bureau.8 This Census data 

reflect population estimates as of July 

1st of each year, whereas the 12-month 

periods CB uses to define children 

entering care are either October to 

September, or April to March. 

Therefore, we chose to use the Census 

year closest to the 12-month period the 

child entered foster care as the 

denominator. For example, if the 

indicator follows children who entered 

care between April 1, 2011 and March 

31, 2012 (an ‘‘11B/12A’’ file in AFCARS 

file conventions), we use child 

population estimates from the July 2011 

Census estimate. If the 12-month period 

spanned October 1, 2012 through 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

61250 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

September 30, 2013, we would use 

population estimates as of July 1, 2013. 

After we perform all the calculations 

in the model, the result will be the 

state’s risk standardized performance. 

The risk standardized performance is 

the ratio of the number of predicted 

outcomes over the number of expected 

outcomes, multiplied by the national 

observed performance. For details on 

how the predicted and expected 

outcomes are calculated, please consult 

CFSR Technical Bulletin #8 for 

additional information. 

Public Comments and CB Response: 

Public comments expressed general 

support for risk adjustment, but many 

more requested more information, 

explanation, and transparency to 

understand and comment on the 

concept. We have provided more detail 

in this document to address the issues 

of transparency with precise 

methodology explanations in CFSR 

Technical Bulletin #8. Additionally, we 

understand that risk adjustment adds 

complexity to understanding state 

performance and so we decided as a 

matter of policy to employ it judiciously 

in this round of reviews and use only 

those variables that had wide support 

from the field and were statistically 

significant. 

Commenters offered numerous 

suggestions for possible risk adjustment 

variables, with the most frequently 

mentioned being child’s age, foster care 

entry rate, and whether states included 

juvenile justice youth in their child 

welfare systems. Other variables the 

field proposed include: The length of 

time from the date of a report to the date 

of disposition, the state’s screen-in rate, 

how child maltreatment is defined 

statutorily, the degree to which states 

serve mental health populations and 

adolescents with behavior problems, 

poverty, parent factors and children’s 

individual risk factors such as sibling 

group or severe disabilities. 

CB considered and tested age as a risk 

adjuster for all indicators and found it 

to be statistically significant so we are 

including it as a variable for all 

indicators. We considered and tested 

whether the state’s foster care entry rate 

should be used for permanency in 12 

months for children entering foster care, 

re-entry to foster care in 12 months and 

placement stability. We found that the 

foster care entry rate was statistically 

significant for permanency in 12 months 

for children entering foster care and reentry to foster care in 12 months and are 

using those. We found that foster care 

entry rates were not statistically 

significant for placement stability. We 

did not consider using foster care entry 

rate as an adjuster for the two 

permanency indicators for children in 

foster care on the first day. This is 

because children in foster care on the 

first day of the period will include 

children who entered in various years, 

and therefore an entry rate using data 

from a single year may not adequately 

reflect the experience with every child 

followed in the indicator. For a similar 

reason, entry rate was not considered for 

the maltreatment in foster care 

indicator. This indicator is based on 

children in foster care during a 12- 

month period. Although this indicator 

includes children who entered during 

the 12-month period, it also includes 

children who were in foster care on the 

first day of the period whose entry 

could have occurred at any point in the 

past. 

For the recurrence of maltreatment 

indicator, we considered as a risk 

adjuster the state’s screen-in rate, 

defined as the number of referrals the 

state screens in per 1,000 children in the 

child population. However, we decided 

against using this adjustment because its 

impact on the outcome is unclear and 

may have unintended consequences. 

State’s child protective services policies 

are still under considerable fluctuation, 

especially with the varied 

implementation of differential response 

and structured decision-making. These 

and other policies that states are 

implementing may affect screen-in rates 

in unclear ways, so it would be 

challenging to explain what the 

adjustment is doing. We believe more 

research on the impact of adjusting on 

screen-in rates is needed before 

implementing this into the CFSRs. 

Despite the call by some commenters 

to risk adjust for demographic variables, 

a few commenters argued that doing so 

could unintentionally relieve providers 

of their responsibility to work diligently 

to reunify vulnerable populations. 

Further, the commenters noted that 

child welfare agencies have a moderate 

degree of influence over the nature and 

adequacy of the services being provided 

to these populations and that adjusting 

for demographic variables could mask 

the disparate negative experiences of 

higher-risk populations. CB believes the 

limited use of risk adjustment at this 

time mitigate some of the concerns 

expressed in these comments. CB would 

also like to note that states are still 

encouraged to examine observed 

performance for children by age, sex, 

race and other demographic variables. 

This level of analysis will help uncover 

disparities in outcomes for certain 

populations based on their 

demographics. 

Many of the suggested risk adjustment 

variables related to the programmatic 

aspects of the state’s child welfare 

program, such as whether the state child 

welfare agency serves youth who are 

involved in the juvenile justice system. 

Some commenters offered alternative 

approaches to risk adjustment including 

focusing on systemic and environmental 

variables at the state level. We note that 

state program features are not readily 

identifiable in the administrative data 

that states submit to CB at this time. 

However, risk adjusting on additional 

state-level variables is an important area 

of research, and CB encourages 

researchers to continue to explore the 

challenges and advantages of 

implementing such risk adjustment in 

child welfare. 

Some commenters offered alternative 

approaches to risk adjustment that 

involved dividing some of the data 

indicators by sub-populations. CB 

considered dividing the data indicators 

by sub-populations as stratifying 

performance by sub-populations is a 

useful strategy to see how outcomes 

vary for children from different 

backgrounds and experiences. However, 

in the context of the CFSR, we chose not 

to pursue this approach because of the 

unmanageable set of indicators it would 

produce. For example, if we grouped 

child age into five groups as is 

commonly done, and had separate 

indicators for each age group, the result 

would be 35 indicators (7 indicators by 

5 age groups) based on age, and 

presumably 35 separate national 

standards, and so forth. Instead, we 

chose to implement a risk adjustment 

strategy that is widely practiced and can 

incorporate multiple risk adjustment 

variables into a single outcome. 

Some commenters questioned 

whether CB would provide risk adjusted 

information to local jurisdictions that 

would likely need to be responsible for 

implementing changes based on the 

states’ performance on the indicators. 

We note that these same models could 

be implemented at the state level, using 

as the focus of analysis the county 

(instead of the state, as the CB is doing). 

Details about technical assistance 

available for states interested in 

performing similar analyses is 

forthcoming as are further details on the 

information that will be available to 

states in data profiles as we finalize 

them. 

A commenter requested clarity on the 

consequences for program improvement 

if a state’s observed score meets the 

national standard, but the state’s risk 

adjusted performance does not. In this 

situation CB will still require the state 

to enter into program improvement. 

This is because the state’s observed 

performance is not the most precise 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 61251 

measure of the state’s performance after 

considering its case mix and size in the 

context of the performance of other 

states with similar case mixes. 

Categorizing State Performance 

relative to the National Standards: A 

state’s risk standardized performance 

can be compared directly to the national 

observed performance to determine if 

the state’s risk standardized 

performance is statistically higher or 

lower than the national observed 

performance. To make this assessment, 

CB calculates approximate 95% interval 

estimates around each state’s risk 

standardized performance. For details 

on how these interval estimates are 

calculated, see Technical Bulletin #8. 

CB will compare each state’s interval 

estimate to the national observed 

performance, and assign each state to 

one of three groups: 

• ‘‘No different than national 

performance’’ if the 95% interval 

estimate surrounding the state’s risk 

standardized performance includes the 

national observed performance. 

• ‘‘Higher than national performance’’ 

if the entire 95% interval estimate 

surrounding the state’s risk 

standardized performance is higher than 

the national observed performance. 

• ‘‘Lower than national performance’’ 

if the entire 95% interval estimate 

surrounding the state’s risk 

standardized performance is lower than 

the national observed performance. 

Whether it is desirable for a state to 

be higher or lower than the national 

performance depends on the indicator. 

For the indicators assessing permanency 

in 12 months for the three cohorts, a 

higher value is desirable. For these 

indicators if the state’s risk standardized 

performance is ‘‘lower than national 

performance’’ we will consider the state 

not to have met the national standard 

and will require program improvement. 

For the remaining indicators, a lower 

value is desirable. If a state’s risk 

standardized performance is ‘‘higher 

than the national performance’’ for these 

indicators, we will consider the state 

not to have met the national standard 

and will require program improvement. 

For all indicators, we will consider 

states that are ‘‘no different than 

national performance’’ to have met the 

national standard and no program 

improvement will be required. 

Public Comments and CB Response: A 

commenter requested clarification on 

whether the national standards will 

remain fixed over the course of the 

round. The national standard will 

remain the fixed standard over round 3 

of the CFSRs. However, there are 

situations in which a state’s more recent 

data will be used to evaluate their 

performance relative to the standard. 

Due to the staggered schedule of CFSRs, 

some states will begin their onsite 

review one to three years after the 

establishment of the national standards 

and any initial assessment we provide 

of where states fall relative to the 

standards. Or a state may resubmit data 

for an earlier reporting period prior to 

its review. In preparation for these 

states’ statewide assessments, CB will 

rerun the national model using the 

state’s most current data applicable, but 

using the fixed data from the original 

reference population (i.e., the fixed data 

for all other states). This allows us to 

assess if the state, given its most recent 

performance, would now meet the 

national standard had it performed this 

way when we provide each state’s 

performance initially. 

Sources and Data Periods: The 

datasets used for the national standard 

calculations depend on the indicator. 

Some indicators require more data 

periods than others. For example, the reentry indicator requires six report 

periods of AFCARS data. This is 

because the cohort of children used 

requires a look at all children who enter 

foster care over a 12-month period; then 

they are followed for another 12-months 

to establish whether they have exited to 

permanency; then they are followed for 

a subsequent 12-months after their exit 

to see if they reenter foster care. 

Attachment A specifies the data periods 

that will be used for calculating the 

national standard for each indicator. 

Monitoring Statewide Data Indicators 

in Program Improvement Plans 

CB will require states that do not meet 

the national standard for an indicator to 

include improvement on that indicator 

in its program improvement plan. If we 

are unable to determine a state’s 

performance on an indicator due to data 

quality issues, we will also require the 

state to include that indicator in its 

program improvement plan. Data 

quality levels that prevent CB from 

identifying a state’s performance are 

described in the next section and are 

specified in Attachment C. For two of 

the statewide data indicators, 

permanency in 12 months for children 

entering foster care and re-entry to foster 

care, CB will determine performance for 

program improvement purposes on one 

indicator in concert with the other as a 

companion measure. The key 

components for setting improvement 

goals and monitoring a state’s progress 

over the course of a program 

improvement plan involve calculating 

baselines, setting improvement goals, 

and when companion measures are 

included in an improvement plan, also 

establishing thresholds. CB will set 

improvement goals and thresholds in 

part relative to each state’s past 

performance. 

A state can complete its program 

improvement plan successfully with 

regard to the indicators by meeting its 

improvement goal and staying above the 

threshold for its companion measure, if 

applicable. The determination that the 

state has been successful can be made 

during the program improvement period 

or the non-overlapping data period. The 

non-overlapping data period follows the 

end of the program improvement plan 

and is the period in which CB is 

evaluating the state’s resulting 

performance as evidenced in the data. 

Alternatively, CB can relieve a state of 

any further obligation to improve for 

CFSR purposes if the state meets the 

national standard for an indicator prior 

to or during the course of program 

improvement monitoring. 

Companion Measures: If a state has a 

program improvement plan that 

includes improving on the indicator 

permanency in 12 months for children 

entering foster care, CB’s determination 

of whether the state has improved 

successfully will take into consideration 

its performance on the re-entry to foster 

care indicator as a companion measure. 

Specifically, the state must not allow 

performance on the companion measure 

to get worse beyond a certain level from 

its baseline performance. Thresholds are 

established as the inverse of 

performance goals, to provide the 

bounds in which states should not 

worsen. For example, a state must stay 

below a threshold for the companion reentry to foster care indicator as well as 

achieve its goal on the permanency in 

12 months for children entering foster 

care indicator to successfully complete 

the program improvement plan. The 

reverse is also true. If a state must 

improve on the re-entry to foster care 

indicator in its program improvement 

plan, it must not get worse than the 

threshold established for permanency in 

12 months for children entering foster 

care. For details about threshold 

calculations, please see the section 

below and CFSR Technical Bulletin #8. 

Public Comments and CB Response: 

Several commenters expressed strong 

support for the use of companion 

measures, but requested technical 

assistance to support states’ work in 

translating these concepts and the 

calculations for thresholds. CB will 

work to provide states with clear 

explanations and visuals within their 

data profiles and technical materials of 

how the companion measures can be 

interpreted and are calculated. On the 

other hand, a commenter requested that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

61252 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

we acknowledge that there could be no 

evidence or justification that one 

indicator contributed to the result of the 

other. CB was careful to select the 

companion measures because of the 

close connection between the practices 

of one and the other. CB has no plans 

to demonstrate for program 

improvement purposes that when a state 

increases its exits to permanency within 

12 months and there is a subsequent 

increase reentry that there is causal 

relationship between the two (or that 

decreased reentries was caused by 

decreased exits to permanency). 

However, the goal is not to show 

causality; the concept is that if a state 

is unable to keep from getting markedly 

worse on the companion measure it 

cannot be considered to have 

successfully improved on the primary 

indicator as it indicates that something 

in the state’s practices was problematic 

for the related area of permanency. It 

will always be incumbent on the state, 

working in concert with CB, to drill 

down into the data and assess its 

practice to understand whether, where 

and how practices can be aligned to 

ensure that children’s needs are met for 

permanency to be achieved timely and 

appears to be long lasting. 

State Baselines: CB will set the 

baseline for each statewide data 

indicator included in a program 

improvement plan at the state’s 

observed performance on that indicator 

for the most recent year of available data 

at the beginning of the program 

improvement plan. However, just as 

there are multiple data periods used for 

the development of the national 

standards, multiple time periods are 

needed to evaluate the state’s baseline 

performance at the time of the PIP and 

then subsequently throughout the 

program improvement period. Since the 

CFSR review schedule is staggered, the 

applicable year or data periods used in 

establishing the baseline will vary. For 

example, a state with an onsite review 

in April 2015 (FY 2015) and enters into 

a program improvement plan in 

September 2015 that includes the 

recurrence of maltreatment indicator 

would have its baseline calculated 

based on its performance in FY 2014. 

Since recurrence of maltreatment 

requires two years of NCANDS data, the 

applicable data periods would be FY 

2013 and FY 2014. 

Public Comments and CB Response: 

No comments were received on the 

proposal in this area and no changes 

were made. 

State Improvement Goals and 

Thresholds: We will establish 

improvement factors for program 

improvement goals and thresholds (if 

applicable) for the data indicators based 

on the variability in a state’s observed 

performance in the three most recent 

years of data. The improvement factor is 

multiplied to the state’s observed 

performance for each statewide data 

indicator needing improvement in the 

most recent year available at the start of 

the improvement plan. Thresholds are 

calculated for companion measures and 

reflect levels of performance decline 

that the state cannot cross for us to 

consider the state to have successfully 

completed the primary statewide 

indicator. Thresholds are simply the 

inverse of the improvement goals. 

The resulting improvement goal or 

threshold may be limited or increased 

for a state based on minimum and 

maximum levels for improvement that 

we have set for each indicator. We will 

set the minimum and maximum 

improvement levels so that no states are 

required to improve by more than the 

amount of improvement at the 50th 

percentile, and all states engaged in a 

program improvement plan are to 

improve by at least the amount of 

improvement at the 20th percentile (or 

80th percentile, depending on whether 

higher or lower performance is 

preferable on the indicator). We will 

then use these values to replace the 

otherwise resulting improvement goal/

threshold. The technical detail of the 

several steps we will take for these 

calculations are presented in CFSR 

Technical Bulletin #8 as well as a full 

discussion about the methods chosen 

and our rationales for doing so. 

Table 2 provides the range of 

improvement factors for each statewide 

data indicator. If the state is required to 

improve for an indicator, the state will 

use their most recent year of observed 

performance as their baseline in 

determining the applicable 

improvement factor. For example, for 

the permanency in 12 months for 

children entering foster care indicator, 

improvement factors will be no lower 

than 1.035 and no higher than 1.057. If 

the value generated by a state’s own 

prior performance generates a value 

within that range, they would use that 

value. For example, if the baseline was 

40% and the state has to show the most 

improvement, they would simply 

multiply 1.057 with the baseline and 

obtain a goal of 42.28%. 

TABLE 2—MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM IMPROVEMENT ON THE STATEWIDE DATA INDICATORS

Statewide data indicators for safety outcome 1 Minimum Maximum 

Maltreatment in Foster Care .................................................................................................................................................... 0.922 0.849 

Recurrence of Maltreatment .................................................................................................................................................... 0.953 0.910 

Statewide data indicators for permanency outcome 1 Minimum Maximum 

Permanency in 12 Months for Children Entering Foster care ................................................................................................ 1.035 1.057 

Permanency in 12 Months for Children in Foster Care 12 to 23 months ............................................................................... 1.040 1.074 

Permanency in 12 Months for Children in Foster Care 24 Months or More .......................................................................... 1.034 1.080 

Re-Entry to Foster Care in 12 Months .................................................................................................................................... 0.912 0.867 

Placement Stability .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.953 0.912 

Public Comment and CB Response: 

Some commenters expressed support for 

the program improvement methodology 

related to statewide data indicators as 

an overall concept. Such comments 

included support for the use of 

companion measures and thresholds as 

well as the use of historical performance 

as the basis for performance 

improvement targets. However, others 

commented that they were confused 

about the methods we proposed and 

that they would have difficulty 

explaining them to stakeholders. 

Commenters requested more explicit 

descriptions on how we will establish 

goals and threshold and on the 

consequences for states that have 

performance that drops below a 

threshold during program improvement. 

Further, a number of commenters 

stated that there was not enough 

information in the original document to 

inform further comments and 

challenged a number of our methods 

chosen as technically inaccurate. These 

commenters noted concerns with 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 61253 

establishing states performance 

improvement goals based on only three 

data points; using four standard 

deviations as the distance required for 

improvement; employing the 

Chebyshev’s theorem; and how the 

application of these techniques could 

lead to states failing to meet the 

minimal level of improvement. As 

alternatives, commenters suggested the 

use of two standard deviations; relying 

upon available data, such as historical 

AFCARS and NCANDS data; applying 

the Empirical Rule rather than using the 

Chebyshev theorem; and allowing 

performance goals to be mutually 

negotiated between states and ACF. 

We made several changes in response 

to these comments. First, we have 

provided a more thorough explanation 

of our methods and rationales for those 

methods in CFSR Technical Bulletin #8 

as we believe it is important for states 

to see the full detail of our methods. We 

also took another look at the application 

of four standard deviations in 

developing the improvement factors 

given the concerns about setting goals 

that were too large. After we conducted 

additional analysis of the resulting 

improvement factors we agree with 

commenters that in some circumstances 

employing the 4 standard deviations 

would result in more aggressive 

improvement factors than round 2 even 

when also setting minimum and 

maximum improvement expectations at 

the 80th and 20th percentiles. In 

response, we have adjusted the 

approach to use 2 standard deviations 

and also to set the maximum 

improvement of all states’ expectations 

to the 50th percentile of all states’ 

original improvement factors, when 

calculated for every state and ordered 

from highest to lowest. 

Another commenter requested 

additional information on whether 

improvement goals and thresholds for 

the statewide data indicators can be 

negotiated. As was the case in the prior 

round, we have standardized the 

approach to establish improvement 

factors that are applied to the state’s 

baseline and are not negotiating the 

amount of improvement on the 

indicators. However, we will negotiate 

with a state how to design its program 

improvement approaches to attain the 

improvement goals. We will also still 

allow a state the opportunity during a 

program improvement plan to provide 

data that can be verified, reproduced 

and otherwise approved by ACF, as 

evidence that the state has met the 

requirement for attaining the required 

improvement. 

A commenter requested clarification 

on whether the same multi-level 

modeling and risk adjustment will be 

utilized in assessing a state’s 

performance over time to account for 

fluctuations in the state’s population. 

When assessing a state’s performance 

over time to determine whether or not 

states meet program improvement plan 

goals, we will not be using the same 

multi-level modeling and risk 

adjustment approach. We will be using 

the state’s own observed performance 

on the indicators, regardless of changes 

in the state’s population to make these 

determination. 

Successful completion of program 

improvement relative to the indicators: 

Although not specifically outlined in 

our original proposal, we wanted to 

clarify that a state can complete its 

program improvement plan successfully 

with regard to the indicators in a couple 

of ways. One is by meeting its 

improvement goal and not exceeding 

the threshold for its companion 

measure, if applicable, at some point 

before the end of the program 

improvement monitoring. Alternatively, 

CB can relieve a state of any further 

obligation to improve for CFSR 

purposes if the state meets the national 

standard for an indicator prior to the 

approval of a program improvement 

plan or during the course of program 

improvement monitoring. This latter 

provision also means that a state need 

not meet a program improvement goal 

(by application of the improvement 

factor or the minimum or maximum 

improvement level) for an indicator if 

the state first meets the national 

standard for that indicator. 

Data 

Data Profiles: We will provide data 

profiles of state performance to each 

state before the state’s CFSR on all seven 

of the statewide data indicators and 

other contextual data available from 

AFCARS and NCANDS. This data 

profile will assist the state to develop its 

statewide assessment and begin 

planning for program improvement, if 

appropriate. In addition, we will 

provide data profiles semi-annually to 

assist states in measuring progress 

toward the goals identified in the 

program improvement plan. 

Public Comment and CB Response: 

Several commenters appreciated our 

commitment to providing data semiannually, recognizing their importance 

in preparing for CFSRs and improving 

practice on a more general basis. Several 

commenters requested specific 

categories of information that would be 

beneficial for continuous quality 

improvement activities. Requested 

information included disaggregated data 

for the statewide data indicators, a rate 

of placement that is not tied to federal 

performance standards, and indicators 

of juvenile justice case type and a 

child’s Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) 

eligibility and status. 

In CFSR Technical Bulletin #8 we 

have outlined the content of the data 

profiles that we will send to states so 

that they can evaluate their performance 

in completing the statewide assessment. 

We have also outlined our plans for data 

profile content that will be sent to states 

during program improvement, if 

necessary. We welcome continued input 

from states on the content of program 

improvement profiles that will support 

their analysis in developing strategies 

for improvement. However, we also 

encourage states to conduct analysis on 

any data available to the state, including 

data that is not submitted to CB such as 

juvenile justice case type and ICWA 

status, to inform their understanding of 

their performance and measure 

progress. 

Data Quality: Excluding States From 

National Standards or State 

Performance 

Setting national standards and 

measuring state performance on 

statewide data indicators for CFSR 

purposes relies upon the states 

submitting high-quality data to AFCARS 

and NCANDS. Therefore we will 

exclude states that have data quality 

issues that exceed the data quality limits 

established from the model we use to 

calculate the national standard (i.e., the 

national observed performance) and 

estimate states’ risk adjusted 

performance. 

Because errors in the data can 

misrepresent state performance, we 

made the decision to remove a state 

from the analysis entirely if they exceed 

certain limits on the data quality checks. 

We reviewed state-by-state performance 

on each data quality item before 

establishing these limits. Because we do 

not want to be too strict and exclude a 

great number of states, we were 

conservative and set the limits high for 

common issues (e.g. 10% for dropped 

cases). However, some checks are 

critical to calculations (such as a count 

of placements for the placement 

stability measure), and we set the limits 

a bit lower (5%) in order to not 

misrepresent state performance. 

Data Quality: Case-Level Exclusions 

For those states that do not exceed the 

data quality thresholds but still have 

identified data quality problems, we 

will include the state in national 

standards calculations and measure 

state performance but we will exclude 

child-level records with missing or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

61254 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

invalid data on elements needed to 

determine the child’s outcome and 

perform the risk adjustment. For 

example, if the risk adjustment for an 

indicator includes age at entry, a child 

whose age at entry cannot be 

determined (due to a missing date of 

birth) will not be included in the 

analysis. For each indicator, we will 

provide each state with a list of records 

that were excluded from the analyses. 

Public Comments and CB Response: 

Two commenters expressed support for 

our approach to addressing data quality 

issues in estimating national standards 

and a state’s risk adjusted performance. 

One commenter urged us to hold states 

responsible for producing ‘‘high-quality, 

consistent, and complete data’’ pointing 

out that we have not found any state in 

the past 13 years, to be in full 

compliance with the AFCARS standards 

through ACF’s AFCARS Assessment 

Reviews. The other commenter 

commended us for recognizing that 

quality data is critical to assessing 

performance. Another commenter was 

concerned that the thresholds meant 

that the standards could not be 

considered national; while another 

wanted the thresholds raised to allow 

more states to either participate in the 

national standard calculations or have 

their state performance evaluated. 

We concur with those commenters 

that believe that data quality standards 

are necessary to ensure the integrity of 

our performance assessment. We believe 

we have maintained an appropriate 

balance in setting data quality 

thresholds so as not to exclude states 

unreasonably. In terms of the national 

standards, the number of states 

excluded was relatively few. For the 

indicators permanency by 12 months for 

the 12 to 23 month and 2 or more years 

first day cohorts, one state was excluded 

from the national standard calculation. 

For the permanency by 12 months entry 

cohort indicator, three states were 

excluded. For the reentry to foster care, 

recurrence of maltreatment and 

maltreatment in foster care indicators, 

four states were excluded. Six states 

were excluded from the calculation of 

the national standard for the placement 

stability indicator. We will continue to 

work with states that have their data 

excluded from the national standards or 

evaluation of state performance and 

advise on how they can address the data 

quality issues in their systems. 

(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1320a–1a; 45 CFR 

1355.31–37.) 

Mark Greenberg, 

Acting Commissioner, Administration on 

Children, Youth and Families. 

Attachment A: Statewide Data 

Indicators 

Category Measure title Measure 

description Denominator Numerator Exclusions & notes Risk adjustment 

Safety ............. Maltreatment in 

Foster Care.

Of all children in 

foster care during a 12-month 

period, what is 

the rate of victimization per 

day of foster 

care? 

For national standard calculation, 

uses AFCARS 

periods 2013A 

and 2013B and 

NCANDS 

FY2013 Child 

File. 

Of children in foster care during a 

12-month period, 

the total number 

of days these 

children were in 

foster care as of 

the end of the 

12-month period a.

Of children in the 

denominator, the 

total number of 

substantiated or 

indicated reports 

of maltreatment 

(by any perpetrator) during a 

foster care episode within the 

12-month period b.

—If a state provides incident 

dates, records 

with an incident 

date occurring 

outside of the removal episode 

will be excluded, 

even if report 

dates fall within 

the episode.

—Complete foster 

care episodes 

lasting <8 days 

are excluded. 

—Any report that 

occurs within the 

first 7 days of removal is excluded. 

—Age at entry (for 

children entering) or age on 

first day of the 

12-month period 

(for children already in care). 

—Victims age 18 

or more are excluded, as well 

as youth in foster care at 18 or 

more. For youth 

who start out as 

17 years of age 

and turn 18 during the period, 

any time in foster care beyond 

his/her 18th 

birthday is not 

counted in the 

denominator. 

—Cases are 

matched across 

AFCARS and 

NCANDS using 

AFCARS ID. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 61255 

Category Measure title Measure 

description Denominator Numerator Exclusions & notes Risk adjustment 

Safety ............. Recurrence of Maltreatment.Of all children who 

were victims of a 

substantiated or 

indicated report 

of maltreatment 

during a 12- 

month period, 

what percent 

were victims of 

another substantiated or indicated report of 

maltreatment 

within 12 months 

of their initial report? 

For national standard calculation, 

uses NCANDS 

FY 2012 and FY 

2013 Child Files. 

Number of children 

with at least one 

substantiated or 

indicated report 

of maltreatment 

in a 12-month 

period.

Number of children 

in the denominator that had 

another substantiated or indicated report of 

maltreatment 

within 12 months 

of their initial report.

Relies primarily on 

the report date 

to determine 

whether the maltreatment occurred in the first 

12-month period; 

therefore, if a 

case does not 

reach disposition 

until the following 12-month 

period but has a 

report date in 

the first, we include it.

—If subsequent report is within 14 

days, we do not 

count it. 

—If incident date 

indicates that 

two reports refer 

to the same incident, we do not 

count it. 

—If report date is 

prior to the first 

12 months, we 

exclude it. 

—Youth age 18 or 

more are excluded from the 

measure. 

—Age at initial victimization. 

Permanency ... Permanency in 12 

Months for Children Entering 

Foster Care.

Of all children who 

enter foster care 

in a 12-month 

period, what percent discharged 

to permanency 

within 12 months 

of entering foster 

care? c

For national standard calculation, 

uses AFCARS 

periods 2011B 

through 2013A. 

Number of children 

who enter foster 

care in a 12- 

month period.

Number of children 

in the denominator who discharged to permanency within 

12 months of entering foster care 

and before turning 18.

—Children in foster 

care <8 days are 

excluded.

—Children who 

enter foster care 

at age 18 or 

more are excluded. 

—Trial home visit 

adjustment is 

applied. 

—Age at entry. 

—State’s foster 

care entry rate. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

61256 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Category Measure title Measure 

description Denominator Numerator Exclusions & notes Risk adjustment 

Permanency ... Permanency in 12 

Months for Children in Foster 

Care 12–23 

Months.

Of all children in 

foster care on 

the first day of a 

12-month period 

who had been in 

foster care (in 

that episode) between 12 and 23 

months, what 

percent discharged from 

foster care to 

permanency 

within 12 months 

of the first day of 

the 12-month 

period? 

For national standard calculation, 

uses AFCARS 

periods 2013B 

and 2014A. 

Number of children 

in foster care on 

the first day of a 

12-month period, 

who had been in 

foster care (in 

that episode) between 12 and 23 

months.

Number of children 

in the denominator who discharged from 

foster care to 

permanency 

within 12 months 

of the first day of 

the 12-month 

period and before turning 18.

—Children age 18 

or more on the 

first day of the 

12-month period 

are excluded.

—Trial home visit 

adjustment is 

applied. 

—Age on first day. 

Permanency ... Permanency in 12 

Months for Children in Foster 

Care 24 Months 

or More.

Of all children in 

foster care on 

the first day of a 

12-month period, 

who had been in 

foster care (in 

that episode) for 

24 months or 

more, what percent discharged 

to permanency 

within 12 months 

of the first day of 

the 12-month 

period? 

For national standard calculation, 

uses AFCARS 

periods 2013B 

and 2014A. 

Number of children 

in foster care on 

the first day of a 

12-month period, 

who had been in 

foster care (in 

that episode) for 

24 months or 

more.

Number of children 

in the denominator who discharged from 

foster care to 

permanency 

within 12 months 

of the first day of 

the 12-month 

period and before turning 18.

—Children age 18 

or more on the 

first day of the 

12-month period 

are excluded. 

—Trial home visit 

adjustment is 

applied. 

—Age on first day. 

Permanency ... Re-Entry to Foster 

Care in 12 

Months.

Of all children who 

enter foster care 

in a 12-month 

period, who discharged within 

12 months to reunification, live 

with relative, or 

guardianship, 

what percent reenter foster care 

within 12 months 

of their discharge? a

For national standard calculation, 

uses AFCARS 

periods 2011B 

through 2014A. 

Number of children 

who enter foster 

care in a 12- 

month period 

and discharged 

within 12 months 

to reunification, 

live with relative(s), or 

guardianship.

Number of children 

in the denominator who reenter foster care 

within 12 months 

of their discharge.

—Children in foster 

care <8 days are 

excluded.

—Children who 

enter or exit foster care at age 

18 or more are 

excluded, 

—If a child has 

multiple re-entries within 12 

months of their 

discharge, only 

his first re-entry 

is selected. 

—Age at exit. 

—State’s foster 

care entry rate. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 61257 

Category Measure title Measure 

description Denominator Numerator Exclusions & notes Risk adjustment 

Permanency ... Placement Stability Of all children who 

enter foster care 

in a 12-month 

period, what is 

the rate of placement moves per 

day of foster 

care? 

For national standard calculation, 

uses AFCARS 

periods 2013B 

and 2014A. 

Of children who 

enter foster care 

in a 12-month 

period, the total 

number of days 

these children 

were in foster 

care as of the 

end of the 12- 

month period d.

Of children in the 

denominator, the 

total number of 

placement 

moves during 

the 12-month 

period e.

—Children in foster 

care <8 days are 

excluded.

—Children who 

enter foster care 

at age 18 or 

more are excluded. For 

youth who enter 

at 17 years of 

age and turn 18 

during the period, any time in 

foster care beyond his/her 

18th birthday or 

placement 

changes after 

that date are not 

counted. 

—Age at entry. 

—The initial removal from 

home (and into 

care) is not 

counted as a 

placement move. 

Notes: The letters ‘A’ and ‘B’ are shorthand for the six-month AFCARS reporting periods. The ‘A’ period spans October 1st–March 31st, and 

the ‘B’ period spans April 1st–September 30th of any given year. The year always refers to the year in which the six-month period ends. For example, 2014A refers to the six month period of 10/1/2013 through 3/31/2014. aFor example, if during the 12-month period there were two children in foster care, one child for 10 days (1st episode), the same child for 40 

days (2nd episode), and the other child for 100 days (his only episode), the denominator would = 150 days (10+40+100). bFor example, if during the 12-month period there were two children in foster care, and one child had 3 substantiated or indicated reports and 

the other had 1 such report, the numerator would = 4 reports (3+1). c If a child has multiple entries during the 12-month period, only the first entry in the 12-month period is selected. 

dFor example, if during the 12-month period two children entered care, one child for 10 days and the other child for 100 days, the denominator 

would be 110 days (10+100). eFor example, if during the 12-month period two children entered care, and one child had 3 moves and the other had 1 move, the numerator 

would = 4 moves (3+1). 

Attachment B: Comparison of Data 

Measures—CFSR Round 2 and Round 3 

Category Measure title CFSR round 3 indicator Comparable CFSR round 2 

measure How and why it’s changed 

Safety ....... Maltreatment in foster care ..... Of all children in foster care 

during a 12-month period, 

what is the rate of victimization per day a of foster care? 

Of all children in foster care 

during the reporting period, 

what percent were not victims of substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff 

member? 

In the CFSR 2 measure, 

counts of children not maltreated in foster care are derived by subtracting the 

NCANDS count of children 

maltreated by foster care 

providers from the total 

count of all children placed 

in foster care, as reported in 

AFCARS. Because of improved reporting by states, 

we now link AFCARS and 

NCANDS data using the 

child ID and determine if 

maltreatment occurred during a foster care episode, 

improving accuracy on the 

indicator. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

61258 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Category Measure title CFSR round 3 indicator Comparable CFSR round 2 

measure How and why it’s changed 

This also allows us to expand 

the measure to include all 

types of perpetrators (including, for example, parents) 

under the assumption that 

states should be held accountable for keeping children safe from harm while in 

the care of the state, no 

matter who the perpetrator 

is. 

Safety ....... Recurrence of maltreatment ... Of all children who were victims of substantiated or indicated maltreatment allegation during a 12 month period, what percent were victims of another substantiated or indicated maltreatment allegation within the 

next 12 months? 

Of all children who were victims of substantiated or indicated maltreatment allegation during the first 6 months 

of the reporting period, what 

percent were not victims of 

another substantiated or indicated maltreatment allegation within a 6-month period? 

We will use a full 12-month 

period rather than only 6 

months to capture the denominator, to create more 

stable estimates. We will 

also track them for another 

full 12 month to see if there 

is a recurring maltreatment. 

The indicator also includes 

these changes: If the subsequent report is within 14 

days, we will not count it. 

While the measure relies on 

report date, we will also 

make use of the incident 

data, when available. If the 

incident date indicates that 

two reports refer to the 

same incident, we will not 

count it. 

Finally, youth age 18 or more 

are excluded from the 

measure. 

Permanency.Permanency in 12 months for 

children entering foster care.

Of all children who enter foster 

care in a 12-month period, 

what percent discharged to 

permanency within 12 

months of entering foster 

care? 

Composite 1.3: Of all children 

entering foster care for the 

first time in a 6-month period, what percent discharged to reunification (or 

live with relative) within 12 

months of entering foster 

care or by the time they 

reached 18? 

We now count all types of permanency (reunification, live 

with relative, adoption or 

guardianship) as having 

‘met’ the indicator. 

We also expanded the measure to include all children 

who entered foster care that 

year; not just those on their 

first removal episode. 

We also expanded the window 

of time for the entry cohort 

to a full year instead of 6 

months; this will yield more 

stable estimates. 

Permanency.Permanency in 12 months for 

children in foster care between 12 and 23 months.

Of all children in foster care on 

the first day of a 12-month 

period who had been in foster care (in that episode) between 12 and 23 months, 

what percent discharged to 

permanency within 12 

months of the first day? 

In CFSR Round 2, we looked 

at reunifications within 12 

months as part of a measure within Composite 1, and 

we looked at adoptions in 

24 months as part of Composite 2.

We add this cohort to allow for 

children and youth in foster 

care who have already been 

in foster care between 1 and 

2 years to be a focus for 

permanency, as well. 

We expect this population to 

have a higher percentage of 

exits to adoption or guardianship than those entering 

care during the year. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 61259 

Category Measure title CFSR round 3 indicator Comparable CFSR round 2 

measure How and why it’s changed 

Permanency.Permanency in 12 months for 

children in foster care for 24 

months or longer.

Of all children in foster care on 

the first day of a 12-month 

period who had been in foster care (in that episode) for 

24 months or longer, what 

percent discharged to permanency within 12 months 

of the first day? 

Composite 3.1: Of all children 

in foster care on the first day 

of a 12-month period who 

had been in foster care (in 

that episode) for 2 or more 

years, what percent discharged to permanency 

within 12 months of the first 

day or by the time they 

reached 18? 

Same measure; no change. 

The difference is that it is 

now evaluated on its own, 

rather than as just one part 

of a composite measure. 

We believe it is important to 

hold states accountable for 

getting those children and 

youth who have been in foster care for long periods of 

time to permanent homes. 

Permanency.Re-entry in 12 months ............ Of all children who enter foster 

care in a 12-month period 

and discharged within 12 

months to reunification, live 

with relative, or guardianship, what percent re-entered foster care within 12 

months of their date of discharge? 

Composite 1.4: Of all children 

discharged from foster care 

to reunification or live with a 

relative in a 12-month period, what percent re-entered foster care in less than 

12 months from the date of 

discharge? 

The new indicator is limited to 

those children who entered 

foster care during the year, 

whereas the CFSR Round 2 

measure counted all children who discharged to reunification or live with relative, regardless of when 

they entered foster care. 

The purpose of this focus is 

in keeping with the rationale 

that new interventions may 

best be monitored in an 

entry cohort. This indicator 

will also be used as a companion measure with permanency in 12 months, to ensure that states working to 

improve permanency rates 

in their entry cohort do not 

see worsening performance 

on rates of re-entry to foster 

care. 

We also expanded the denominator to allow discharges to 

guardianship, in an effort to 

capture more discharges to 

permanency. Exits to adoption are not included because they cannot be 

tracked reliably, as some 

states issue new child identifiers if a child who was previously adopted enters foster care. 

Permanency.Placement stability .................. Of all children who enter foster 

care in a 12-month period, 

what is the rate of placement moves per day b of 

foster care? 

Composite 4.1: Of all children 

served in foster care during 

the 12-month period, what 

percent had two or fewer 

placement settings? 

The proposed indicator controls for length of time in foster care, so we are looking 

at moves per day of foster 

care, rather than children as 

the unit of analysis. 

The rationale for using an 

entry cohort rather than all 

children served is that our 

analysis shows children entering foster care tend to 

move much more than those 

children/youth in foster care 

for longer periods of time, 

whose placements may 

have stabilized. 

In CFSR Round 2 measure, 

moves that took place prior 

to the monitoring period 

were counted. Now we only 

count those moves that 

occur during the monitoring 

period. The initial placement 

is not counted. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

61260 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Category Measure title CFSR round 3 indicator Comparable CFSR round 2 

measure How and why it’s changed 

The CFSR Round 2 measure 

treated children who moved 

2 times in an episode the 

same as children who 

moved 15 times; both were 

a failure to meet the measure. The new indicator 

counts each move, so it 

continues to hold states accountable for those children/

youth who have already 

moved several times. 

aThe rate may be expressed per 100,000 days because it is such a rare event. Using this metric gives us larger numbers that are easier to 

communicate. bThe rate is expressed per 1,000 days to convert the rate to a metric that gives us larger numbers. 

Attachment C: Data Elements Used for 

Statewide Data Indicators 

For information regarding AFCARS 

data elements, refer to http://www.acf.

hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/afcarstb1. 

For information regarding NCANDS 

data elements, refer to http://

www.ndacan.cornell.edu/datasets/pdfs_

user_guides/178-NCANDS-child2012v1- 

User-Guide-and-Codebook.pdf. 

Primary data elements required 

for calculation 

Permanency in 

12 months 

(all 3 indicators) 

Re-entry to foster 

care in 12 months Placement stability Recurrence of maltreatment 

Maltreatment in 

foster care 

AFCARS FC Element #1 1: Title IV–E 

Agency ............................................... X X X NA X 

AFCARS FC Element #4: Record Number ...................................................... X X X NA X 

AFCARS FC Element #21: Date of Latest Removal ....................................... X X X NA X 

AFCARS FC Element #23: Date of 

Placement in Current Foster Care 

Setting ................................................ NA NA X NA NA 

AFCARS FC Element #24: Number of 

Placement Settings during this Removal Episode .................................... NA NA X NA NA 

AFCARS FC Element #56: Date of Discharge from FC .................................. X X X NA X 

AFCARS FC Element #58: Reason for 

Discharge ........................................... X X NA NA NA 

NCANDS CF Element #4: Child ID ....... NA NA NA X NA 

NCANDS CF Element #6: Report Date NA NA NA X X 

NCANDS CF Element #27: Child Maltreatment 1—Disposition Level 2 ........ NA NA NA X X 

NCANDS CF Element #29: Child Maltreatment 2—Disposition Level .......... NA NA NA X X 

NCANDS CF Element #31: Child Maltreatment 3—Disposition Level .......... NA NA NA X X 

NCANDS CF Element #33: Child Maltreatment 4—Disposition Level .......... NA NA NA X X 

NCANDS CF Element #34: Maltreatment death ......................................... NA NA NA X X 

NCANDS CF Element #145: AFCARS 

ID ........................................................ NA NA NA NA X 

Optional Data Elements: 

AFCARS FC Element #41: Current 

Placement Setting ....................... X NA NA NA NA 

NCANDS CF #146 Incident Date ... NA NA NA X X 

Additional Data Elements Required for 

Risk-Adjusted Analysis: 

AFCARS FC Element #6: Child’s 

Date of Birth ................................ X X X NA X 

NCANDS CF Element #14: Child 

Age .............................................. NA NA NA X NA 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 61261 

Primary data elements required 

for calculation 

Permanency in 

12 months 

(all 3 indicators) 

Re-entry to foster 

care in 12 months Placement stability Recurrence of maltreatment 

Maltreatment in 

foster care 

U.S. Census Bureau: Child Population, by State (Used to derive 

state foster care entry rates) ....... X3 X NA X X 

1The elements are numbered by their position in the flat ASCII files submitted by states to these reporting systems. These numbering schema 

are specific to the files utilized by ACYF. Files obtained through the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect (NDACAN) may have a 

slightly different order. 2 Definition of ‘victim’ includes all children with a disposition level (for any of up to four maltreatments per child) of: a) Substantiated, or b) Indicated. These do not propose including differential response victims. Victims also include children who died as a result of maltreatment. 3 Relevant to Permanency by 12 months for the entry cohort only. 

Attachment D: Data Quality Items, 

Limits, and Applicable Measures 

Data quality item Data quality limit Maltreatment in 

foster care 

Recurrence of 

maltreatment 

Permanency in 12 

months (all 3 indicators) & re-entry 

to foster care in 

12 months 

Placement stability 

AFCARS—Cross File Checks: 

Dropped cases ............................... >10% X n/a X X 

AFCARS IDs don’t match from one 

period to next .............................. >40% X n/a X X 

AFCARS—Within-file checks: 

Missing date of birth ....................... >5% X n/a X X 

Missing date of latest removal ........ >5% X n/a X X 

Missing # of placement settings ..... >5% n/a n/a n/a X 

Date of birth after date of entry ...... >5% X n/a X X 

Date of birth after date of exit ........ >5% X n/a X X 

Age at entry greater than 21 .......... >5% X n/a X X 

Age at discharge greater than 21 ... >5% X n/a X X 

In foster care more than 21 years .. >5% X n/a X X 

Enters and exits care the same day >5% X n/a X X 

Exit date is prior to removal date ... >5% X n/a X X 

Missing discharge reason (exit date 

exists) .......................................... >5% n/a n/a X n/a 

Percent of children on 1st removal <95% X n/a X X 

NCANDS Data—Cross File Checks: 

Child IDs don’t match across years <1% n/a X n/a n/a 

Child IDs match across years, but 

dates of birth and sex do not 

match .......................................... >5% X X n/a n/a 

Some victims with AFCARS IDs 

should match IDs in AFCARS 

files .............................................. Y/N X n/a n/a n/a 

Some victims have AFCARS IDs ... <1% X n/a n/a n/a 

NCANDS Within file checks: 

Missing age .................................... >5% X X n/a n/a 

Note. If a state exceeds these specified limits, we will not calculate performance for the state on the indicator. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24204 Filed 10–9–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4184–25–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

46 CFR Part 67 

[Docket No. USCG–2014–0688] 

RIN 1625–ZA33 

Shipping and Transportation; 

Technical, Organizational, and 

Conforming Amendments 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Correcting Amendment. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard published a 

final rule in the Federal Register on 

September 29, 2014, that made nonsubstantive corrections throughout Title 

46 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 

In that final rule, the Coast Guard 

revised a paragraph by substituting an 

incorrect word with one that was 

presumed correct. The substitution is 

actually incorrect, and the original word 

was correct. This correction resolves 

that error by replacing the word that we 

incorrectly removed. 

DATES: This correction is effective on 

October 10, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this correction, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES