Department of Health and Human Servces 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Independent Living Programs 

for Foster Care Youths 

Strategies for Improved 

ACF Management and Reportg 

S,tRVJC'E.r, 

.; 

;,(iYd3a 

JU GffBS BROWN 

Inspector General 

November 1994 

#OEI-01-93-0 
OFFCE OF INSPECTOR GENERA 

The mission of the Offce of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, as 

amended, is to protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Servces ' (HHS) 

programs as well as the health and welfare of beneficiaries served by those programs. This 

statutory mission is carried out through a nationwide network of audits, investigations, and 

inspections conducted by three OIG operating components: the Offce of Audit Servces, the 

Offce of Investigations, and the Office of Evaluation and Inspections. The OIG also inform 

the Secretary of HHS of program and management problems and recommends courses to 

correct them. 

OFFCE OF AUDIT SERVICE 

The OIG's Office of Audit Servces (OAS) provides all auditing servces for HHS, either by 

conducting audits with its own audit resources or by overseeing audit work done by others. 

Audits examine the performance of HHS programs and/or its grantees and contractors in 

carrng out their respective responsibilities and are intended to provide independent 

assessments of HHS programs and operations in order to reduce waste, abuse, and 

mismanagement and to promote economy and efficiency throughout the Department. 

OFFCE OF INTIGATIONS 

The OIG's Offce of Investigations (01) conducts criminal, civil, and administrative 

investigations of allegations of wrongdoing in HHS programs or to HHS beneficiaries and of 

unjust enrichment by providers. The investigative efforts of 01 lead to criminal convictions 

administrative sanctions, or civil money penalties. The 01 also oversees State Medicaid fraud 

control units which investigate and prosecute fraud and patient abuse in the Medicaid program. 

OFFICE OF EVALUATION AN INSPECTONS 

The OIG's Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) conducts short-term management and 

program evaluations (called inspections) that focus on issues of concern to the Department 

the Congress, and the public. The findings and recommendations contained in these inspection 

reports generate rapid , accurate, and up-to-date information on the effciency, vulnerabilty, 

and effectiveness of departmental programs. 

The report was prepared under the direction of Mark R. Yessian, Ph. , the Regional 

Inspector General, and Martha B. Kvaal, Deputy Regional Inspector General, Boston Region 

Offce of Evaluation and Inspections. Participating in this project were the following people: 

Boton Region Headquarrs 

Timothy Corbett Ann O'Connor Program Specialist 

David Veroff


For additional copies of this report, please contact the Boston regional offce by telephone at 

(617) 565-1050, or by fax at (617) 565-3751. 
.. 

Department of Health and Human Servces 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Independent Living Programs 

for Foster Care Youths 

Strategies for Improved 

ACF Management and Reportg 

SERVICEs 

p. 

qYd'3a 

JU GffBS BROWN 

Inspector General 

November 1994 

#OEI-01-93-
EXECUTIVE SUMMAR Y 

PUROSE 

To assist the Administr!!tion for Chidren and Famies in its efforts to improve its 

management and program reporting strategies for the Title IV-E Independent Living 

Program for foster care youths. 

BACKGROUN 

Prgr goals: Though the Title IV-E Independent Living Program (ILP), the 

Deparent's Administration for Children and Familes (ACF) supports State efforts 

to assist adolescents in foster care--and adolescents who were previously in foster care 

after age 16--to prepare for independent adult life. Such efforts are intended to 

enable youths to find housing and employment, achieve positive social relationships 

perform daily living activities, and live independently of public support. Federal 

instructions to the States note that they "may use varyng methods and strategies to 

achieve the program objectives " though program funds may not be used for room 

and board, and must supplement, rather than replace, existing expenditures. 

This repn: The program received permanent reauthorization in August 1993, at 

$70 milion per year. The ACF has taken this occasion as an opportunity to 

reexamie its approach to the program, and has asked the OIG to provide information 

and ideas on improved long-term management and program reporting strategies. We 

have drawn upon several priary sources of information, including a record review 

structured on-site and telephone discussions with State and ACF staff, and a focus 

group with members of the National Independent Livig Association. 

ACF AN TI FU OF INEPENEN LIG 

The ACF recognizes that it must address a number of issues as it considers how it can 

best fu its management and oversight responsibilities. These include questions 

about the agency s general role in independent livig, the integration of independent 

living into the spectrum of child welfare servces, and the Federal government s overall 

approach to the needs of youths. 

RECOMMED STRTEGIE 

We recommend two broad strategies that ACF should undertake in order to better 

ensure accountabilty, promote quality State servces, and enhance understanding in 

the field of independent living. The ACF' s decisions regarding its overall approach to 

independent living, as outlined above, will help direct its choice of specific options in 

each area. 
TH ACF SHOUW REUCT IT INEPENEN LIG PROGRA 

APPUCATION AN PROGRA REORTIG PROCEUR. 

Issues of Concern: 

The ACF's current application and program reporting mechansms do not adequately 

support State plannng and do not allow ACF to gain an accurate national picture of 

independent livig efforts. The lack of such information weakens basic accountabilty 

and hinders efforts to improve programs and to determe effective practices. 

The current application process discourages effective plamrg and full 

integration with other child welfare servces. 

Program reporting by the States has been inconsistent. 

The application and program reports have not focused adequately on program 

performance and outcomes. 

Options for Improvement: 

Requie and support better State plang: 

Create a consolidated State plan for chid welfare servces that includes 

independent living, and set mium requirements to ensure that relevant 

issues are adequately addressed. 

Require States to establish measurable goals and targets, and to report on their 

progress. 

Adjust the timing of the State plan and the grant award to ensure that funds 

are made available by the beginnig of the fiscal year. 

Strengten independent lig reportg mechanms: 

Retain a distinct focus on independent living and youths in any State chid 

welfare reporting system. 

Use a simple, standard reporting form for aggregate information in order 

improve the reliabilty of data, while mizing the burden on the States. 

Utilize the capabilities of State Automated Child Welfare Information Systems 

and the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System. 

Encourage electronic reporting specifically for independent living. 
Improve the content of independent lig reportg: 

Establish a basic data set for independent living, including basic demographic 

servce, and outcomes information. 

Facilitate the development of clear definitions of independent living terms. 

Collect more detailed budget data through the program reporting mechanism. 

Solicit information on effective practices and innovations. 

Focu on progr performance and outcomes: 

Develop performance and outcomes measures for independent livig. 

Establish general parameters within which States could defie specifc outcomes 

and ways of measuring those outcomes. 

Focus on the status of youths at discharge. 

Encourage and assist State efforts to link independent living data systems with 

public assistance, unemployment, crimial justice and Internal Revenue Servce 

information systems.


Play an active role in independent living research. 

TH ACF SHOUW FOCUS IT MAAGEM AN PROGRA REORTIG EFORTS 

ON INORMTION SHAG. 

Issues of Concern: 

The ACF has not actively facilitated information sharing among States, components of 

ACF, and other Federal agencies. This lack of good communication may be limiting 

opportunities for States to improve the quality of independent living servces and for 

ACF to provide effective advice to States and others on the program. 

The ACF has not generally made available to States information it currently 

collects and to which it has access. 

The ACF's interactions with States about the program, aside from the reports 

and applications, have been limited. 

State and ACF offcials see substantial room for improvement, and view more 

complete and accurate information sharing as key to such progress. 
Opons for Improvement: 

The ACF could capitalize on its investment in independent living by effectively 

gatherig, analyzng, and sharing among the States information on the program 

successes and difculties. Below, we identify several specifc options that ACF could 

consider. Some of these could be undertaken immediately with no extra financial 

commitment, while others might require additional funding. To fiance such activities 

in a tight budgetary environment, ACF could seek legislation to provide a set-aside 

from the Federal independent living appropriation for these purposes. 

Provde wrtten inormtion to the States: 

Report on State performance measures.


Disseminate qualitative updates on State activities. 

Share model forms and directories of avaiable resources. 

Facitate inormation sharg thoug ACF sta: 

Develop a focus for ACF youth programs in central and each regional offce. 

Incorporate independent living issues into other chid welfare monitorig 

activities. 

Become a resource on other Federal programs servng youths, and facilitate 

coordination among these and the Independent Living Program. 

COMMNT ON TI DRA REORT 

We shared our draft report with and solicited comments from the Administration for 

Children and Families (ACF), the Assistant Secretary for Plang and Evaluation, the 

Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget, and the Assistant Secretary for 

Legislation. We also solicited comments from the Child Welfare League of America 

(CWL) and the National Independent Living Association (NIL). 

We received written comments from ACF and from CWLA and NIL. They all 

concurred with our two recommendations. The CWL and NIL also commented 

favorably on several options we offered for each recommendation. 
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS€

EXCU SUMY


INODUCI0N 

. Purpose


. Background


. Methodology


. Structure of this report 

ACF AN TI FU OF INEPENENT LIG 

RECOMMED STTEGIE. 

. Restructuring the Independent Living Program 

application and program reporting procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

. . . . . . . 3 

. Focussing management and program reporting 

efforts on information sharing 

COMMNT ON TH DRA REORT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23 

APPENDICE 

A: Legislative history. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AB: Methodology ............................................... BC: Sample data collection forms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CD: Sample data elements . . . .. DE: Sample performance measures


F: Complete comments on the draft report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. FG: Notes ....................................... ........... G­

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-€
INTRODUCTION€

PUROSE 

To assist the Administration for Children and Famiies in its efforts to improve its 

management and program reporting strategies for the Title IV-E Independent Livig 

Program for foster care youths. 

BACKGROUN 

Though the Title IV-E Independent Living Program (ILP), the Department's 

Admistration for Children and Famiies (ACF) supports State efforts to assist 

adolescents in foster care--and adolescents who were previously in foster care after age 

16--to prepare for independent adult lie. Such efforts comprise "a series of 

developmental activities that provide opportunities for young people to gain the skis 

required to live healthy, productive, and responsible lives as self-suffcient adults. 

They are intended to enable youths to find housing and employment, achieve positive 

social relationships, perform daily living activities, and live independently of public 

support. 

Adolecen in th Chi Welfare System The chid welfare system has traditionally 

focused on the security and dependency needs of young chidren, and on permanency

plarg efforts that include family reunication and adoption. In recent years 

recognition has grown of the need for specialized efforts to serve older children, for 

whom family reunification or adoption may not be feasible options. Many of these 

adolescents will eventually "age out" of the substitute care system, usually at age 18 

and will face the need to live on their own. This transition to independent livig can 

be difcult for any young adult, but for foster care youths it can pose particularly 

formidable challenges. Many of these teenagers start out with distinct disadvantages 

including limited social support systems, unstable placements while in care, incomplete 

high school education, limited employment experience, emotional disturbance 

pregnancy and parenthood, drug abuse, and health problems. 

Th Fedral Indpennt Livg Prgrm: Congress created the Title IVIndependent Living Program in 1985. Among the allowable servces outlined in the 

legislation are programs to enable teens to seek a high school diploma, its equivalent 

or vocational training; provide training in daily living skills, including budgeting, 

housing, career planning, and health care; provide individual or group counseling; 

integrate and coordinate existing servces; establish outreach programs; provide a 

written transitional independent living plan to each participant, based on a needs 

assessment; and provide other servces. Federal instructions to the States note that 

they "may use varyng methods and strategies to achieve the program objectives," 

though program funds may not be used for room and board, and must supplement 

rather than replace, existing expenditures.4 (See appendix A for the legislative history 

of the program. 
, 

The program received permanent reauthoriation in August 1993, at $70 millon per 

year. Prior to that time, there was considerable uncertainty in the chid welfare 

community as to the program s prospects. Being unsure of continued Federal support, 

some States made only tentative commitments to independent living. The ACF 

liewise, refrained from promulgating regulations or devoting substantial time or 

resources to the development of oversight or technical assistance efforts for the 

program. 

AppliaJn and progrm reportg predes: To receive Independent Living Program 

fuds, each State must submit an application, which is due by February 1st (Le., durg 

the second quarter of the fiscal year for which funding is being requested). Required 

information includes a description of the servces and activities the State plans to carr 

out, how the State will build on previous years' activities , the number of eligible youths 

and the number expected to participate, and a description of the State s current 

efforts. Each State must also submit a year-end program report describing the 

previous year s activities; this report is due by January 1st. States are required to 

provide a description of servces and activities actually provided, a record of how funds 

were spent, and information on the demographics and the outcomes of paricipating 

youths. Periodic fiscal reports are also required. Beging in fiscal year 1994, the 

applications have been reviewed and approved by ACF's regional offces. 

Cuen ACF inties: The ACF is currently engaged in a reengieering process 

designed to improve its ability to support State child welfare programs. These efforts 

include examiations of ACF monitorig, grants management 7 and performance 

measurement. An agency team has been charged to make recommendations that 

ACF can use "in designing a new approach to monitoring that is cost effective and us The ACF comprehensive enough to address ongoing stewardship responsibilities. 

has indicated an interest in movig from compliance monitoring to greater information 

sharing. In designing this new approach, ACF will build on recommendations made in 

a recent Offce of Inspector General report Oversight of State Child Welfare 

Programs" (OEI-0l-92-00770). That report recommended, among other things, that 

ACF improve current planning and review processes, focus on outcomes and 

performance measures, and enhance information sharing. 

METHODOLOGY 

We have drawn upon 5 primary sources of information: (1) a review of program 

reports for fiscal years (FY) 1992 and ' , and applications for FY' s 1993 and ' 

from all 50 States and the District of Columbia; and a sample of State FY ' 93 fiscal 

reports; (2) structured telephone discussions with independent jiving coordinators in 

10 States; (3) structured discussions with ACF staff in central offce and each regional 

offce; (4) an in-depth site visit to 1 State to meet with the independent living 

coordinator, technical assistance and evaluation staff, county-level staff, and staff at a 

private youth-servng agency; and (5) a focus group and discussions with State 

coordinators and other professionals at the annual conference of the National 

Independent Living Association (NILA) in March 1994. In addition, we conducted 
informal visits to two State programs; attended a meeting of the independent living 

coordinators in Region I; held discussions with consultants, academics, and advocates 

in the field; reviewed legislation and literature on independent living; and examied 

ACF program information and directions. We also spoke informally with participating 

youths from Maine, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Arzona. (See appendix B for a 

more detailed description of our methodology. 

We conducted this inspection in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspections 

issued by the President's Council on Integrity and Effciency. 

STRUcr OF TI REORT 

The ACF has asked the OIG to provide information and ideas on improved long-term 

management and program reporting strategies. Because ACF is aware of the general 

limitations in its management of the program to date, we do not outlie these in a 

separate section.lO Instead, we begin with a discussion of several underlying 

considerations that will affect ACF's overall approach to independent living. We then 

recommend two broad strategies that ACF should undertake to better promote and 

support State independent living servces. Under each, we describe some of the issues 

of concern these address, and then identify a series of specific options for 

implementation. This report does not evaluate individual State efforts or specific 

program models. 
ACF AND THE FUTURE OF€

INDEPENDENT LIVING€

The recent permanent reauthorization of the Independent Livig Program has 

prompted ACF to reexamine its approach to the program. The agency wishes to 

determine how it might, withi anticipated resource constraints, better manage Federal 

independent livig resources and guide and oversee State programs. It would lie to 

determine, in particular, how best to prevent inappropriate or ineffective uses of 

independent living funds, while at the same time allowing flexibilty and promoting 

innovation among the States. The ACF recognzes that it must address a number of 

issues as it considers how best to fulfil these dual responsibilties, including questions 

in three basic areas: 

The ACF's general role in independent lig: How extensive a role does the 

agency wish to play in independent livig? How directive does it want to be? 

How will ACF's role in independent living be affected by the agency s broader 

reengineerig efforts, particularly with respect to monitorig and oversight? 

The legislation gives States great flexibilty in spending independent living funds; ACF 

has left program plannig and design largely to the discretion of the States. Most 

observers consider the program s flexibility--the ability to innovate and to creatively 

address the diverse needs of this population--to be a significant strength; it is our 

understanding that ACF does not intend to limit this flexibility in program approach. 

At the same time, ACF has indicated that it intends to improve its management of the 

program and to coIlect better information from the States. The agency is also 

exploring new approaches to program monitorig that will allow it to playa more 

consultative and proactive role. The ACF must decide how both to ensure 

accountabilty and to guide States within these varied objectives. 

Integration of independent lig into the spect of chid welfe servce: 

How will independent living be further integrated into the overall child welfare 

system? What implications will this have for ACF's role in independent living? 

What implications wiIl this have for program design, planning, and data 

collection? 

Those in the field widely agree on the desirability of integrating independent living 

efforts and philosophy into the overaIl continuum of chid welfare servces. At the 

same time, many argue that a continued programmatic emphasis on adolescents is 

necessary in order to ensure that their special needs are met. In times of limited 

resources and demanding case loads, it is argued, the needs of teens can too easily be 

sacrificed to the seemingly more immediate crises of small children suffering abuse or 

neglect. 
The ACF also has a basic responsibility to ensure that the funds directed by Congress 

toward the needs of adolescents in substitute care are in fact spent on this population. 

The ACF will have to consider ways of resolving these tensions; it will have to assist 

States in integrating independent living, without losing sight of it. 

An overa approach to the needs of yout: How will independent livig fit 

into the Federal Government s overall approach to the needs of youths? How 

might collaboration and coordination be improved? 

The ACF and other Federal agencies currently fund a variety of programs for youths. 

Programs administered by ACF include the Jobs Opportnities and Basic Skis 

program, servces to runaway and homeless youth, II and a variety of State efforts 

funded through general child welfare and social servces funding mechanisms. The 

Department of Housing and Urban Development funds transitional housing programs. 

The Department of Labor coordinates various employment and trainng programs 

including Jobs Training Partnership Act servces. The Department of Justice oversees 

a range of juvenile justice programs. The Deparent of Education plays a key role 

in educational programs. 

Coordination and collaboration among these efforts, however, is often hindered by 

poor communication, fragmented funding streams, and divided organizational 

responsibilities. Broader approaches to integratig and coordinating these programs 

and funding streams are desirable, and will inevitably have major implications for the 

tyes of program reporting structures ACF wi use for the program. 
RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES


In this section, we recommend two broad strategies that ACF should undertake in 

order to better ensure accountabilty, promote quality State servces, and enhance 

understanding in the field of independent living. We describe briefly the issues of 

concern addressed by each strategy and then identif a series of specific options for 

implementation. Some of these options are mutually exclusive; others fit well 

together. Our goal is to present ACF with a wide range of ideas on how its 

management and program reporting procedures could be improved. The ACF' 

decisions regarding its overall approach to independent living, as outlined in the 

preceding section, will help direct its choice of specific options in each area. 

We also intend that these approaches should benefit the States--by helping them to 

plan, to understand their own programs, and to learn from their peers. A number of 

the options we suggest could actually make the States' job easier by enhancing the 

clarity, effciency, and value of their reporting efforts. We identif some of the costs 

as well as the advantages of the various options. On balance, however, we believe 

that improved management and program reporting will benefit ACF, the States, and 

the youths whom the program seeks to serve. 

TI ACF SHOUl RETRUCT IT INEPENEN LIG PROGRA 

APPliCATION AN PROGRA REORTIG PROCEUR. 

ISSUE OF CONCE: 

The ACE's cu"ent application and program reportng mechanisms do not adequately 

support State planning and do not allow ACF to gain an accurate national picture of 

independent living efforts. No other source can provide a comprehensive picture of State 

activities. The lack of such information weakens basic accountability and hinders efforts 

to improve programs and to determine effective practices. The ACF is also missing an 

opponunity to guide and encourage high quality State program planning and development. 

The curent application process dicourages effecte plang and fu integrtion with 

other chid welfe servces. 

The separation between the Title IV-B joint plan for child welfare servces and the 

application for independent living funds has led some States to compartmentalize their 

plannng for their youth population.12 For example, one regional staffer noted that 

in one State, the independent living coordinator was not even invited to joint planning 

sessions. Another State coordinator described her contribution to the State joint plan 

as an "add-on ; her agency did not address the needs of youths in an integrated 

fashion in the plan. 
In addition, the timing of the application and grant award can be an obstacle to good 

program planningY In the most recent grant period, instructions on the application 

process were provided more than two months into the fiscal year, and only six weeks 

before the due date. The award itself has not been made until the middle of each 

fiscal year; many States have been spending their grants in the second year of the twoyear expenditure period. Many States noted that they are not able to co=it 

resources until they actually have the Federal funds in hand. The late grant award can 

pose particular problems in States that have county-based programs or that rely 

heavily on contractors; these States need time to negotiate contracts, process 

applications from counties, or channel funds to providers. The ACF staf have 

recognzed the liabilities of the separate application process and the problems posed 

by the late awarding of funds. 

Program reportg by the States has been inconsistent. 

The States' approaches to program reporting and the quality of their program reports 

vary greatly. Many reports provide little sense of the intensity of servces, and do not 

explain the range of efforts made for youths in various placement settings. In most 

cases, there is no clear link between the application and the report; one cannot see if 

States have done what they planned to do. It is diffcult to compare State-by-State 

information or to construct a comprehensive national picture. 

States use various definitions of terms, which can result in duplicate counts and 

inconsistent statistics. For example, the basic term ' to be served' has different 

meanings in different States. In some, a youth is counted as 'served' if he or she has a 

case plan goal of independent living or has received an assessment, while in others, a 

youth must be enrolled in a formal life skills course to be counted. The term 

appropriate' is likewise used in very diferent ways; some States consider all youths in 

the eligible age group to be ' appropriate' for servces , while others interpret the 

appropriate' criterion very narrowly. Another example is the term ' counseling ; in 

some States, this refers only to the servces of a licensed therapist, while in others the 

definition is much broader. 

A number of State independent living coordinators and regional ACF offcials with 

whom we spoke expressed the concern that ACF had not clearly articulated its 

expectations of the States. Their criticisms focus on inadequately precise 

requirements, unclear definitions of terms, and some conflcting messages from ACF' 

central and regional offces. Some reports have been incomplete because States had 

not known in advance that they would be expected to report certain information. 

One reason for this is the fact that ACF's instructions on program reporting are 

purposefully broad; no specific program report format is required or recommended. 

One State coordinator pointed out that "it's really hard to make comparisons between 

States when they are interpreting the program instructions very broadly and very 

individually." In particular, ACF does not require a specific budget breakdownY 
, 

Another reason for this variation in reporting is the fact that State methods of data 

collection and analysis--and the strength of their central, State-wide information 

capabilities--vary greatly. 

The application and program report have not focued adequately on 

performance and outcomes. 

progr 

Most State applications and reports have presented descriptions of activities planned 

or undertaken; little information has been provided on the quality or impact of such 

efforts. States are not required to establish goals or targets in their applications, and 

must provide only very limited outcomes information in their year-end program 

reports. 

The ACF has required States to report on the results achieved by participants 

90 days after they receive servces. This information, however, has been very diffcult 

to collect, inconsistently reported, and hard to interpretP Most signficantly, many 

States question the value of such information at 90 days after paricipation--it may be 

soon enough to reach a considerable number of youths, but too soon to really judge 

how well the youths are managig their independence. Many States expressed 

concern that the information does not provide valuable insight into the impact of their 

programs--and, for this reason, do not see the information as helpful in program 

development and management. As one State coordinator expressed it to thin that 

there is something magical about that 90 days after servce is not really true; it doesn 

tell us anything meaningfl." 

OPTONS FOR IMROVE: 

Requie and support better State plang: 

Create a consolidated State plan for child welfare services that includes 

independent living. 

The ACF has undertaken an effort to combine the plans for Title IV-B Subpart 1 

child welfare servces, Subpart 2 family support and preservation servces, and Title 

IV-E independent living. Most State coordinators and regional ACF staff with whom 

we spoke were very supportive of this idea. 

A move to a single, multi-year plan could encourage States to integrate independent 

living more comprehensively into the spectrum of servces for children and youths in 

substitute care. Implemented properly, it could give greater prominence and 

credibility to independent living as an approach to youths and give independent living 

staff greater leverage in their overall systems. It could also improve communication 

within State child welfare agencies. As part of a consolidated plan, independent living 

would be included formally in the State-ACF joint planning process, which could 
create a regular opportnity for direct State-ACF interaction on independent living. It€

could move ACF and the States towards a greater partnership in independent livig.€

The potential drawbacks to a single plan might include vagueness or superfciality on 

independent living issues. One State coordinator expressed the concern that 

the independent living section of the plan might be completed by someone who is not 

very familiar with the program. Another was concerned that it could be included as 

an add-on to the overall plan, without being comprehensively addressed 

throughout. IS€

To avoid these pitfalls, ACF could set some minmum requirements for the plan to 

ensure that independent living is adequately addressed. For example, one of the 

required goals could be related to the preparation of youths for life after discharge. 

To support an integrated approach, ACF could also encourage or require that youth€

concerns be addressed, as relevant, throughout the plans. For example, goals and€

objectives regarding training for staff or foster parents could include elements related 

to training in independent living phiosophy and servces.€

To maxmize the benefits of a single State plannig process, ACF could elimiate the 

separate Independent Living Program application.19 If ACF does not eliminate the 

separate application, then it could create a simple, standard application form to ensure 

the comparability of information among States.€

Require States to establish measurable goals and targets, and to report on their 

progress. 

The ACF could require States to use the child welfare servces plan (or the 

independent living application, if it is retained) to layout specifc goals for developing 

a continuum of servces to help youths prepare for independence. Year-end reporting 

mechanisms could be used to relate States' progress towards these goals. 2o This 

approach might encourage States to think strategically, while at the same time making 

their reports more meaningfl to ACF. 

The most significant potential liability of this approach is the danger that States could€

set minimal goals for themselves. One State coordinator feared that his own 

department, which is only minimally committed to independent livig, could take the 

opportunity to decrease its efforts in the area. If goals were set too broadly, 

accountability could be lost. 

To guard against this concern, ACF could specify certain minimum goal areas that€

States should address. These might include the availability of servces in various 

placement settings (e. , foster family homes, group homes, residential facilities, and 

subsidized living arrangements), mentoring opportunities, aftercare servces, training 

for staff and caregivers, educational assistance, job experience, job trainng, and life 

skills training. Specific, measurable objectives might include things such as increasing€

the percent of youths receiving assessments by a certain age, graduating from high 
school before discharge, or gaiing job experience before discharge; or increasing the 

percent of staff or foster parents receiving training in independent living. These goals 

and objectives could incorporate agreed-upon performance measures (we discuss the 

development of such measures in a later section). 

Adjust the timing of the State plan and the grant award. 

Regardless of any changes in the application and reporting framework, ACF could 

take steps to ensure that the grant award is made available by the begiing of the 

fiscal year. We understand that ACF intends to seek legislation movig the 

application due date up to June, which would enable it to disburse grants by 

October 1. 

Both earlier knowledge of the grant requirements and more timely awarding of funds 

could allow States to plan better for the upcomig year. Ths could be particularly 

important in States that disperse fuds to local or county agencies or that must 

negotiate contracts with private providers.


There might be two potential drawbacks. First, some States may now be spending 

money with the expectation that new funds will not be available until late in the fiscal 

year; a phase-in period could help them to adjust their spending patterns. Second 

some State coordinators use their completed program report as the basis for their 

planning efforts and application. The ACF could allow States to use information from 

the previous program year as the basis for the application. 

Strengten independent lig reportg mechanms:


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

reportng system.


The ACF is currently engaged in an agency-wide effort to reduce the reporting burden 

on States, and to improve the value and use of required reports. As part of this 

effort, ACF will consider whether to retain or eliminate the separate year-end 

independent living program report. In either case, ACF could continue to require a 

specific focus on independent living, both in individual-level records and program-wide 

reports.zl 

A distinct focus on independent living issues would address three key needs. First, the 

program is stil relatively new, and good information is vital for continued program 

development and effectiveness research. Federal reporting requirements can help 

States to develop solid, comparable information capabilities. Second, concrete 

reporting requirements could help to maintain a focus on this population, ensuring 

that they not be lost in the overall spectrum of child welfare servces. Third, they 

could allow ACF to better ensure that independent living funds are actually spent on 

the target population, and are not diverted to other priorities (a point of greater 
importance now that the program has grown in recent years to the level of $70 mion 

annualy). Many State coordinators strongly endorsed a distinct reporting structure for 

independent living. 

The ACF could provide clear, specific, consistent instructions to States on aggregate 

program reporting requirements before the begig of the reporting period. Clear 

instructions could allow States to know specificaly what they need to report and give 

them the advance notice necessary to collect information properly, through whatever 

data collection systems they choose. These could also help to ensure consistency 

among the various regional offces and the central offce--an issue of particular 

importance now that regional staff have the responsibility for approving State 

applications. 

Provide the States with a simple, standard form for reportng aggegate information. 

A standardized independent living information form could improve the reliabilty and 

uniformity of data, while minimizing the burden on the States. A number of State and 

regional contacts suggested more structured reporting as a means of increasing the 

usefulness and comparability of the information collected from State independent 

living programs. This form could be either a free-standing reporting document or part 

of a broader child welfare report.22 As ACF and the States move forward along the 

information highway, such a "form" could actually become an electronic report. 

A structured form might include certain standardied data elements, which we discuss 

below. Standardized data elements might only tell part of the story, however. 

Because of the great variety of approaches among programs, such a form could also 

allow for additional quantitative or narrative sections for further explication of State€

efforts. 

Although some initial effort would be required to develop a standard form, and 

perhaps to solicit comments on it from the States, the long-term savings in time and 

effort could be substantial. (See appendix C for examples of existing State forms. 

Utilize the capabilities of Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information 

Systems and the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reportng System.€

The easiest way for States to capture the required aggregate information might be to 

include independent living data elements in the new statewide automated child welfare 

information systems (SACWIS), for which Federal funding has just been made 

available. The SACWIS provides ACF with an unprecedented occasion to guide State 

information strategies; ACF could make concrete efforts to assist States in fully 

including independent living information in those systems. 

The SACWIS regulations call upon States to construct systems that will be "likely to 

provide more efficient, economical, and effective administration" of their Title IVand IV-E programsP Full integration of independent living information into the 
States' data systems could streamline their data collection and record keeping 

processes, as well as help to facilitate the actual integration of independent livig into 

the spectrum of servces. An earlier evaluation of the Independent Living Program 

also recommended the modification of "State and local information systems to include 

information on independent living servces provided to youths as well as to track 

youths' skill attainment. "24 

The ACF could encourage States to incorporate the standard independent living data 

set, described below, into their individual SACWIS systems. At a mium, al States 

will be required to include in their systems the basic data elements established through 

the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS).25 The 

requirements of this data system could fulfill several functions for independent livig, 

including the provision of demographic data, the identification of eligible youths 

(through age data and case plan goal), and calculations based on the number of 

eligible youths (e. , the number receiving specific servces divided by the number 

eligible). Independent living data collection could also be based on AFCARS 

standards, such as point-in-time standards for reporting. As ACF considers future 

refiements to the AFCARS data set, it might want to add a data element identifg 

youths as participants in the Independent Livig Program; for now, the admistration 

could encourage States to include such an element in their SACWIS systems. 

Encourage electronic reportng specifcally for independent living. 

Many States may choose to incorporate independent livig data elements into their 

overall automated chid welfare information systems, which could provide for easy 

collection of data from the local level. The ACF could assist States in their aggregate 

reporting of such information from the State level to ACF by developing and sharing 

specialized independent living software and by allowing the electronic submission of 

information. 

Such an effort need not be expensive or overly sophisticated. A simple, standard 

spreadsheet program, for example, could help all States to aggregate the required 

information from the field and to submit this to ACF on diskette or on-line. Such 

softare could potentially be used within States for internal reporting of information 

that is not included in SACWIS from the field to the State coordinator. 

Improve the content of independent lig reportg: 

Establish a standard, basic data set for independent living. 

The ACF could establish a set of standard data elements on which States would report 

annually, in aggregate; these could be more precise and meaningfl than the data 

currently collected. Such data elements could include basic demographic, servce, and 

outcomes information. Some of these elements (such as demographics) would be 

required to be included in the State Automated Child Welfare Inormation System 
discussed above. Others (such as servces and status/outcomes) mayor may not be 

part of such a system, depending on each State s design. If individual States choose 

not to include these elements in their SACWIS, they may have to conduct programspecifc data collection activities in order to provide the aggregate information. 

The ACF could provide clear instructions as to how such information should be€

collected and reported (including avoiding duplicate counts). It might also be useful 

for ACF to provide States with model client-specifc data forms that they could use to 

collect inormation at point-of-servce, district, or county levels. 

As noted above, the data collection capabilities and approaches of the States vary 

greatly; these variations must be borne in mind in developing any standard data set.€

Any restructurig of the data reporting requirements should be done with advance€

warng to provide adequate time for States to revamp their internal data collection 

activities. In addition, State and regional contacts with whom we spoke urged that€

ACF look carefully at each data element to ensure that it is useful for national€

program evaluation and research.€

The National Independent Living Association (NIL) and some States have made 

efforts at specifyg a basic data set. A number of professionals in the field, however 

stressed the need for Federal leadership and direction in this area, and the infuence 

of Federal information requirements on State data collection activities.27 The ACF 

could work with these groups in developing a data set, and could reexamie and refie 

the data elements in the future. Ths effort would require an investment up front, but 

could payoff in improved co=unication and understanding in the future. (See 

appendix D for more detailed information on data collection. 

Facilitate the development of clear definitions of independent living tel7. 

A lack of co=on definitions of terms presents a signcant problem in understandig 

individual State program reports, in comparg programs among States, and ultimately 

in detemIing what practices are effective.28 As one State coordinator put it 

before we can start talking about post-servce outcomes, we have to build consensus 

about the current servce interpretations and defitions of what we mean. Not 

everyhing works just because we think it does. But right now we can t argue with 

each other about what s working and what's not working, because we have a different 

definition of what we re doing. " The ACF could playa useful role in facilitating that 

consensus.€

Clear definitions would be vital for the development of a standard data set, as 

discussed above. On both tasks, ACF could work closely with NIL. Again, the 

necessary initial investment may well be justified by the improved utility of the 

information collected. It should be noted that the development and use of uniform 

servce definitions need not limit State flexibility in choosing which servces to provide. 
, 

Collect more detailed budget data through the program reportng mechanism.€

To gain both closer accountability for funds and a better sense of program priorities 

ACF could collect more detailed and uniform budget information. At a mium, this 

might include a required breakdown by expenditures on administration, training, and 

servces. 

The ACF could also collect more detailed budget inormation on State-funded 

servces, in order to gain a better sense of what is really being done for this 

population. It could also be useful to receive more detailed information on the State 

match and State maintenance of effort. 

Because of substantial variation in how States finance independent living, ACF would 

have to exercise care in comparing budget figures across States. Nonetheless, such€

information could raise signcant questions for ACF staff which they could pursue in€

technical assistance and joint-planning discussions with the States.€

Solicit information on effective practices and innovations.€

Although many States currently provide extensive descriptions of their programs 

including examples of their innovative practices, the free-form style of the program 

reports makes it difcult to gain a comprehensive picture of such activities. The ACF 

does not explicitly encourage States to detai their innovative approaches.€

The ACF could establish categories in which States could, at their option, provide 

information on important activities that cannot easily be reduced to numbers. State 

and regional contacts suggested a number of key areas of interest, including aftercare 

mentoring, alternative living arrangements, interagency agreements and coordination 

youth advisory boards, connections with co=unity resources, staff-youth relationship 

building, staffng patterns, definitions of success, and outcomes measures. Standard 

section headings in the program report could provide for a better national picture and€

for easier comparison among States.€

Focus on program performance and outcomes:


Develop performance and outcomes measures for independent living. 

Working with NILA, other national advocacy and research groups€31 and the States


ACF could establish performance measures for independent living servces. Such 

measures could help to ensure that efforts are focussed on providing the best servces€

and on achieving positive results for the youths being served. As one State 

coordinator put it s vital to have clear information on progress and outcomes; a lot€

of open narrative assuages a lack of knowledge about how 
 well you re doing.


Performance measures could be focussed on key process areas as well as interim and€

final outcomes for youths.€
The ACF is giving substantial attention to performance measurement across its varied 

programs; the development of measures for independent living could fit well with this 

broader effort. In fact, the relatively new, distinct, and small nature of the program 

might make it a good "laboratory" for the development and testing of performance 

measures. 

The ACF and the States could focus on a few measures at fist, and then refine and 

expand these with experience. One possible area in which to begi measurig 

performance might be educational status.33 Possible measures could include the 

percent of youths completing high school before discharge, receivig financial 

assistance for education, or voluntarily remaining in State custody beyond their 18th 

birthday in order to complete their educational goals.34 (See appendix E for a list of 

additional sample performance measures. 

Such an undertaking would not be easy. There is general agreement among 

independent living professionals that performance measurement is a weak area. Many 

States have no experience measuring performance or outcomes (beyond the minimal 

required information at 90 days after servce). There are wide-rangig views on what 

constitute successful outcomes for youths, and on how these can best be measured. 

For example, one of the premises of the program is that it helps to prepare youths for 

self-suffcient adulthood, free from public assistance. Several State coordinators and 

consultants suggested, however, that in some cases the abilty of a young adult with 

severe diffculties to access the resources of the welfare system should be viewed as a 

success , not a failure. In addition, good performance measurement will require 

reliable numbers, which many States are not now able to produce. There are 

concerns that any such measures be accurately made and reported, to ensure valid 

comparability. 

Nonetheless, there is wide agreement that the development of performance measures 

would be a important next step for the field of independent living. The ACF could 

playa key role in facilitating the development of such measures. 

Establish general parameters within which States could define specifc outcomes 

and ways of measuring those outcomes. 

State innovation has been one of the key sources of progress in the field of 

independent living. By allowing States to defie outcomes and means of measurement 

within defined parameters, ACF could both encourage States to thin concretely 

terms of outcomes, and promote innovative approaches to outcomes measurement. 

For example, ACF could require States to define specific, measurable goals in the 

area of employment readiness. A State could choose to focus its efforts on providing 

youths with job 'experience while in care, and could measure its performance in this 

area by looking at the percent of youths who, at discharge, hold a job, have held a job 

for at least six months, or have received a raise. 
, 

Whle this approach would have the advantage of promoting innovative strategies for 

measuring performance and outcomes, it could hinder comparisons among States. 

This deficiency could be alleviated through the establishment of standard areas for 

action, and good information sharing on States' experiences with specific measures. 

Focus on the statu of youths at discharge. 

States are currently required to report on the "results achieved 90 days after 

participants completed the program." As noted above, some States have provided 

information on youths 90 days after discharge from custody, while others have looked 

at youth 90 days after completion of a discrete independent livig program, perhaps 

while they are stil in care. Most States have also experienced difculty reachig a 

substantial number of youths. To provide some consistency to these figures, and to 

reach a larger percentage of youths, ACF could require States to provide information 

on how well prepared for independence youths appear to be at discharge. Ths 

approach could allow States to gather preliminary status/outcomes information on all 

youths leaving care, and could emphasize the responsibilty of the entire child welfare 

system--not just the independent living program--for youths' readiness for adult lie. 

The ACF could also provide guidance on appropriate methods for reporting such 

information so as to avoid double counts and inconsistent statistics. 

For those States currently providing inormation on youth after services (but perhaps 

while stil in care), this approach could actually provide a look at youths further out 

giving a better picture of their preparedness.36 For those States currently gatherig 

information on youth after discharge this new approach would allow them to get 

information from the entire population of youth leaving care; they could also continue 

collecting information from youth after discharge. 

Valuable data at discharge might include youths' status in areas such as educational 

attainment, employment, living arrangements, famiy relationships, parenthood, use of 

public assistance, and health. Given the customer focus of ACF' s reengieerig 

efforts, it might also be worthwhile to encourage States to ask the youths to evaluate 

the efforts made to help them prepare for independence. 

Information at discharge would only tell part of the story; as noted in one State 

internal evaluation immediate program outcomes, measured right after program 

completion, would not necessarily reflect long-term effects.'03 Nonetheless , good 

information on all youths at discharge could provide a valuable piece of the overall 

picture. The ACF could also encourage States to voluntariy continue efforts to reach 

youths after care, in addition to the time of discharge, and could provide guidance to 

ensure that such information is meaningfl and comparable. 
, 

Encourage and assist State efforts to link independent living data systems with 

public assistance, unemployment, criminal justice and Internal Revenue Service 

information systems. 

The SACWIS regulations allow States to design their child welfare inormation systems 

in such a way as to interface with other computer systems. The ACF could encourage 

States to use this capability to track certain youth outcomes--for example, employment 

status, use of public assistance, and interactions with the crial justice system. 

These should not be regarded as the only--or even the best--outcome measures to be 

tracked. They would, however, provide a key piece of the picture. 

Interfacing with such databases could pose some complex problems in terms of 

confdentiality, and could require extensive negotiations with other agencies. If these 

difculties can be overcome, however, this channel could allow for relatively easy longterm monitoring of cohorts of discharged youths. The ACF could share information 

on the successes of individual States, and could serve as a consultant to agencies 

attempting to accomplish this sort of data matchig. 

Play an active role in independent living research. 

As the Chid Welfare League of America has noted to date, most information on 

independent living is anecdotal. ... Virually no recent objective national data exist 

on the effectiveness of independent living servces or on the experiences of youths 

discharged from out-of-home care.,,39 A number of the options outlied above would 

help improve the quality of information on independent living that is collected and 

available at both the State and national levels. 

Many State and regional contacts with whom we spoke also noted the need for a 

longitudinal study of participating youths. It is very diffcult to follow individual youths 

after discharge, and such efforts require attention--and in many cases, expertise-­

beyond the capacity of most State child welfare agencies. The ACF could fi this gap 

by supporting research projects that would provide better information on the 

effectiveness of independent living efforts. The ACF could widely dissemiate the 

results. 

Studies of this sort could be costly. In the short term, ACF could consider giving 

priority to such projects within existing research budgets. In the longer term 

improved understanding of effective approaches to promoting self-suffciency could be 

viewed as a wise investment in prevention. 
TI ACF SHOUL FOCUS IT MAAGEM AN PROGRA 

REPORTIG EFORTS ON INORMTION SHAG. 

IsUE OF CONCE: 

The ACF has not actively facilitated information sharing among States, components of 

ACE, and other Federal agencies. This lack of good communication may be limiting 

opponunities for States to improve the quality of independent living services and for ACF 

to provide effective advice to States and others on the program. 

The ACF has not genera made avaable to States inormation it curentl collect 

and to which it has accss. 

The ACF collects program statistics and descriptions from every State through the 

independent livig program reports and applications. The ACF also has access to 

information related to other youth programs both within and outside of ACF. Whe 

some regional offces have made efforts to share information among States, there is no 

organized or centralied effort to dissemiate this inormation to States or withi 

ACF. 

Numerous regional ACF and State offcials reported that, in part because information 

has not been shared effectively, they do not know why much of it is collected or what€

use is made of it. In fact, several ACF offcials, both at the central-offce and 

regional-office levels, noted that program reports are rarely used. A number pointed 

out that there appears to be no connection between the application and report at the 

ACF-review level; many State offcials complained that they have never received 

substantive feedback from ACF on either the application or the report. 

The ACFs interactons with States about the progr aside from the report and 

applications, have been lited. 

In-person interaction with State independent livig staff has been minial. The ACF 

has conducted on-site independent living reviews in only six States. Some regional 

offces have attempted to visit programs in conjunction with other monitoring 

activities, but such opportunities have been infrequent and brief. Both State and 

regional offcials have found the few on-site reviews useful. Staff in only two regional 

offces have coordinated or participated in regular meetings of the State coordinators 

in their region. 

Most ACF and State offcials with whom we spoke cited a need for greater in-person 

interaction. Regional staff noted that they would like to visit more State programs 

more often, but face serious budgetary restrictions on travel. A number of regional 

staff also thought that the tye of regional meetings of State coordinators that are held 

in two regions would be quite valuable in their own regions. 
State and ACF offci see substatial room for improvement in the program and 

view more complete and accte inormation sharg as key to such progress. 

Al but one State and every regional offcial we spoke with felt that the State 

programs would benefit from better information about activities in other States. Many 

felt that being able to compare States, to learn from the best experiences of other 

States, and to have a sense of barriers other States have faced would help improve 

individual programs and the Independent Livig Program generally. Several felt 

better information sharing could speed program improvements by avoiding long 

development periods. 

Many offcials in both States and regional offces felt that ACF has not adequately 

shared information on available Federal resources for youths, including programs 

inside and outside the Department. Some suggested that ACF would be a logical 

locus for such information, and hoped that ACF central offce and regional offce staf 

would develop expertise and capacity in this area. 

OPTONS FOR IMROVE: 

The ACF could capitalize on its investment in independent livig by effectively 

gathering, analyzing, and sharig among the States inormation on the program 

successes and diffculties. Such activities could include research and evaluation 

projects, an information clearinghouse, contracts for technical assistance, or traig 

and support for ACF staff to facilitate State efforts. 

Below, we identify several specific activities that ACF could consider. Some of these 

could be undertaken immediately and with no additional fiancial commitment. 

Others would require additional funding. To finance such activities in a tight 

budgetar envionment, ACF could seek a legislative set-aside that would reserve 

some percentage of the Independent Living appropriation for these purposes. Whe 

States would necessarily lose a small portion of their individual grants, they could 

benefit substantially from the information sharing activities that these funds could 

support. 

Provde wrtten inormation to the States: 

Repon on State peiformance measures. 

As suggested above, ACF could work with NIL other advocacy groups, and the 

States to establish performance measures for independent living. In its informationsharing role, ACF could disseminate an annual report on these measures, allowing 

States to use the, information as an impetus for improving their individual programs. 

Such a report might also be a valuable resource for other youth-focussed programs 

outside of the Title IV-E Independent Living Program. 
, 

Compiling such a report could require a commitment of staff time and resources on 

the part of ACF. The agency might also encounter political concerns about makig 

direct comparisons among States. While most ACF regional staff with whom we 

spoke believed that States would like to compare themselves directly with other States 

a number of State offcials urged that they not be explicitly ranked against their peers. 

There was strong interest among States, however, in hard data from which they could 

themselves draw conclusions and seek answers. 

The usefulness of such a report would depend largely on the usefulness of the actual 

measures used. First, it would need to be a concise, focussed set of measures. 

Second, it would require clear agreement on the meanig of terms and the methods of 

measurement. One State coordinator urged let s not provide numbers that don 

mean anything." Timeliness would also be key. 

Disseminate qualitative updates on State activities. 

One State coordinator pointed out that "information sharing is the way to get people 

thinkig;" ACF could disseminate useful information on a variety of aspects of 

independent living servces. 

Such materials could include compilations of State independent living policies and 

plans, with annual updates ; State-identifed inovative areas or effective practices; 

and State-identified problem areas. State contacts suggested several specifc areas in 

which they would like information from their peers, including aftercare, mentoring, 

alternative living arrangements, interagency agreements and coordination, youth 

adVisory boards, community resources, outcomes measures, definitions of success 

staffng patterns, and in-State evaluation efforts. 

The ACF could also explore ways of providing such information by computer, perhaps 

by linking with NlLet, the National Independent Living Association s computer 

bulletin board system. All members of NIL have access to this network, but ACF 

does not currently make use of it. 

Share model form and directories of available resources. 

It could be very useful for ACF to share with the States model youth needs assessment 

tools, model transition plans and case plans, model currcula, and lists of resources 

available from other Federal agencies. State coordinators noted that consultant fees 

for the development of such materials can be quite expensive, and pointed out that 

many such materials have already been developed in individual States through Federal 

Title IV-E funds. In the future, ACF may wish to contract for the development of 

such materials directly, and widely distribute them among the States. 

The ACF's efforts in this area might be constrained by resource limits. At the same 

time, such sharing could prevent unnecessary duplication of effort, and therefore 

expense, among different States. 
Facitate inormtion sharg though ACF sta: 

Develop a focus for ACF youth programs in central offce and each regional offce.€

Several regional contacts identified a lack of coordination on youth servces in ACF' 

central offce as a serious problem. They recommended that the youth programs 

currently in the Family and Youth Servces Bureau, including the Runaway and 

Homeless Youth (RH programs, be brought into the Chidren s Bureau; the 

administrative structure should follow the needs and the population, they argued, not 

the fundig stream. Staff in one regional offce, in which the same branch admisters 

both the ILP and the RHY programs, noted that this organization encourages them 

to thi comprehensively about the needs of older adolescents." At a mium, they 

urged that there be better coordination in central offce between the two branches. 

One regional staffer stressed that memoranda of understanding out of central offce 

would make it easier for the regions (and the States and grantees) to forge 

coordination and collaboration with other programs. 

At the regional level, State offcials with whom we spoke would like to see program 

specialists playa more consultative role through the provision of techncal assistance; 

this is indeed the role that ACF itself is seeking to fill. To play this role well, ACF 

staff need to be experts in youth issues. One solution might be to designate a full-time 

youth specialist in central offce and in each regional offce. These specialsts could€

oversee, or at least coordinate, all youth-focussed ACF programs. To properly fill 

such a position, a specialist might need trainig in the area, and might need to attend 

relevant national and regional conferences. In addition, traing could help to ensure 

a certain level of consistency among regions. 

The regional youth specialists could be catalysts for bringig together people from 

different States--for example, in quarterly coordinators' meetings. They could also 

facijjtate monthly or quarterly conference calls among State independent living 

coordinators and other State, Federal, and private youth-servng agencies; these could 

prove to be both productive and cost effective.€

At both the central and regional levels, it could be valuable for ACF to have an 

understanding of its programs from the perspective of the clients they seek to serve. 

The ACF could establish some means of getting direct youth input, perhaps through 

youth advisory boards, such as many States have established. 

These different activities could require varyng levels of commitment. It could be 

possible, for example, to designate a youth specialist in each region, but not increase 

opportunities for attendance at conferences. Changes in the organizational structure 

of the central or regional offices might likewise be accomplished as part of the 

Department's overall streamlining and reorganization activities. 
Incorporate independent living issues into other child welfare monitoring activities.€

The ACF is currently exploring ways of addressing independent living in broader chid 

welfare monitoring activities, including Section 427 reviews. This would allow ACF 

staff regular occasion to interact with States on-site with regard to independent livig, 

and to share information. In reviews of case fies, ACF staff could check that 

appropriate steps have been taken for youths, including appropriate case plan 

documentation. In addition, ACF staf could use site visits to Runaway and Homeless 

Youth grantees, many of which also conduct independent living activities, as 

opportunities to explore relevant issues. Such reviews would be focussed on€

information sharing, not compliance.€

There could be several potential drawbacks to this approach. The ACF staf 

conducting general child welfare monitorig activities might not be well informed 

about independent living issues, and might have limited ability to provide constructive 

advice to the States. More broadly, independent living could be given lower priority€

than, for example, child abuse and neglect issues. The ACF might want to take steps 

to ensure that independent living is indeed accorded adequate time and emphasis in€

such monitoring activities.€

Become a resource on other Federal programs serving youths, and facilitate€

coordination among these and the Independent Living Program.€

The ACF staff could playa valuable role as resources for information on servces to 

youths, and could facilitate coordination at the Federal, State, local, and servcedelivery levels. One regional staff person suggested that ACF specialists, if well 

informed, could help State staff to broker interagency relationships and to negotiate 

the use of resources from other governent agencies. He felt that this role could be 

helpful even at the county or local levels.€

While such an approach might entai increased costs or commitment of staff time, a 

move in this direction could be viewed as a solid investment in improved and 

streamlined servce delivery. It is a concrete example of how ACF could€

operationalize its vision for a proactive monitoring and technical assistance role. 
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT REPORT€

We shared our draft report with and solicited comments from the Administration for 

Chidren and Families (ACF), the Assistant Secretary for Planng and Evaluation, the 

Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget, and the Assistant Secretary for 

Legislation. We also solicited co=ents from the Chid Welfare League of America 

(CWL) and the National Independent Livig Association (NIL).€

We received wrtten co=ents from ACF and from CWL and NIL. They all 

concurred with our two reco=endations and did not suggest any changes to the 

report. The CWLA and NIL also commented favorably on several options we 

offered for each recommendation. We reproduce these co=ents in appendix F. 
APPENDIX A€

LEGISLATI HITORY€

Law Major Proions€

L. 99-272 Added Section 477 to Title IV-E of the Social Securi Act: FY 87: $45 m 

(COBRA 85) FY 88: $45 m 

. Allowed payments to States for independent livig servces 

to IV-E foster children for FY's 87-

Amended Section 475 of Title IV-€

. Required that, where appropriate, the case plans of 

children age 16 and over include a written description of 

the servces that will be help them to prepare for 

independent living 

L. 100-647 Amended Section 477: FY 89: $45 m 

(1989) 

. Continued program through FY 89


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


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


up to 6 months after discharge from foster care€

. Prohibited payments for room and board€

Amended Section 475: 

. Required that dispositional hearings for children age 

16 and over address the servces needed to assist in the 

transition to independent living 

L. 101-239 Amended Sections 474 and 477: FY 90: $50 m 

(OBRA 89) FY 91: $60 m 

. Reauthorized program for FY's 90- FY 92: $70 m 

. Increased annual funding levels 

. Required States to provide dollar-for-dollar match for 

funds over each State s share of the $45 m base funding 

L. 101-508 . Appropriated FY 91 funding FY 91: $60 m 

(OBRA 90) . Exanded eligibility to children formerly in foster care, to 

age 21 (also eliminated provision allowing for servce up 

to 6 months post-discharge)€

L. 102-394 . Appropriated funds for FY 93 FY 93: $70 m€

L. 103- . Permanently reauthorized the program $70 m per year€

(OBRA 93)€
APPENDIX B€

METIODOLOGY 

We have drawn upon five primary sources of information: 

(1) A review of program reports for fiscal years (FY) 1992 and ' , and 

applications for FY' s 1993 and ' , from all 50 States and the District of 

Columbia; and a sample of State fiscal reports (Standard Form 269). 

(2) Structured telephone discussions with independent living coordinators in 

ten States: Vermont, New York, Florida, Ilois, Texas, Missouri, Colorado 

California, Arzona, and Idaho. These States were selected to reflect diversity 

of geographic setting, size, population, adminstrative structure, and program 

approach. Our choice was based upon both our fie review and input from 

ACF, the National Independent Livig Association, and a variety of 

professionals in the field. 

(3) Structured discussions with ACF staff in central offce and each regional 

offce. 

(4) An in-depth site-visit to Pennsylvania to meet with the independent living 

coordinator, technical assistance and evaluation staff, county-level staf, and 

staff at a private youth-servng agency. Ths State was selected based on input 

from a variety of professionals in the field as an example of a large, countybased State with a well-developed information-reporting system. 

(5) A focus group and discussions with State coordinators and other 

professionals at the annual conference of the National Independent Livig 

Association (NILA) in March 1994.€

In addition, we conducted informal visits to the Massachusetts and Connecticut 

independent living programs; attended a meeting of the independent living 

coordinators in Region I; held discussions with consultants, academics, and advocates 

in the field; reviewed legislation and literature on independent living; and examined 

ACF program information and directions. We also spoke informally with participating 

youth from Maine, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Arona. 
APPENDIX C€

SAMLE DATA COLLCTON FORM 

On the following pages, we present several examples of data collection forms that 

have been developed by individual States; We present these as ilustrations of the 

range of approaches and capabilties across the country; we do not specificaly endorse 

these approaches or formats. 

Client-level reporting forms: The first three forms are used to collect information on 

every youth participating in the respective States' independent living programs. Every 

county or district, and every contractor, must complete such a form for each youth and 

submit it to the central State offce, where the information is aggregated and analyzed. 

Example A, page C- Minnesota 

Example B, pages C-3 to C- Kentucky 

Example C, page C- 7 California 

Aggregate-level reporting forms: The fourth example is used by a county-based State 

to collect aggregate information from each county regarding the servces being offered 

and the number expected to be served. The fifth example, also used by a countybased State, solicits year-end information on youth served. 

Example D, pages C-8 to C- I0: Pennsylvania 

Example E, page C-ll: California 

C - 1

(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!

:

(;,

SELF Client Data€

Complete form on all youth served. 

USE NUMBER TWO PENCIL.€

Please do not fold 

CE (E :A. K) (A;E IE (E, (K; (F, X IE IE IE iX: .A; eEl 

(j (j'E (j() (j (j(i (j (j (j (j (j CI CI (I (j) (9 tEl€

zw(jw(jWWWW(jWWW€

X(j(jroro(i(jrorororo(j(jrox € x x€ ff r 

11 (j (jE (j(j CI (j(j (j (j (lD (j(! (j (j(j ar (j ar 

X I I TII mXmImm XmI 

J) a; XI Q; XQ;. x Q)X mx Q; XXXXI 

mOOOOy EEOOE OOOO€ X E

OOOO€

(!(j(!E(!(j(!(!(!(!(j(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!€ ZW(j (j(jW W(j(j(j(j(jm€

mmmrxmmmmmmmmmmmmmm€

m(j (jWWWWW=W(j(j W(jWE€

CI(!(!€ (j (j (j (j CI (j (j (j (j (j (j (j (j (j (j (j (j 

mImTmmmm mmmmmmmm 

$$$W WWW WWW 

OO 00 Y 000000000000000000 mrnoooooornoc 

wwwwwwwwwww oo oc x x oc xoooooooooc oooooooc xoox T Y T m m 00 m oc 00 m m rn 

ro x x X X Z x z x 

Services Provided to Youth 

.( 

. Date. oIBirtlt. 

! Montn I Day i Year 

Q)! O: 0 ''0: Ut 

CIII T:Irt 

::2-= - x a: ' :a X ;L :JJ (I-

'1 €,(JCI 

7; :D CI ') CI il 

IE 'CDm€

Was Youth Served by a 

SELF Grantee? II so, 

; Agency 

! Name€

'.I FOR 

(1 CD STATE

.: a; USE€ :Det€ ONLY€ ':!/II€

County InfoalionCoumy Number:€ f :I 

i.-€

3-: :. 

5:- cr 

6; oJ 

Ice€

() (I€

J) (I€

County:€

Worker:€

Date:€

Race/Ethnicity€

- ASian 

: African Amencan 

= Hispanic 

-= American Indian€

= White 

- Other 

'= Male 

= Female 

Placement Status 

.: State Ward 

.: Voluntary Placement 

Court Ordered Placement 

RUM€

- Not in Placement€

= ILS Group Training 

= RetreaVConference/Workshop 

:: IndividuallLS Training 

= Camo/Adventure Challenge 

Driver's Education 

Disabling Condition 01 Youtlt 

= Develoomenral Disabilities 

.: He:!!"lng Speech/Sight 

: Scecijjc Learning Disability 

-= Emotional/Behavioral Disability 

-= Chemical Deoendency -€

= Other 

DHS 3091 (7-93) 

'= Educational Referrals/Expenses 

.: Job Experience through SELF 

-= Purchased Goods. Not for School 

-= Stipends/Incentive Payments€

:: Other 

Current Living Arrngement. 

Foster Home 

-: Group Home€

ResidenLiai Trearmem 

- Emergency €Shelter 

-= Correctional Facility 

- Birth Pareml s: 

-= Relatives 

Indeoenaem€

Other€

Total Time in Substitute Care 

0:6 months = 3- 5 years 

-= 6- 12 months .: 5- 7 years 

:: 1. 3 years -: :: 7 years 

Scltool€

.: "iaduated High School 

:. Dropped Out of High School 

= Comoleted GED 

= Working on GED 

= In Special Ed Program 

= In Alternative High School 

= In Regular High School 

.: In College 

:: In VoTech 

Highest Grade Level Completed

= 8 - 11 -: 14 :: 9 : 12 .: 15 . 10 13 - 16 

r-€
.::. 

\.

,; .... 

INDIVIDUALYOUTH€

INDEPENDENT LIVING DATA COLLECTION -

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA€

PARENTAL STATUS:


NAME:€

NUMBER OF CHILDREN: 

SSN:€

NUMBER CHILDREN LIVING WIT YOUT: 

- DOB:


Female HIGHEST GRADE COMPLE: 9 10 11 12 

sex: Male Vocational 1 2 GED College 1 2 3 


MARITAL STATUS: PlACEMEN HISTORY:€

RACE: White Black Hispanic Asian Total time 

Native American Other Number of entries: 

Number of placements: 

Living arrngement: DISABILITY: (Specify) Date into IL program: 

PROGRAM COMPONENTS 

EDUCATION:€

Tutoring/Remedial education
 GED classes
 Driver education Higher education

Vocational Assessment 

Special vocational training 

EMPLOYMENT€

npl::yme-+ - I a..€ :.c:L . 

Job placement 

Employment€

Employment (subsidized) 

Length of current employment:€

Length of previous employment:€

Jobs held: 

Type of jobs: 

SUPPORT GROUPS 

Peer groups 

Transition manager 

Youth networks€

SPECIALIZED SHORT TE;RM PROGRAMS 

Team-Building Retreats 

Teen Conferences


INDEPENDEN LIVING SKILLS TRAINING 

Basic skills assessment 

Interpersonal skils 


Communications skils 


Self-esteem skils 


Decision-making skils 


Values clarication skils 


Time management skils 


Educational planning skills 


H""s"'" "Lcils 


Emergency and Safety skiiis€

Hygiene skills€

Personal appearance€

Leisure time€

Legal issues€

First aid€

Money management€

Job hunting


Transportation€

Cooking€

Shopping€

Housekeeping€

Apartment living 

Transitional living 


Community Resources 

Consumer skills 

D2€ c- 3 ROI€

DisctAgenc€
STIPENDsJSCHOL6SHIPS€

Youth stipends 

Start-up assistance 

College stipends 

Scholarships€

DISCHARGE SERVICES€

Individual counseling 

Group counseling€

DISCHARGE SERVICES (CONTINUED) 

Personal information packet 

Discharge conference€

SUPERVISED PRACTICE LIVING 

IL foster home 

IL group home 

Transitional group home€

Transitional living apartment 

Securing permanent housing Y Teen parent services 

POST DISCHARGE SERVICES 

VOLUNTERS/SUPPORT GROUPS€

Guardianship for youth with 

limited abilities 

OTHER€

Health exams€

Dental exams€

Health insurance€

Financial assistance 

Referral service 

FOllOW-€

90 DAYS 6 MONTS 1 YEAR 2 YEAS 

AFR AFR 

Mentors€

Support groups€

Drop-in center€

DATA ITE 

GED€

High School Diploma 

Vocational Training 

Obtained Housing 

Employed€

Independent of Agency 

Individual Counseling 

Group Counseling 

Budgeting€

Housing€

Career Planning 

IL TRAINING€

COMPLEION€

C - 4€
. .

INDEPENDENT LIVING DATA€

Instructions for Completing Data Sheets for Individual Youth€

NAME: 

SSN: 

D08: 

SEX: 

MARITAL STATUS:


RACE: 

DISABILl1Y: 

PARENTAL STATUS:€

NUMBER OF CHILDREN:€

NUMBER OF CHILDREN€

LIVING WITH YOUTH:€

HIGHEST GRADE COMPLETD: 

PLACEMENT HISTORY€

Total time:


Number of entries: 

DEMOGRAPHICS 

Youth' s first name, middle initial, and last name. 

Do not forget to include the middle initial. 

Youth' s social security number. 

The month, date, and year of youth's birt. 

Circle appropriate gender. 

Circle S (Single), M (Marred), or D (Divorced).


Circle appropriate race.€

The following conditions are included in this item.€

The conditions must be "clinically diagnosed.€

Developmental disability, Emotional disabilty, 

Specific learning disabilty, Hearing, sight or 

speech impairment, Physical disability, other€

clinically diagnosed conditions.€

This item refers to whether or not youth have 

children of their own. 

The number of children youth has, whether or 

not child lives with the yout. 

The number of the yout' s own children 

living with the youth. 

Circle appropriate grade level.€

The total number of months/years the yout was 

in foster care, (excluding time spent at home), at 

the beginning of the program. 

This item includes the total number of re-ntries 

(including the initial entry) that a youth has had. 

A re-entry into substitute care is counted if the 

youth re-enters substitute care after having been 

formally discharged from substitute care with the 

intent of permanently placing the youth in an innome living arrngement. 

C - 5€
Number of placements: 

Living Arrangement: 

Date into IL Program: 

The total number of different placements (living 

arrngements) youth has had while in care. 

. This item refers to the living arrangement for the 

youth at the time of entry including: Emergency 

Shelter, Non-Relative foster home,. Relative foster 

home, Pre-Adoptive home, Group Home, Drug 

Rehab Program, psychiatric Institution, Residential 

Care Facilty, Secured Facility (Detention), 

Independent Living Arangement. 

The date the youth began the IL Program. 

PROGRAM COMPONENTS 

yout recived 

These items refer to training or services offered by your program. Circle Y (Yes) if €

the training or service component. Circle N (No) if youth did not receive the training or service.€

Circle NA (Not Applicable) if your program does not offer the training or service component. 

POST DISCHARGE SERVICES 

These items refer to services received by youth after being released from committent, although 

some of the services (particularly guardianship and mentors) are usually initiated prior to the 

youth' s release from care. If the youth has been paired with a mentor, even before release, please 

circle Y. 

FOllOWThese data items refer to the status of the youth at the completion of your program , and at 

selected time intervals afer completing your program. They require Y (Yes) or N (No) answers, in 

terms of items completed at the specified time interval. Thus

, if a youth has obtained a GED or 

high school diploma, completed vocational training, obtained housing , is employed, 

Y" in 

independent of the agency, has received individual counseling or group counseling, put a " 

the appropriate box. If the youth has not obtained the items, put an "N" in the appropriate box. If 

a youth is in the process of obtaining the items, put an "N" in the appropriate box. 

The last three items refer only to training received In your program. Were the yout trained in 

budgeting, housing and career planning? If so, answer "Y" in the column labeled "IL Training 

Completion . If the youth were not trained in these items, answer " . Leave all other columns 

blank for these three items. 

or agency Remember to fill in the blanks at the bottom of the first page, indicating your district 

at (502) 564-

name, your name, and the date. If you have any questions please call Mike Yocum 

2136, Thank you for your help in obtairiitg this data. 

c- 6 
DEPARTENT OF SOAL SERVES€ STATE OF CAUFORNrA . HEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY€

INDEPENDENT LIVING SKILLS PROGRAM€

INDIVIDUAL CLIENT CHARACTERISTIC DATA€

01 CUENT PROFILE:€ IV-E ELIGIBLE: ACCEPTD ILSP SERVICES ((DATE)€

D Ves DNa€ SPECIAL NEEDS:€ PARENTAL STATUS; Expectat Father


CUENT NAME


DATE€ FCIS CASE NUMBERJNIOUE J.D.€

DECUNED ILSP SERVICES (DATE)€

TRAINING GOAL:€

Childless Expectant Mother Educational OMental o HS Diploma€

o Medica Physical o GED


Parent Children€

02) ILSP DIRECT SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED (as appropriate):€

o Voc 


College€

Adult Ed€

Access to Communitv Resources€

Consumer Skills€

Healih Care€

Home Manaoement€

HousinQ Options/Location


OTHER (SPECIFY€

IntemersonaVSocial Skills€

Mone Mananement€

Parentino€

Time Mananement€

Transnnrtation€

TURING (TORING SERVICES FOR A YOU WHICH ARE NOT REOUIRED TO BE PROVIDED THROH" SCHO DISmlCT.):€

COUNSELING:€

o Group Individual o Group 0 Individual 0 Personal Computer Tutori Pace€

EXIT PACKET CONTNTS: 0 Birt Recrds 0 Community Resource Listing Educational Certfication Health Records€

(OPTONAL)€ Other€ Placement Recrds D Social Security Care o Work Registration€

03) CLIENT OUTCOMESITERMINATION:


AWAROEO HIGH SCHOL OIPLO,, (DATE I AWAROED GED (OATE co,,,mD VO ED (DATE€

I SUCSSFULLY €

ENROLLED IN COLLEGE (DATE SCHOOUGEDI ED ENROLLMENT (DATE


I CONTNUED HlGH €

EMPLOYED€

o FT 0 PT Activelv Seekinn Entered Job Corps€

UNEMPLOYABLEiSI ELIGIBLE (DATE€

I UNEMPLOYED.TOT ACTIVELY SEEKING€

UNEMPLOYED (NOTE PROBLEM AREA(S)€

SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETD AD\AT EO (DTE


ENROLLED IN ADVANCED SKILL TRNNG (DA'T€

ENTED MIUTARY (DATE€

YOU NO LONGER IV-E EUGIBLE (DATE) LIVING INDEPENDENTYOFAGENCY MAINTNANCE PROGRAMS (DATE€ YOUT CONTNUES IN ILSP€

PERSONAL SERVICES CONTCT WITH THIS DID NOTOBTAIN OTHER COMMUNIT SERVICES (NOTE PROBLEM AREA(S)€

YOUT (ATTACH COPY)€

HOUSED ODENTFY TYPE)€

RETRNED TO FAMILY(DATE€

TRANSFERRED TO ILSP IN ANOTHER COUNT (DATE MOVEDIWEREABOUS UNKNOWN (DATE€

04 90-DAY FOLLOW-UP AFTER TERMINATION includes termination of services due to cessation of outside fundin .€

FACE.TOFACE (DATE TELEPHONE (DATE) MAIL (DATE€

MODE OF CONTACT:€

MOVED OTHER€

FAILURE TO CONTACT:€

CASE VIGNET. SUMMARY


DATE€ SUMMARY COMPLETED BY:€

SOC3. (l16S)€

C -€
. . 

DEPARENT OF PUBUC WELFARE€

OFFICE OF CHILDREN, YOUT AND FAMIUES


TITLE IV- E lNDEPENDENTUVING PROGRAM 

NEEDS AND SERVICE PROJECTION 

COUNT: 

SERVICE NEES€ RECEIVE lL SERVICE 

IV-E PM IV-E PM PROJECTON 

1. AU chidren In 

.aement 

2. Yout In p!8Dement 

I'. of. .Aalder 

3. Yout turning 16 Y". of 

durin the rant ..r 

4. Oter yout who could 

benefR from IL 

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED IL PROGRAM 

RECEIVE


IV-E PM IV­


accom 

A. Needs Asssent/Cas Planning 

B. Lie SkiDs Traning 

C. Vocational Training. 

D. Remedial EducatonlTutorig 

E. Preparion for GED


F. Individual or Group Counseling


G. Asistance in Obtaining Higher Ed.€

H. Job Placement 

I. Subsidized Employment 

J. Practce Il Placement (Sll)

K. Loon of pennanent Housing

L Stpends for Yout 

M. Afercar Servces 

N. Servces for Teen Parnt 

O. Retats/Camps 

P. Indire Services 

Q. Progrm Administon 

R. Oter: (Specif below) 

II. PROVIDERS OF SERVICES .CHECKED IN I. - SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED Letter (s) of Provider 

. Servce s Checked 

CY-806 

Jun-92 

c- 8 

16 
Page 1 of 2€

TITLE IV- E INDEPENDENT LlVI NG GRANT COU€

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION . PROVIDER:€

Complete a separe sheet for each provider.€

B. Life Skils Trainin€

I. f:ow many youth wil receive lie skils training?€

Total # #IV-€

II. Show the total number of hours of life skils instruction each IL€

participant receives.€

Hours€

III. How is training provided?€

Individual Group Both€

If "Both" was chosen, show the percent of time for each. Use the hours in II€

as the basis for the calculation.€

% Individual % Group€

IV. From the list below and on Page 2 of this form, identify the subject€

areas covered in your life skills training course. Check as many as apply.€

Financial Responsibility Vocational Skils€

Budgeting Aptitude/Interest€

Banking Job Seeking€

Personal Identification Job Interviewing€

Work/Dress Habits€

Job Retention€

Consu mer Skils Community Resources€

Shopping Public T",n,porttion€

Nutrition Health Care€

Food Preparation Human Services Access€

Contracts/Leases Legal Services€

Apartment Location€

c - 9€
Page 2 of 2 

TITLE IV- E INDEPENDENT LIVING GRANT 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 

B. Life Skils Traininn (Cont' d.\ 

Interpersonal! Communication Skils 

Problem Solving 

Decision Making 

Self Esteem'" 

Human Sexuality 

Impulse Control 

Assertiveness 

Individual/Group Interactions 

c= Life Skils Practice (Structured) 

If practice is described elsewhere, just 

cross-reference here. 

Other - Describe 

V. How many youth wil practice IL Skils? 

otal # IVCQUNI 

PROVIDER: 

Complete a separate sheet for each provider. 

VI. Estimate the total cost of providing life skils training. Include in the estimate the 

cost of staffto provide the training, the cost to purchase the training, training 

materials and supplies and transportation to get youth to and from training. 

The amount of the estimate should agree with the amount on the CY- 809. 

Do not include Aftercare Life Skils Training costs here. 

C - 10 
............................................................................... ......................................................................... 

...................................................................... ................. ....... ............ ........................ 

.............. ...... ......

DEPARTENT OF SOIA SERVCES STATE OF CALIFORNIA. HEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY 

Send One Copy 10: 

Depaem of Social Servces INDEPENDENT LIVING PROGRAM (ILP) Stanstica Servces Bureau 

Annual Statistical Report	 744 P Street, M. S. 19-81 

Sacramemo CA 95814 Federal Fiscal Year 1990 COUNTY CODE 

(October 1, 1989 through September 30, 1990) 

PART A: YOUTHS SERVED AND CLIENT CHARACTERISTICS 

Youths to whom IlP services were offered during the year. 

Youths who received IlP services during the year........................................................ 

Youths who are single............................................................ 2a 

Youths who are married............................................................ 2b 

Youths who are parents......... ................................ ............ ............ ..... ............ 

4. Youths who have special needs which are educational, medical, mentai, and/or physical in nature................ 

Youths who received IlP services during the six month period following exit from loster care ........................ 

PART B' PROGRAM OUTCOME/CLIENT PROGRESS 

Youths who completed IlP services or a component 01 services 

Youths who are continuing to receive ILP services 


Youths who completed high schooVGED or adult education............................................................................


Youths continuing and/or currently enrolied in high schooVGED or adult education......................................... 

10. Youths who have completed vocational education or on-the-job training ....................................................... 

11. Youths continuing and/or currently enrolied in vocational education or on-the-job training ................................ 

12. Youths enrolled in college............. ......................... .......... ......... ................ ....... 

13. Youths who obtained e her full-time or part-time employment ........................................................................ 

14. Of the number of youths reported in Item 13 above, those who are mimary or Job Corps enlistees................. 

15. Youths actively seeking empioyment . ........... ........... ............ 

16. Youths determined unemployable, SSI eligible, or other similar special category ............................................ 

17. Youths who are living independently of agency maintenance programs ........................................................... 

18. Youths who obtained housing and other communit servicas........................................................................... 

19.	 Youths for whom no information could obtained..................................................................... 

TELEPHONE NU"BER ATE PERSON TO CONACT 

ro 040SA (6190) C - 11

APPENDIX D€

SAMLE DATA 

In the body of this report, we propose that ACF could develop a standard set of data 

elements to be reported on each youth participating in independent livig servces, to 

be reported annually, in aggregate. We suggest that ACF could encourage the States 

to include many of these elements in their new SACWIS systems. 

On the following pages, we present some examples of the tyes of data elements that 

ACF might consider adopting. We have divided the information into three categories 

(demographics, servces, and status/outcomes), and present the data elements, the 

reporting timeframe, and the source. 

These suggestions build on reco=endations to us by the Data Collection Task Force 

of the NIL as well as the current ACF data requirements. 

D - 1

I DEMOGRAIDCS 

Element 

# 16- 17 year olds in substitute care


# 16-17 year olds with a goal of


independent living 

# 16-17 year olds for whom 

independent living servces are 

considered "appropriate 

# 16-17 year olds who participated 

in independent living servces 

# 18-20 year olds stil in care who 

participated in independent living 

seIVces 

# discharged youth who returned


to receive independent living 

seIVces 

# of those participating of each 

race/ethnic group (W, B, A, H, AI 

# of those participating of each


sex (M, F) 

# of those participating with a


disabling condition 

# of those participating who were 

eligible 

length of time in care of those 

participating 

At what point in tie:


cumulative, end of year 

cumulative, end of year 

cumulative, end of year 

cumulative, end of year 

cumulative, end of year 

cumulative, end of year 

cumulative, end of year 

cumulative, end of year 

cumulative, end of year 

cumulative, end of year 

cumulative, end of year 

D - 2 

Sour: 

SACWIS/AFCARS 

SACWIS/AFCARS 

ILP data 

SACWIS 

ILP data 

ILP data 

SACWIS/AFCARS 

SACWIS/AFCARS 

SACWIS/AFCARS 

SACWIS/ILP data 

SACWIS/AFCARS 
SERVICE 

Element At what point in tie:


educational assistance€ cumulative annual total 

participating 

tutoring 

stipend/scholarship 

employment assistance 

jObPlacement 

job apprenticeship


job mentoring 

group life skill training

(listoftoPiCS) 

formal, individual life skill training 

(listoftoPiCS) 

pre-discharge financial assistance 

(non-school stipend) 

post discharge financial assistance 

mentoring arrangement 

supervsedPractiCejivigarrangement 

-- before age 19 

supervsed practice living arrangement 

-- age 19+ 

medical coverage 

teenretreat/conference/wlderness 

expenence 

support groups


diSChargeServces(SpeCialized 

counseling, housing placement, etc. 

D - 3 

Sour: 

SACWIS or 

ILP data 

(depends on design


of each State 

SACWIS) 
I STATUS/OUTCOME 

Element 

Educational status 

(highest grade completed) 

Employment status 

# employed


# employed for at least six 

months 

public assistance status 

AFC 

Medicaid 

Food Stamps


other assistance


maritalstatus 

# single


# married


# females who are pregnant 

# number of chidren (0, 1, 2, 3+) 

housing status 

IL subsidized


other publicly subsidized


parents 

independent 

other 

staying in care voluntarily


(to complete school, etc. 

At what point in tie:


cumulative annual 

freq uencies, collected at 

at discharge 

(and at some point after 

discharge, if so decided) 

Sour: 

SACWIS or 

ILP data system


(depends on design


of each State 

SACWIS) 

SACWIS or 

ILP data system


(depends on design


of each State 

SACWIS) 

Interface with 

unemployment and


IRS data 

SACWIS or 

ILP data system


Interface with 

unemployment and


IRS data 

SACWIS or 

ILP data system


ILP data system


D -€
APPENDIX E

SAMLE PERORMCE MEUR€

In the body of this report, we propose that ACF could facilitate the development of 

performance and outcomes measures for independent living. Below, we present 

examples of measures that ACF and the States might consider adopting. 

PROCE MEUR€

Meaur€

Percent of eligible youth receivig a formal assessment of 

independent living strengths and needs in a tinely fashion 

(e. , before or at age 16) 

Percent of eligible 16 & 17 year olds participating in the IL€

program€

Percent of eligible youth receiving each of certain specific 

servce (e. , group life skill classes, financial stipends, etc. 

Percent of participating youth completing all servce 

identifed in individual case plan 

Number of discharged youth returning for IL servce€

Percent of participating youth remainig in care voluntarily 

past their 18th birthday in order to continue in school€

STATUS/OUTCOME MEUR€

Meaur€

Percent of participating youth holding a job at discharge€

Percent of participating youth having held a job for at least 6€

months at discharge€

Percent of participating youth completing high school by 

discharge€

Percent of participating youth continuing to higher education€

Percent of participating youth avoiding early parenthood by 

discharge€

Sour€

ILP data collection€

SACWIS€

ILP data collection€

ILP data collection€

(eventually, SACWIS) 

ILP data collection 

ILP data collection€

Sour€

ILP data collection at€

discharge€

ILP data collection at€

discharge; interface with€

unemployment and IRS€

data€

ILP data collection at€

discharge€

ILP data collection at€

discharge€

ILP data collection at€

discharge€

E - 1€
STATUS/OUTCOME MEUR 

Meaure Sour 

Percent of participating youth independent of public ILP data collection at 

assistance at discharge discharge; interface with 

unemployment and IRS 

data 

Percent of participating youth responding positively in a ILP discharge survey 

survey evaluating the servces they received (at discharge) 

E - 2 
APPENDIX F 

COMM ON TI DRA REORT 

In this appendix, we present in full the comments on the draft report offered by the 

Administration for Children and Familes (ACF) as well as the Child Welfare League 

of America and the National Independent Livig Association. 

F - 1 
...

,..., . .

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH II HUMAN SERVICES 

August 30, 1994


TO:	 June Gibbs Brown 

Inspector General 

FROM: Assistant Secretary 

tor children and Families 

ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILOREN ANO FAMILlE! 

Ofrce 0' the Assistant Secre1ary. Suite 600


370 L' Enrant Promenade. S.


Washington, O.C. 20447


SUBJECT: OIG Draft Report: "Independent Living Program for

Foster Care Youths: strategies for Improved 

Administration for Children and Families 

Management and Program Reporting, " OEI-Ol-93-00090 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above-noted


draft report.


We generally concur with its findings and the two broad


strategy recommendations that are outlined in the report.


The options presented will be very useful for us to consid


in our attempts to improve our management of the program.


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


we appreciate the efforts made by your staff in its


development. 

Mary Jo Bane


F - 2

,., ,/:.\\ :..::;\, ,. ,,,,,:..

Child Welfare League of America, Inc.€ CWU MO First Street. NW. Suite 310. Woshington. DC 200 1-2085 . 202/638-2952 . FAX 20/638-€

PRESIDENT€

John F. Merchant€

VICE PRESIDENTS


Anne Duncan€

Judlll1Sherman€

Ruthann S, YamanaMa€

SECRETARY August 10, 1994


Marilyn Co.€

ASSISIANT SECRETARY€

Norman W. Powell. Jr€

June Gibbs Brown€ TREASURER€

RicharaH. Flemn'lg Insptor Genera


ASSISTANT TREASURER Deparent of Heath & Human Service€

Raymond P. Carpenler€ Washigtn, D. C. 20201
 BOARD OF DIRECTORS


CarOl Armstrong€

Char1es,L. Baker Dea Ms. Brown:
 Judith S. Block€

Sheryl BrisseU-Chapman€

Sarah Bryanl 

Nan Dale€ Than you for th opportnity to review and comment on the dr insption rert€ Charles A. DeGranClore entitled "Indepndent Living Progr for Foster Car Youths: Strtegies for€ Jeanene Dunckel


CharlesA. Haas


Kenl Hend :son Improved ACF Maagement and Progr Reortg . The Chid Welfare Legue€

George T. Hubbard of America (CWL) is commtted to improvig service to the at-risk youths served€ MaiBel! Hurley


Ann D. Jordan by the Title IV-E Independent Living Prgr (I).€

JamesM. Karel€

Glynn D. Key€

Karl G. Kong CWL supports the two mai recommendations your offce has made to improve the€

Suzanne S. Megalnlm€

Elba Monlaillo . IL; that ACF restrcture the application and progr reortg procedures for the€ Rob Mosbacher. Jr€

Timothy F . Noelker ILP to more effectively support State plag and to give ACF an accurate national€ M,chael R. DSlrQWSM'


Jane K Paine
 picture of independent living efforts and that ACF should focus their restrcturig€

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


1nlyn A 5cvmann€

r Stanie ' Shavc€

S ;-lor,.al1 Shlrrv APPLICATION AN PROGRA REPORTIG PROCEDUR€

::a,!h Sm'lh€

Pamera K Steele€

larlha SwnnlS In order to gai an accurate national picture of independent living ejJons it is


SUS;Jn S SICDIC!O


Georga W Swan III reommended that ACF move to a single, multi-yea plan which consolidates chid€

JInG TherJ.111€

:J;uyY Tull welfare services, family support and preservation services, and independent living.€

::rI,,,..I. \l1I1I,," ';lilr,€ CWLA supports this suggestion with the addition of guidelines for development of€ HONORARY MEMBER


..It,; BI I\ W H, ,,''1'" I" Sb.te plans with 
 specific youth and independent living s:::tions.€

EXECUTIVE DIREcro:?


".J '':I!W:1\,",,' CWLA supports the recommendation to strengthen independent living reporting€ PUTY DlRECIO:!


1,,, I,, . "r:".€ mechanisms by retaining a distinct focus on independent living and youths in any€

State child welfare reporting system. This would require ACF first to adopt€

1'''' standardized definitions of terms and then to provide the States with detailed€ WESTEI1NOFFICE€

'.'''''S_€

","1. 01:;,;5 reporting instructions based on these terms. ACF could then develop the€

1,\.€ standardized independent living information form, as recommended in your report.€

01, .1.€

, II r"/"!I"'n€

CWlA/CANADA€

1..€

1 ,W "€

. ::r€

;,'d,€ F - 3€ '''''h. II.:€
CWU Guarding Children s Rights. Serving Children s Needs 

August 10 1994 

Page 2. 

ACF should playa key role in developing performance and out come measures for indepndent 

living, as remmended in the rert. Exstig effort in this ar should not, however, be 

forgotten. ACF could coordinate and dirt effort to brig together reh and advocy 

grups to focus on outcome meaures. ACF could also focus on assessment inormation on 

youths to more accurately trck changes in status for outcomes. 

The report discusse the confsion around meaurig "reults achieved 90 days afer parcipants 

completed the progi" . CWL supprts moving to outcomes discharge with ACF 

encouragig state which currntly trck youths beyond discharge to contiue to do so. 

also support the involvement of the young peple in progr evaluation efforts at dischare. 

FOCUS ON INORMTION SHAG 

CWL supports the recmmendation that ACF develop a mechansm for sharg inormation 

about progr services as well as bet practice inormation and models reived from the state. 

"Ts would reduce duplication of efforts in many ar and save the states considerable time and 

resources. 

The report recommends the introduction of centra office " youth speialists " to provide technca

assistace and consultation to the states and to loc progras. CWL supports this 

recommendation and views this as one more step towards ensurig that the nees of vulnerable 

youths do not get lost in the efforts to consolidate chid welfare service application and 

reporting. 

CWLA welcomes this opportnity to provide input on this importt process. Please do not 

hesitate to contact me or Nancy Peppler, our Program Director of Youth Services , at (202) 638-

2952 , should you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

lhDavid S. Liederran 

Executive Diretor


F - 4

. . j

. . ::. . . .:: :,., .. /,:. ,.. 

nringing
 urutaluing ta
 indepet living deelopment


August 8, 1994-

t);:; 

:.,t. 

June Gibbs Brown 

Department of Health and Human Services Office of -the Inspector - General: 

330 Independence Avenue, Room 5250€

Washington, _D. C. 20201€

Dear Inspector Brown:€

The - Board and membe ship - of the National Independent Living- Association (NILA) -j oin me in expressing - my appreciation to you for 

allowing us to comment on the draft of - the- report, "Independent 

Living Program for Foster Care Youths: Strategies for Improved - ACF 

Management and - Program Reporting" that has been _prepared for - the 

Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children 

and Families. We were pleased to be consulted regularly by Tim 

Corbett and Dave Veroff during the development of the report, it- obvious that our - input - was utilized in the formulation - of recommenda tions. €

I have provided our comments on each "Option for Improvement" in€

the order in which they appear in the document, beginning on€

page 8. 

1. Create a consolidated State plan for child welfare services that includes independent 

living. (page 8) 

NILA supports this recommendation especially when 

combined with #4 below. 

2. Require states to establish measurable goals and targets, and to report on their 

progress. (page 9) 

We recognize the need for outcome measures; however, 

federal staff should exercise caution in establishing 

guidelines in this area to avoid implementation of 

simplistic measures that may not be a true indication 

of the success of independent living services. NILA 

offers our assistance and support in the development of 

outcome measures. 

National Independent Living Association 

202 W(5 Eighth s- This. OK 74\19-1419 91815.2986 fAX9181592- IR41 
/,: . . , . ,. ,. ;;: :: ,:?:. .;, 

June Gibbs Brown - Inspector General 

August 8 , 1994 

Page 2 

3. Adjust lhe timing oflhe Stale plan and the granl award. (page 10) 

f:. 

NILA wholeheartedly supports this recommendation. 

4. Relain a dislincl focus on independenl living and youlhs in any State child welfare 

reporling syslem. (page 10) ' 

NILA wholeheartedly supports this recommendation. 

5. Provide the Slates wilh a simple. standard form for reporling aggregate informalion. 

(page 11) 

NILA supports is recommendation, we would , hope that any 

such form will eventually be automated. 

6. Utilze the capabillies of Statewide Aulomaled Child Welfare Information Syslems 

and the Adoplion and Foster Care Analysis and Reporling System. (page 11) 

NILA supports this recommendation. It should be noted that any new requirements for states to include 

independent living in their SWACWIS must be done promptly 

as a number of states are already in the development stage. 

7. Encourage eleclronic reponing specifically for independemliving. (page 12) 

NILA supports this recommendation. 

8. Establish a standard. basic data sel for independent living. (page 12) 

NILA supports this recommendation and offers our support 

in the selection of the elements in the data set. 

9. FaciWale lhe developmenl of clear definilions of independellliving lerms. (page 

13) 

NILA supports this recommendation and the Data Collection Task Force offers to develop dra ft 

definitions. 

10.	 Collecl more detailed budgel dala lhrollgh lhe program reponing mechanism. 

(page 14) 

NILA supports this recommendation; however , we urge 

federal staff to keep budget categories broad. 

F - 6

. . . .. ,. .:.. ::;,

June Gibbs Brown - Inspector General


August 8, 1994


Page 4


17. Report on State performance measures. (page 19)


NILA supports this recommendation.


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

NILA supports this recommendation.


19. Share model forms and directories of available resources. (page 20) .€

NILA supports this recommendation.


20.	 Develop a focus for ACF youlh programs in central office and each regional office. 

(page 21) 

NILA supports this recommendation. Implementation of€

this recommendation would provide tremendous support to


state agency staff who are isolated throughout the


country . 

21.	 Incorporate independent living issues into other child welfare monitoring activities. 

(page 22) 

NILA supports this recommendation.


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

coordination among these and the lirdepelldellt Living Program. 
 (page 22)


NILA supports this recommendation.


The Independent Living coordinator from Pennsylvania asked that I


also mention that the Pennsylvania reports referred to as the end


of the year report is actually the application that counties submit


for funding.


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


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


staff. Mike Amrose and Irene Hammond are significant assets to


the IV-E-IL program. They have been diligent in keeping the states 

informed of developments in the program. It is amazing that they 

have been able to be so supportive of the states with so few staff 

resources. Any recommendations on this program would be incomplete 

if they did not include a recommendation to increase the number of


staff and travel money for this program.


F - 7

. . : 

, . . :..: , . , ,: .., . ,., . . ., , . 

June Gibbs Brown - Inspector General 

August 8, 1994 

Page 3 

11.€Solicit information on effective practices and innovations. (page 14) 

NILA supports this recommendation. 

12. Develop performance and outcomes measures for independent living. (page 14). 

NILA supports this recommendation with the reservations

voiced about # 2. NILA welcomes the opportuni tyt6 be 

involved in the development of these measures. 

13. Establish general parameters within which States could define specific outcomes and. (page 15) 

"b. 

. I" I-" 

t:t: 

14. 

15. 

16. 

ways of measuring those outcomes. 

NILA strongly supports. this recommendation. This 

recommendation must be implemented if states are going 

to be given the latitude to develop their own outcome 

measures. 

Focus on the status of youths at discharge. (page 16) 

NILA supports this recommendation; however, we do not believe that we should "focus" on youth only at 

discharge. We recommend that the language be changed to indicate that discharge is one point at which 

information should be obtained. Youths should be 

looked at on several occasions: at age 16, at 

discharge, and at different points in time after the 

youth is discharged from care. 

Encourage and assist State efforts 10 link independent living data systems with 

public assistance. unemployment. criminal justice and Internal Revenue Service 

information systems. (page 17) 

NILA strongly supports this recommendation. 

Play all active role in independent living research. (page 17) 

NILA strongly supports the federal central office 

contracting for national research on independent living, 

especially longitudinal studies to follow youths for years 

after they leave care. At this point in time , several 

states are lapsing IV-E-IL "matching " funds. We recommend 

that some of these funds be utilized to help fund central 

office functions such as research. 

F - 8
.. 

.... ;,. . .:.,, ::.!

June Gibbs Brown - Inspector General


August 8, 1994


Page 5


Lastly, we want to commend the work of Tim Corbett and David 

Veroff. Both of these young men spent a tremendous amount of time. and energy working with us to secure our opinions and. 

recommendations. We commend Tim and David for excellent work in 

blending divergent perspectives and developing an excellent report.. If they are representative of the caliber .of your staff , you are a 

very fortunate administrator. 


Please feel free to call me at 512/450-3309 if . you have any 

questions regarding our. comments. Again, thank you very much for 

providing us the opportunity to comment on the report. 

Sincerely, 

Thomas Chapmond


Chairperson 

Mike Amrose 

Irene Hammond


Timothy Corbett 

David Veroff


NILA Board Members


F - 9 

'1;, 
APPENDIX G 

NOTE 

Child Welfare League of America Standards for Independent Living Services 

1989, section 1.2, p. 10. 

Westat, Inc. A National Evaluation of Title IV-E Foster Care Independent Living 

Programs for Youth HHS contract 105-87-1608, Phase I, Vol, I, p. 4-

Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (PL. 99-272). Ths 

law provided funding to States for servces to youth in foster care who were 16 

to 18 years of age and who were receivig foster care maitenance payments 

under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, which is tied to eligibilty for Aid to 

Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Subsequent amendments to the 

law provided additional funds and made various changes in eligibility and 

oversight requirements, including giving States the option of providing 

independent living servces to non-Title-IV-E chidren and to youth up to age 

21. 

Funds are allocated on the basis of each State s relative share of the nation 

population of foster-care children in 1984; this base year has not been updated 

since the start of the program. The first $45 milion requires no cost sharig; 

the remaining $25 milion requires a dollar-for-dollar State match, which can be 

in-kind or cash. Each fiscal year s grant is paid out in quarterly payments, and 

must be spent by the end of the fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the 

award was made. 

Administration for Children, Youth, and Famiies, Program Instruction 

(ACYF-PI-93-01), December 10, 1993. 

There has been one formal evaluation of federally funded independent living 

programs, conducted in 1988-90 by the consulting firm Westat, Inc., under 

contract to ACF (see note 2). That study concluded that "the passage of P. 

99-272 has had a dramatic effect on the development and implementation of 

independent living policies and servces" in the States. The study also 

determined that such servces have the potential to improve outcomes for 

youth, and that education and employment opportunities appeared to be of 

particular importance. 

G -€
10. 

11. 

12. 

Origially, States were required to submit quarterly fiscal reports (Standard 

Form 269) on the independent living grant; because of the two-year 

expenditure period for the grant, each annual grant generally entailed 8 reports. 

Recently, the reporting schedule has been revised--in part to reflect the late 

awarding of the grant. Thee reports are now required, one at the end of the 

first fiscal year of the expenditure period, one at the middle of the second year 

and a third at the end of the second year. 

The ACF's grants reengieering process entails a reexamiation of the fiscal 

admistration and oversight of the host of grants within the purvew of the 

agency. Our report does not address fiscal reporting requirements; we expect 

that ACF will give full consideration to the ILP grant as part of the 

reengieering process. 

Repon of the Administration for Children and Families' Monitoring Team Draft 

April 1994. 

Other recent program initiatives wi also have an impact on all ACF chid 

welfare programs, including the ILP. First, through the Family Preservation 

and Family Support Act, ACF will move to prevent crises by proactively 

assisting at-risk families. Second, through the Adoption and Foster Care 

Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS), ACF has established a required 

basic data set for each child in substitute care. Third, through the State 

Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS), ACF will provide 

funding and direction for the development of computer hardware and softare 

for State child welfare programs. 

Most OIG reports focus largely on detailig program, policy, or administrative 

deficiencies in separate section entitled "Findings. 

Through the Runaway and Homeless Youth (RHY) Programs, ACF directly 

funds competitively selected public and private agencies to provide servces 

including housing, to these groups of youth. Many of these providers also serve 

youths who are stil in foster care, through contracts to States for the provision 

of independent living servces. 

In ACF central offce, the RHY programs are admistered by the Family and 

Youth Servces Bureau. At the regional level, the organizational structure 

varies. In five regions, the ILP and the RHY programs are located within the 

same branch. In other regions, the RHY programs are located in the Head 

Start Branch, which similarly provides direct grants to servce providers (as 

opposed to State governments). 

The enabling legislation for the program requires each State to submit an 

application for funds, separate from its general child welfare plan. In the early 

years of the program, this requirement ensured that States paid particular 

G -
,.

::!.

;-o 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

attention to independent living and youth. This separate application process 

also allowed the States and ACF to be somewhat flexible in plannng, given the 

program s initially temporary status and uncertain future. 

It should be noted that some States have included independent living more 

comprehensively in their planning efforts than others. Some regional offces 

likewise, have made a point of including independent living in the joint planng 

process. 

The application is due by February 1st, and funds generally are not awarded 

until the third quarter of the fiscal year. The earliest date that application are 

accepted is October 1st, while this year, the program instruction regarding the 

application did not go out until December 10th. 

Although there is no standardized reporting format for the States, ACF does 

require that regional staff use a standard checklst in reviewing the applications 

and reports. In one region , the staff with whom we spoke had shared this form 

in advance with the States, so that they could collect the specific information 

correctly. In fact , one State coordinator had copied this form and given it to 

his district staff, so that they too could collect the right information throughout 

the year. The coordinator simply compiled these reports from the districts 

both monthly and annually. 

The ACF does ask States to provide in their program reports "a complete 

record of the purposes for which the funds were spent." States have 

interpreted this requirement very loosely, however. For example, one regional 

staffer noted that one State in his region provided a three page budget 

detailing all expenses, while another provided only a three line budget, outling 

Federal, State, and total expenditures. 

Fiscal reporting requirements (as opposed to program reporting requirements) 

are very minimal. 

Only 2 of the 11 States with whom we spoke had fully automated systems for 

independent living information, while 4 others could obtain some relevant 

information from their States' general child welfare computer systems. In a 

number of States, the independent living coordinator has access only to 

aggregate information on the numbers of youth served in counties, districts, or 

regions; in others, the coordinator has access to information on a per-youth 

basis. At least one State has no separate reporting capability for independent 

living. In several States , the coordinator has no line authority over the staff 

providing servces, which can limit the abilty to access information. 

States noted that youth are very anxous to be free of the child welfare system 

and often want nothing to do with it once they are discharged. States have 

tried various methods to encourage youth to return mail surveys or to come 

G -
18. 

19. 

20. 

back for follow-up intervews after discharge, including cash payments and 

certificates. Their success has generally been quite limited. 

There are also signcant variations in how this inormation is reported. Some 

States report on youth at 90 days after their participation in an independent 

living activity, such as a group lie skis course. Some of these youth, therefore 

may stil be in the care of the State; they are not yet independent. Other 

States report on the results achieved 90 days afer discharge from custody, 

regardless of when independent livig servces were provided or completed. 

the 11 States with whom we spoke, 4 stared the clock at servce completion, 

6 at discharge (for one we were not able to detemIe this information). Ths 

timing issue can be further complicated in the case of 18-21 year-olds who 

return for assistance after their intial discharge.


In one State, the situation is even more complex. Ths State has instituted an 

option caled "trial discharge," which allows youths to leave the system but 

retain the option of returng to State custody up to age 21 if they have 

problems. The results reported for youths durig trial discharge, therefore, may 

not provide a useful picture of their ability to manage real independence. 

We also noted a basic methodological problem in the reporting of this 

information. States report the number of "results achieved" (such as the number 

employed and the number holdig a GED). In most reports, it is not possible 

to detemIe the number of youth for whom these results are being reported. 

For example, a State may report that 100 youths were employed and 

100 youths graduated from high school; it is not possible to detemIe whether 

the population reporting equals 100 or 200 youths, or somethig in between. 

Several State contacts also were concerned that independent living funds might 

be lost in the overall fuding stream to the States, and be redirected by agency 

admstrators to seemigly more urgent State priorities. They urged that funds 

remain a distinct stream. 

The enabling legislation for the ILP requires States to submit an annual 

application for funds; legislative or regulatory change might be required to 

replace the application with a consolidated plan.


Goals and progress updates could be included in any planning and reporting 

framework ACF chooses; they could be set out in either free-standing 

independent living applications and reports or integrated child welfare plans 

and reports. 

Although the current application and reporting requirements do not mandate 

that States establish specific goals and report on their progress in meeting 

them, some States have structured their submissions in this fashion. 

G -

21.€ The enablig legislation for the ILP requires States to submit an annual 

program report providing a description of their programs; any consolidation of 

reports may requires legislative or regulatory change. 

22. .	 Such a document might require approval from the Offce of Management and 

Budget. 

23. 58 Fed. Reg. 67939, Dec. 22, 1993. 

With respect to independent living, the SACWIS regulations require only that 

the systems be capable of identifg eligible youth. 

24. Westat, Phase I, Vol., p. ix. 

25. 58 Fed. Reg. 67913, December 22, 1993. 

There would be certain limitations to the usefulness of AFCARS and SACWIS 

for the purposes of independent livig; most importantly, they would not 

include youth formerly in foster care who retu for independent livig 

assistance. Inormation on such paricipants (who in most States represent a 

very small percentage of all youth served through the independent living grant) 

might have to be maintaied separately. 

26.€ Several of the State coordinators with whom we spoke voiced concerns about 

States that are currently unable to track specifc servces provided to youths. 

These critics were skeptical about programs that report that they are servng 

large numbers of youth by virtue of training to staff or foster parents that 

trickles down " or who report that they serve everyone in the eligible age group 

because that s the regulation. 

27.€ As an example, one coordinator pointed out that her district-level 

admistrators "were really nailg me to the wall about 'what are the mium 

requirements that the feds lay on us.' And when I had to say they only require 

90 days, then they said that's all they re going do, the minium. I argued and 

argued that you don t see much at 90 days, but it didn t matter. It was an issue 

of resources. 

28. In 1990, a NIL data collection task force surveyed the States regarding their 

data collection activities. The group found that one of the most signcant 

diffculties in interpreting the States' responses was the lack of common 

definitions of terms. This issue was also well recognized at the NIL annual 

meeting in March 1994. 

29.€ While the requirements of the fiscal report are very limited, ACF can require 

more financial detail in its program reporting mechanisms. For example, both 

the Developmental Disabilities Program and the Social Servces Block Grant 

require substantial budget detail. 

G -
,.., 

30.	 In our discussions with State and regional staff, we suggested lookig at the 

Federal-expenditures-per-youth as a measure of program extent and intensity; 

we received widely divergent reactions. Some staf argued that the figure was 

meaningless because it did not include additional State funds, did not take into 

account regional cost variations or varyng levels of admistrative costs for 

county- and State-run systems, and was not lined to program outcomes. Other 

contacts regarded the number as a very important insight, and suggested that it 

would prompt them to ask questions about the reasons for the variations 

among the States. 

31.	 The Chid Welfare League of America is currently engaged in an effort to 

identify core elements of independent livig practice; ACF is represented on 

the project's advisory committee. These efforts might connect well with the 

ultimate development of performance measures. 

32. By process areas we mean such thigs as the geographic extent of servces, the 

training of staff, the length of programs, and so on. By interi outcomes we 

mean such thigs as youths' educational and employment status at the time of 

discharge. By final outcomes we mean such thigs as youths' education and 

employment status at points after discharge, whie the youths are livig 

independently. 

33.	 Most State and regional contacts stressed the importance of educational 

attainment--including completion of high school, earng of a GED, or 

continuation to higher education--as a key measure. Simarly, the evaluation 

by Westat, Inc. , determined that high school completion prior to discharge from 

custody "led to better outcomes, regardless of skis traing" (Westat, Phase 

Vol p. xiii). 

34. The ACF could take several additional steps to emphasize the importance of 

educational efforts. As suggested by the Chid Welfare League of America 

ACF could suggest amendig current legislation to require that individual case 

plans "outlie the steps being taken to help youths obtai a high school degree 

or its equivalent" (Child Welfare League of America Independent Living 

Services for Youths in Out-of-Home Care 1993, p. 51). Section 475 of the Social 

Security Act stipulates requirements for the case plans of chidren in substitute 

care. More broadly, ACF could require or encourage better coordination 

between independent living servces and local educational systems. 

35.	 States have created a variety of innovative means of measuring outcomes and 

program impact. These include exit intervews with youth, follow-up intervews 

mail surveys, evaluations by youth of the servces they have received, and 

efforts to determine if youth have developed meaningful relationships in their 

lives. 

G -

-o' 

36.€ Many States treat independent living preparation as a discrete program, to 

which youths are referred by their priary case worker, and which lasts for a 

set period of time. In such programs, a youth might be referred for 

independent livig traig at age 16, complete the traing by age 17, and 

remain in care for several more years--until age 18, 19, or even 21. The 

independent livig program might have no further contact with this youth after 

completion of the traing program. In these programs, therefore, requied 

reporting on the status of youths at discharge would represent an important 

new source of inormation on the preparedness of these youths at the time they 

actually become independent, and would indeed give a longer-term picture of 

the youths than inormation at 90 days after the completion of servces, as is 

now generally reported. 

37. Micent Abel, Ph. et. al. , Evaluation of the Independent Living Program/ 

Initiative; Summary of Evaluation Urban Research Center, University of 

Louisvie, March 13, 1990, p. 6. 

38.€ One State, for example, is curently negotiating with crial justice offcials to 

get such inormation in aggregate form (through ' 'blid matches ); they would 

not be able to track individual youth, but could see overall trends. 

39. CW Independent Living Services p. 52. 

40.€ For example, one regional offce shares the application and report from each of 

the region s States with all of the other States in the region. 

Although ACF produces an annual report to Congress that mially 

summarizes State programs, offcials in several States mentioned that they have 

not received this inormation. Aside from the sparse information contained in 

this report to Congress, ACF produces no national information on the program. 

41. In addition, as noted above, the organzational structures of the regional offces 

vary with respect to youth servces: In five regions, the Runaway and Homeless 

Youth (RHY programs are administered by a diferent branch than the ILP. 

Such fragmentation may lit the abilty of ACF program specialsts to devote 

time to youth issues and to provide useful assistance to the States. 

42.€ The National Resource Center for Youth Servces (NRC) released a 

compilation of 34 State policies in 1993. The ACF has funded resource centers 

in various subject areas to provide technical assistance and support to State 

agencies and grantees receiving funds from ACF. 

43.€ Depending on resource availability, ACF might be able to fund a national 

resource center for youth servces for such a function. 

G -€