 |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
|
||||
| ACF Home | Services | Working with ACF | Policy/Planning | About ACF | ACF News | HHS Home | |||||
Questions?
|
Privacy
|
Site Index
|
Contact Us
|
Download Reader™
|
Print
|
|---|
Maryland
Context Data | Outcomes Data | State Comment | Federal Comment
Maryland [ Context Data ]
A. Key Context Statistics |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1The convention for the data tables is the following: N/A in the data table means that the category was not applicable for the specific year. A dash (-) means that there is "no value" or the category is a true zero (that is, no children were reported as being in that category). A zero (0) means that there is a value for the category, but the value is less than 0.1 percent.Back | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2The multiple and overlapping race categories in this and subsequent race tables are due to changes in the Census Bureau categories beginning in 2000. Because the reporting of these categories is a relatively new process for States, changes in percentages over time may be due to data quality issues.Back | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3A child victim is a child who is the subject of a substantiated or indicated maltreatment report. Children with more than one report of substantiated or indicated maltreatment may be counted more than once.Back | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
B. Child Maltreatment Data (NCANDS) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4Percentages may total more than 100 percent because Hispanics may be counted both by Hispanic ethnicity and by race.Back | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5Percentages may total more than 100 percent because children could have been victims of more than one type of maltreatment.Back | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
C. Children in Foster Care (AFCARS Annual Foster Care Database) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
D. Children Waiting to be Adopted (AFCARS Annual Foster Care Database: Fiscal Year Data)6 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6Waiting children are children who have a goal of adoption and/or whose parents' rights have been terminated (TPR). Children 16 years and older with TPR, but with a goal of emancipation have been excluded from the waiting children and TPR populations.Back | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
E. Children Adopted (AFCARS Annual Adoption Database) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Maryland [ Outcomes Data ]
Maryland [ State Comment ]
Social Services Administration
Maryland Department of Human Resources
800-332-6347
- Maryland’s population of children under age 18 grew slightly (.8 percent) between 2001 and 2002. During the same period,
the number at children in out-of-home care declined 4 percent and entries into out-of-home care declined 3 percent. The
number of children previously in out-of-home care who were adopted continued to increase sharply in 2002 to 938 children,
up 15 percent from the previous year.
- Another accomplishment is that Maryland submitted case level data to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System
(NCANDS) for the first time in 2002. Child protective service (CPS) data prior to 2002 reported in Child Welfare Outcomes is
problematic because Maryland was limited to reporting CPS data by household rather than by individual child victim. Counts
of child victims in previous years were estimated.
- Section C shows that length of stay in out-of-home care remained largely unchanged in 2002 except for an increase among
children exiting out-of-home placement. One reason for this increase is the aging of the out-of-home care population. In
2000, 46 percent of children in out-of-home care in Maryland were age 11 or older. In 2002, over half (51 percent) were age
11 or older.
- The difference in Section D between the number of children “waiting to be adopted” (3,007) and the number of children
(1,601) whose parents’ rights have been terminated (TPR) is due to the fact that the process of TPR has started but not
necessarily been completed on all children with a permanency plan of adoption.
- The difference between the adoption counts in Section E and exits to adoption reported in Measures 3.1 and 5.1 is due to the
fact that the former is a manual count and the latter is derived from Maryland’s Foster Care and Adoption Child Tracking
System (FACTS). The former is used for the federal Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS)
adoption data submission while the latter is used to count exits when reporting AFCARS foster care data. Tracking adoptions
on FACTS is difficult because children drop out of the system when they assume new identities. For this reason, manual
counts tend to be more accurate than FACTS counts of adoption.
Maryland [ Federal Comment ]
The following discussion focuses on Maryland’s performance with regard to each of the outcomes assessed in the Child Welfare Outcomes Annual Reports to Congress. The Maryland Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) was completed in fiscal year (FY) 2004, and compliance with the national standards was based on data from 2002. The final report for that review is available from the Child Welfare Monitoring Documents Library. A discussion of the implications of CFSR findings for Maryland’s performance on the Report to Congress Outcomes is provided below.The Federal Comment includes an examination of State performance in 2002 and the percent change in performance from 1999 to 2002. A difference in percent change from 1999 to 2002 that was less than plus or minus 5.0 was considered to represent “no change in performance.” With the exception of outcome measure 2.1, the data presented in the Report to Congress are rounded to one decimal. However, the percent change in performance was calculated using data rounded to two decimals. Measure 2.1 is rounded to two decimals because the national standard is less than one percent. Key findings of the analyses of national data pertaining to State variation in performance on the outcome measures are incorporated into a State’s Federal Comment when relevant.
Outcome 1. Reduce recurrence of child abuse and/or neglect
In calendar year (CY) 2002, Maryland’s rate of maltreatment recurrence within 6 months was 8.0 percent, which is more than both the national standard (6.1 percent or less) and the national median (7.5 percent). Performance on this measure over time cannot be assessed, because 2002 was the first year the State provided the necessary data to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS). Information from the Maryland CFSR Final Report suggests that performance with regard to maltreatment recurrence may be attributed to: (1) the scarcity of services available for families, particularly in some areas of the State; and (2) an agency practice of sometimes closing cases before all of the maltreatment issues are addressed, particularly issues pertaining to substance abuse and domestic violence.
Outcome 2. Reduce the incidence of child abuse and/or neglect in foster care
In CY 2002, Maryland’s incidence of maltreatment in foster care was 0.52 percent, which meets the national standard (0.57 percent or less), but is more than the national median (0.39 percent). Performance on this measure over time cannot be assessed because 2002 was the first year the State provided the necessary data to NCANDS. Information from the CFSR Final Report suggests that the State addresses the safety of children in foster care through providing adequate initial and ongoing training to foster parents and facility staff and by establishing licensing standards that ensure children’s safety.
Outcome 3. Increase permanency for children in foster care
In FY 2002, 81.5 percent of children leaving foster care in Maryland were discharged to permanent homes (which is less than the national median of 86.1 percent), 69.6 percent of children with a diagnosed disability who exited from foster care were discharged to permanent homes (which is less than the national median of 79.8 percent), and 55.3 percent of children who were older than age 12 at entry into foster care exited to a permanent home (which is less than the national median of 72.0 percent). In addition, 43.5 percent of the children exiting foster care through emancipation were age 12 or younger at the time of entry into foster care, which is more than the national median of 26.9 percent. These findings suggest that the State experiences challenges in achieving permanency for children exiting foster care.
Maryland’s performance declined from FY 1999 to FY 2002 with regard to the percentage of children emancipated from foster care who were age 12 or younger when they entered foster care (+33.7 percent change). There was no change in performance on the other measures. Information from the CFSR Final Report identified the following as potential barriers to achieving permanency: (1) a practice of establishing permanency goals that are not appropriate given the needs of the child and the circumstances of the case, and (2) delays in some cases in changing goals for children when it is evident that reunification will be unlikely.
Outcome 4. Reduce time to reunification without increasing re-entry
In FY 2002, the percentage of all reunifications in Maryland occurring within 12 months of a child’s entry into foster care was 50.3, which does not meet the national standard (76.2 percent or more) and is less than the national median (68.0 percent). Performance with regard to reunifications within 12 months exhibited no change from FY 1999 to FY 2002. Information from the CFSR Final Report identified the following as potential barriers to achieving reunification in a timely manner: (1) lack of agency effort to address the issues in the family that are impeding attainment of the goal; (2) lack of services for parents that are needed for reunification, such as substance abuse treatment services, mental health services, or services for developmental disabilities; (3) lack of transportation to help parents access services; and (4) insufficient low-income housing in the community.
Because the cross-State analysis found a substantial positive relationship between the percentage of reunifications within 12 months and the percentage of children entering foster care who were re-entering within 12 months of a prior episode, Maryland’s performance in FY 2002 with regard to reunifications within 12 months must be considered in the context of its re-entry rate. For Maryland, the percentage of children entering foster care in FY 2002 who were re-entering within 12 months of a discharge from a prior foster care episode was 8.5, which meets the national standard (8.6 percent or less) and is less than the national median (9.9 percent). Thus, although Maryland had a relatively low percentage of reunifications in FY 2002 occurring within 12 months of entry into foster care, the State also had a relatively low percentage of children entering foster care who were re-entering within 12 months of a prior episode. Performance on the measure of foster care re-entry did not change from FY 1999 to FY 2002.
Outcome 5. Reduce time in foster care to adoption
In FY 2002, the percentage of all finalized adoptions occurring within 24 months of a child’s entry into foster care was 14.8. It is difficult to interpret performance on this measure because of the discrepancy between the number of adoptions provided in the State’s AFCARS Adoption data submission (938 adoptions) and the number of exits to a finalized adoption provided in the State’s AFCARS Foster Care data submission (775 children).
Information from the Maryland CFSR Final Report identifies the following as potential barriers to achieving adoptions in a timely manner: (1) the lengthy process required for termination of parental rights (TPR); (2) agency delays in filing for TPR; (3) a reluctance on the part of the agency to seek an adoptive home until after TPR has been attained; and (4) a common court practice of extending the goal of reunification even when the prognosis for reunification is low. The CFSR Final Report notes, however, that when mediation services are used early on in a case, many of the barriers to timely adoption are overcome.
Outcome 6. Increase placement stability
In FY 2002, the percentage of children who experienced no more than 2 placement settings during their first 12 months in foster care was 94.3, which is more than both the national standard (86.7 percent or more) and the national median (84.1 percent). Performance on this measure did not change from FY 1999 to FY 2002.
Outcome 7. Reduce placements of young children in group homes and institutions
In FY 2002, the percentage of children age 12 or younger placed in a group home or institution was 6.9, which is less than the national median of 8.6 percent. Maryland’s performance on this measure improved from FY 1999 to FY 2002 (-33.1 percent change).
