Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
7. INCREASE SAFETY, PERMANENCY, AND WELL-BEING OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH
Approach for the Strategic 1.5: Help children and youth while they are living with their own families, when appropriate. When necessary place children and youth in stable, family-like settings consistent with the needs of each child or youth. Support children and youth with developmental disabilities in individual and small group dwellings that will include them in community life.
Program Description, Context, Legislative Intent and Broad Program Goals
ACF funds a number of programs that focus on preventing maltreatment of children in troubled families, protecting children from abuse, and finding permanent placements for those who cannot safely return to their homes. Programs such as Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living provide stable environments for those children who cannot remain safely in their homes, assuring the child's safety and well-being while their parents attempt to resolve the problems that led to the out-of-home placement. When the family cannot be reunified, foster care provides a stable environment until the child can be placed permanently with an adoptive family. Adoption Assistance funds are available for a one-time payment for the costs of adopting a child as well as for monthly subsidies to adoptive families for care of the child.
The Adoption Incentives program was one of the innovative recommendations advanced in the "Adoption 2002 Initiative" and enacted into law by the bipartisan Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. The passage of this incentive program along with state, local and private initiatives focusing attention on the needs of children in foster care awaiting permanent adoptive families, are resulting in unprecedented increases in the number of children adopted from foster care.
The Child Welfare Services program funds grants to States and Indian Tribes to provide services to children and their families without regard to income. Family Preservation and Support Services, renamed Promoting Safe and Stable Families, focuses on strengthening families, preventing abuse, and protecting children. These grants help States and Tribes operate preventive family preservation services and community-based family support services for families at risk or in crisis, family reunification and adoption support services.
The Child Abuse andNeglect program assists States to meet their responsibilities for preventing and intervening in cases of child abuse and neglect. Discretionary funds generate knowledge and research, improve services, collect data, facilitate information dissemination and exchange, and support policy development and the education of professionals in the field.
The President's proposal to increase funding in the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program from $305 to $505 million (an increase of $200 million over the 2001 level) will support preventive efforts to help families in crisis and improve the prospects for children to live in a permanent home. An additional $67 million increase will establish a "Mentoring Children of Prisoners" discretionary authority under Promoting Safe and Stable Families. Funds would go to States to provide competitive grants to faith-based and community-based organizations that help children through the time their parents are imprisoned, including efforts to keep children connected to a parent in prison, and increase the chances that the family can come together successfully when the parent is released.
ACF is placing increased emphasis on services for youth in foster care, particularly independent living services. Independent Living assists current or former foster care youths in the transition to independent living, education and employment assistance, training in daily living skills, and individual and group counseling. Nearly 16,000 young people leave foster care each year when they reach age 18 without an adoptive family or other guardian. Research indicates that these young people experience alarming rates of homelessness, early pregnancy, mental illness, unemployment and drug use in the first years after they leave the system. (This program should not be confused with the "Increase Independent Living" strategic objective of this annual performance plan, objective 2, which focuses on achieving independence by helping developmentally disabled individuals rent or own their own homes in the mainstream community.) To help these children, a $60 million increase is being requested to provide education and training vouchers to youth who age out of foster care. Each voucher, worth up to $5,000, would be available to cover the costs of college tuition or vocational training to help these young people lead independent and productive lives.
Other ACF programs that address child welfare are: the Adoption Opportunities program, the Abandoned Infants Assistance program, special initiatives such as "Adoption 2002," enforcement of the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994 and the Interethnic Adoption provisions of 1996, and State Child Welfare Reform Demonstrations (24 Demonstrations in 21 States and the District of Columbia, to date) to test innovative new ways to strengthen the child welfare system.
Program Activities, Strategies and Resources
ACF has undertaken a number of activities designed to improve overall performance in child welfare. Most significant is the publication in January 2000 of final regulations pertaining to aspects of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA), including regulations about foster care eligibility reviews and child and family services State plan reviews. Central and Regional Office staff have undertaken a major initiative to provide training and technical assistance to States regarding the regulatory requirements and improvement of their child welfare services systems.
As part of this training and technical assistance, ten Child Welfare Resource Center cooperative agreements focus on providing training and technical assistance to States and local agencies around issues pertaining to the implementation of ASFA. The Resource Centers focus on permanency planning, adoption, family-centered practice, youth development, legal issues, abandoned infants, organizational development, child maltreatment, community-based family resource services, and information technology.
On January 25, 2000, DHHS published a final rule in the Federal Register to establish new approaches to monitoring State child welfare programs. The rule focuses on results in the areas of safety, permanency and child and family well-being; strengthens the penalty and corrective action processes for the Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA), as amended, regarding discrimination and adoptive and foster care placements; regulates provisions of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997, and the Federal foster care program; and updates the review process for the Federal foster care program. The new rule plays an important role in improving services to, and outcomes for, abused and neglected children, children in foster care, and children awaiting adoptive families. The focus on outcomes in the child and family service reviews builds on the outcome measures in section 203 of ASFA. It will promote increased safety for children who are maltreated; quicker movement to permanent homes and families for children in foster care; and enhanced well-being for families served by State agencies. The President's budget includes $2 million to expand monitoring efforts in FY 2002.
The rule addresses two monitoring activities: the Child and Family Services (CFS) review and the title IV-E eligibility review. The projects funded under a number of priority areas in this announcement are geared toward assisting States to prepare for and successfully meet the monitoring requirements. The CFS review will address two areas: (1) outcomes for children and families in the areas of safety, permanency, and child and family well-being; and (2) systemic factors that directly impact the State's capacity to deliver services leading to improved outcomes. Each outcome is evaluated by using specific performance indicators as follows:
Safety Outcomes:
- Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect.
- Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate.
Permanency Outcomes:
- Children have permanency and stability in their living situations.
- The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children.
Child and Family Well-Being Outcomes:
- Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children's needs.
- Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs.
- Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs.
The systemic factors being reviewed are related to the State's ability to deliver services leading to improved outcomes. The systemic factors include: 1) statewide information systems; 2) the case review system; 3) quality assurance system; 4) staff and provider training; 5) service array; 6) agency responsiveness to the community; and 7) foster and adoptive parent licensing, recruitment and retention.
The new CFS monitoring process is both a substantial improvement and a substantial challenge. While it is much more difficult to determine whether a child is safe than it is to determine, for example, that a date on a court order meets specified time frames, ACF believes the new monitoring process is better and more likely to yield findings that will help States improve those processes where needed.
In FY 2001-2002, ACF will emphasize the improvement of data systems and data reporting in child welfare. ACF plans to increase the number of States with operational Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information Systems (SACWIS). ACF also plans to increase the number of States submitting penalty-free Adoption and Foster Care Reporting and Analysis System (AFCARS) data from 25 to 35 through the provision of technical assistance. In addition, a number of SACWIS and AFCARS reviews will be completed. Finally, activities are underway for developing performance and outcome measures for the Independent Living Program.
To achieve the results embodied in the performance measures, ACF requires qualified staff knowledgeable about the child protection and child welfare system in the States; data systems, computers, communications technology; statistical staff to monitor progress towards the goals; and ACF regional and central office staff experienced in working with States as partners. Finally, ACF needs to work with the States to conduct various data verification, Title IV-E, and child and family services reviews.
States continue to substantially exceed performance expectations in the Adoption Incentive Program. This program, authorized by ASFA, provides incentive funds for each adoption finalized in a fiscal year beyond the established baseline number of adoptions. As they did in FY 1999, States qualified for more funds for the Adoption Incentive Program than were appropriated in FY 2000.
Finally, ACF is embarking on a set of activities that will make use of performance-based outcome measures. These include the incorporation of outcome measures into the CFS reviews to determine State compliance with statutory provisions; the publication of the annual report on Child Welfare Outcomes for the States; and the use of AFCARS data in sampling for both the CFS reviews and the title IV-E reviews.
Program Coordination, Partnerships and Crosscutting Issues
Ultimately, decisions about placing children are made by judges in juvenile and family court systems throughout the nation. Improved judicial handling of child welfare cases will be essential to achieving permanency goals for children. Children in the child welfare system have many medical and mental health problems, while many of their parents are incapacitated by chronic substance abuse, mental health problems, homelessness, limited education, and other problems. The availability of services from other sectors to meet these needs is uneven. The expansion or contraction of services in various parts of the country will affect our performance. Major changes in assistance programs for low-income families as part of welfare reform will also have an unknown impact on the child welfare system over the next several years.
To insure that activities are coordinated with Federal partners which provide many of these services, ACF works closely on achieving its goals with the Department of Justice, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program and other national agencies and organizations whose responsibilities overlap with child welfare services.
In developing of the Adoption 2002 Initiative, developing and implementing the Family Preservation and Support Program (now reauthorized as the "Promoting Safe and Stable Families" program), and implementing ASFA, ACF conducted and continues to conduct a broad-based consultation process with a wide range of policy experts, advocates, foster and adoptive parents, and other interested individuals to ground its examination of strategies and issues in the daily experiences of participants in the child welfare system.
An example of the comprehensive approach ACF uses to obtain consultation in the child welfare area is the approach taken to develop performance outcome measures required by ASFA. In August 1998, ACF established a consultation group including representatives from State, Tribal, county, and municipal child welfare agencies; private non-profit child and family services agencies; State legislatures; Governors' offices; juvenile and family courts; local child advocacy organizations; and a national public employees' union. Also invited to serve as resources to the consultation group were representatives from several national organizations including the American Bar Association's Center on Children and the Law, the American Public Human Services Association, the Child Welfare League of America, the Children's Defense Fund, the National Association of Child Advocates, the National Center for Juvenile Justice, the National Child Welfare Resource Center for Organizational Improvement, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, and the National Governors' Association.
Staff from ACF, the Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (OASPE) were also included in the consultation process. Department staff participating were those with expertise in child welfare services, outcome measurement for assessing system performance, national child welfare databases, and performance-based incentive systems.
As a result of this consultative process, the Department published a preliminary list of child welfare outcomes and measures in the Federal Register for public comment on February 2, 1999. Based on an analysis of the comments received, the Department made numerous changes to the preliminary list of outcomes and measures. On August 20, 1999, the Department published a final list of outcomes and measures in the Federal Register.
Program-wide Performance
State performance for the measures through FY 1999 (CY 1998 for measure 7.1a) appear to be mostly in the positive direction: the proportion of the children being reunified in less than one year is increasing (measure 7.1c); the total number of adoptions in FY 1999 reached the target set for FY 2000 (measure 7.1f); and the FY 2000 target for adoptions by relatives was achieved (measure 7.1k). These measures are directly related to the implementation of ASFA, which encourages speedier permanency decisions for children, particularly related to adoption.
However, the implementation of this legislation also resulted in some counter-intuitive trends in the following measures resulting from "good" rather than "bad" practice (measures 7.1d, 7.1h, 7.1i, and 7.1k). ACF is retaining (measure 7.1d) "increase the percentage of children who exit care through adoption within two years of placement". Currently these percentages are decreasing. However, as longer-term cases are cleared out of the system and as the required ASFA review for appropriateness of termination of parental rights are implemented, it is expected that the percentage of children who exit care through adoption within two years of placement will increase.
ACF is dropping three measures: measure 7.1h--"decrease the median length of time in care until adoption"(which is better captured by measure 7.1d-- "increase the % of children who exit care through adoption within two years of placement"); measure 7.1i--"decrease the adoption time difference between white and African-American children" and measure 7.1j--"decrease the adoption time difference between white and Hispanic children." These last two measures are being dropped because they are not programmatically sound. We believe that trends reported for the last two measures resulted from child welfare agencies' initial focus on the adoption of children who had been in the foster care system for a long time, particularly children in relative foster care which has notably longer lengths of stay and which affects a higher proportion of minority children. For further discussion of the programmatic soundness of these measures, please refer to pp. 107-108.
There are a small number of measures that continue to be affected by weaknesses in the data. These include the recurrence rate for maltreatment and exits through guardianships. Only nineteen States (1998) and 23 States (1999) reported adequate data to calculate the maltreatment recurrence rate, making that measure more likely to be unstable (measures 7.1a and b). In addition, guardianship, as a reason for discharge, has generally been under-reported and does not even exist as a discharge reason in some States (measure 7.1e).
Finally, because of the consistency in this measure over time, ACF believes that reducing the mean number of placement settings per episode to 2.0 is unrealistic (measure 7.1m). A new measure is being proposed which is better able to capture the concern about child well-being while in foster care (measure 7.1n).
Data Issues
Both AFCARS and the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) conduct extensive edit checks for internal reliability. For AFCARS, if a State's data fail certain edit checks, the State incurs a financial penalty. An additional 700 edit checks are conducted to improve data quality. All edit check programs are shared with the States. Compliance reviews for AFCARS are currently being piloted and State SACWIS systems are undergoing reviews to determine the status of their operation. In FY 1999, the Department's Office of the Inspector General began auditing the child welfare GPRA measures. As these reporting systems improve, the operationalization of various outcomes has become more refined. Furthermore, as the number of jurisdictions (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) reporting has increased from 32 in FY1995 to 51 in FY 1999 for foster care and from 29 in FY 1995 to 52 in FY 1999 for adoption, the values of the measures change and they more accurately reflect the total population. Because of this improvement in reporting, no data prior to FY 1998 (CY 1998 for measures 7.1.a-b) is being included in examining trends.
To speed improvement in these data, the agency has awarded funds to develop and implement the National Resource Center for Information Technology in Child Welfare. This Resource Center provides technical assistance to States to improve reporting to AFCARS and NCANDS, improve statewide information systems, and better utilize their data. These activities should result in further improvements in the data over the next few years.
Summary Table
Performance
Measures |
Targets |
Actual
Performance |
Reference (page # in printed document) |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. SAFETY: Children are protected from abuse and neglect in their homes. The risk of harm to children will be minimized. | |||
7.1a. Decrease the percentage of children with substantiated reports of maltreatment who have a repeated substantiated report of maltreatment within 12 months.a/ |
CY
01: Dropped |
CY
00: 10/02 |
|
7.1b. Decrease the percentage of children with substantiated reports of maltreatment that have a repeated substantiated report of maltreatment within 6 months. |
CY
02: 7% |
CY
02: |
Px M-108 |
| a/ The National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) collects data by calendar year. Data necessary for calculating this measure for CY 2000 will not be available until late in 2002. The number in parentheses for the target for CY 1999 is a more realistic target based on a revised calculation approach. The information for CY 1998 is based on 19 States reporting and for CY 1999 on 23 States. Due to the varying number of States reporting on this measure and on 7.1b, data are expected to continue to fluctuate. | |||
| B. PERMANENCY: Provide children in foster care permanency and stability in their living situations. | |||
| 7.1c. Increase the % of children who exit the foster care system through reunificationwithin one year of placement. | FY
02: 67% FY 01: 67% FY 00: 67% FY 99: NA |
FY
02 FY 01: FY 00: 6/01 FY 99: 65% FY 98: 63% |
Px M-108 |
| 7.1d. Increase the % of children who exit care through adoption within two years of placement.b/ | FY
02: 28% FY 01: 28% FY 00: 27% FY 99: NA |
FY
02: FY 01: FY 00: 6/01 FY 99: 19% FY 98: 23% |
Px M-108 |
| 7.1e. Maintain the % of children who exit foster care through guardianships within two years of placement. | FY
02: 67% FY 01: 67% FY 00: 67% FY 99: NA |
FY
02: FY 01: FY 00: 6/01 FY 99: 64% FY 98: 70% |
Px M-109 |
| 7.1f. Increase the number of adoptions.b/ | FY
02: 56,000 FY 01: 51,000 FY 00: 46,000 FY 99: 24,000 (41,000) |
FY
02: FY 01: FY 00: 9/01 FY 99: 46,000Ö FY 98: 36,000 FY 97: 31,000 FY 96: 28,000 FY 95: 26,000 |
Px M-109 |
| 7.1g. Increase the number of guardianships | FY
00:(Dropped) FY 99: 6,300 |
FY
99: 5,015Ö FY 98: 2,908 FY 97: 5,000 |
|
| b/ The number included for the FY 1999 target was the projected number in the FY 1999 Performance Plan. In developing the baseline for the Adoption Incentive Program authorized under the Adoption and Safe Families Act, it was determined that the number of adoptions had been substantially underestimated due to weaknesses in State information systems and a lack of incentives to report. The reporting of adoptions has substantially improved and is believed to be almost 100% because of implementation of Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information Systems (SACWIS), the AFCARS penalties and the Adoption Incentive Program. The number in parentheses for the FY 1999 target represents a more realistic number. The FY 1995, FY 1996 and FY 1997 actual performance numbers were reported by States to establish the baseline for the Adoption Incentive Program. These numbers come from a variety of sources including AFCARS, court records, legacy administrative data systems and hand counts. These numbers are included so that trends can be more accurately assessed. | |||
| 7.1h. Decrease the median length of time in foster care until adoption.c/ | FY
01: Dropped FY 00: 39 mos FY 99: 38 mos (40 mos) |
FY
00: 6/01 FY 99: 42 mosÖ FY 98: 41 mos |
|
| 7.1i. Decrease the adoption time difference between white and African-American children | FY
01: Dropped FY 00: 13 mos FY 99: 9 mos (14 mos) |
FY
00: 6/01 FY 99: 19 mosÖ FY 98: 15 mos |
|
| 7.1j. Decrease the adoption time difference between white and Hispanic children | FY
01: Dropped FY 00: 2.5 mos FY 99: 4 mos |
FY
00: 6/01 FY 99: 5 mosÖ FY 98: 5 mos |
|
| c/ The calculations for this measure have been particularly unstable because of under-reporting the reason for discharge from foster care intermittently by many, including very large States. Depending on the array of the States included in the calculations, the percentages vary widely. The numbers in parentheses for 7.1h and 7.1i are more realistic targets based on more current data. | |||
| 7.1k. Increase adoptions by relatives. | FY
01: Dropped FY 00: 18% FY 99: 15% |
FY
00: 18% FY 99: 14%Ö FY 98: 15% |
|
| 7.1l. Increase guardianships by relatives d/ | FY
00: (Dropped) FY 99: 70% |
FY
99: 57%Ö FY 98: 65% |
|
| C. FAMILY AND CHILD WELL-BEING: Minimize the disruption to the continuity of family and other relationships for children in foster care. | |||
| 7.1m. Decrease the mean number of placement settings per episode. | FY
01: Dropped FY 00: 2.0 FY 99: 2.0 |
FY
00: 6/01 FY 99: 3.0Ö FY 98: 2.9 |
Px M-110 |
| 7.1n. For those children who had been in care less than 12 months, increase the percentage that had no more than two placement settings. | FY
02: 74% FY 01: 72% FY 00: NA FY 99: NA |
FY
02: FY 01: FY 00: 6/01 FY 99: 60% e/ FY 98: 70% |
|
| d/ Data
on guardianships have been particularly unstable. For further
discussion, see section "Program-wide Performance." e/ This value is an anomaly because calculations of this value for prior years are closer to the FY 1998 value. Availability of FY 2000 Data: Final FY 2000 data for most measures will be available June 2001; the delay is due to workload created by the Child and Family Services Reviews and the Annual Report. Measures 7.1b and 7.1f will available September 2001; measure 7.1a will be available October 2002. Ö FY 1999 data that was not available when the FY 1999 report was submitted with the FY 2001 CJ |
|||
| Total
Funding (includes Independent Living/Foster Care/Adoption-dollars
in millions) See detailed Budget Linkage Table in Appendix 6 for line items included in funding totals. |
FY
02: $7726.4 FY 01: $7194.4 FY 00: $6463.4 FY 99: $5639.7 |
Bx:
budget just. sections C, E, H, & L Px: page # performance plan |
|
Performance Measures for FY 2002 and Final Measures for FY 2001
In 1997, Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act (PL 105-89). Among other provisions designed to improve the child welfare system and protect children, it directs the Secretary of DHHS to consult with governors, State legislatures, and State and local public officials responsible for administering child welfare programs and develop a set of outcome measures for rating the performance of States in operating child protection and child welfare programs. (See Section on Program Coordination, Partnerships and Crosscutting Issues for a detailed description of the process.) Based on this consultation, additional close examination of each of the measures for methodological and programmatic soundness, the need to use the same measures when operationalizing the same concept in each of the major activities related to performance outcomes (the annual report, child and family services reviews, and GPRA), we have made a number of changes in measures for FY (CY) 2001 as discussed below.
- Replace measures 7.1b with 7.1a--Methodologically, by using the six month time period all the data will come from one NCANDS report period resulting in usable data being available from more States. In addition, data will be available in a more timely manner. Programmatically, research has shown that most recurrences of substantiated maltreatment occurs within six months following the first substantiated report of maltreatment. Finally, this measure will now be consistent in the three major activities using performance outcomes.
- Drop measure 7.1h--This measure is being dropped because another measure, measure 7.1d operationalizes the same concept, speeding up adoptions, and is used in the other two major performance outcome activities.
- Drop measures 7.1i and 7.1j--These measures are not programmatically sound because they can be used to justify policies that are inconsistent with the best interests of minority children and in conflict with a statutory requirement. The differences in median length of stay between white and minority children can be accounted for, in part, by the more extensive use of relative care for minority children in foster care which is directly related to the number of assisted guardianships by relatives and adoptions by relatives. Because children in relative care tend to have longer lengths of stay than children in non-relative care, failure to show improvement in these measures could result in advocating the placement of minority children in non-relative care. This would not be in the best interests of children and is inconsistent with the statutory requirement (section 471(a)(19) of title IV-E of the Social Security Act) for relative preference in foster care placement and adoption.
- Drop measure 7.1k --This measure, focused on increasing adoptions by relatives, is being dropped because changing policies in several large States, including Illinois and New York, have made it less meaningful. There is wide variation among States in the use of relative foster care which is directly related to the rate of relative adoption within the public foster care system. In recent years, several large States that have heavily used relative foster care have come to recognize that many of the children in relative foster care did not need to be in foster care at all. To correct the situation, these States, which account for a large proportion of the number of children in relative foster care nationally, have simultaneously moved to encourage adoptions/guardianships by relatives and/or to prevent the inappropriate entry of children into relative care in the foster care system by providing services to children and their relative caretakers when they are not in the foster care system. Because these major changes are underway, realistic future targets for relative adoptions would be below current rates. The development of a new measure related to relative adoption that is less sensitive to policy changes in large States will be undertaken.
- Replace measure 7.1m with 7.1n--Methodologically, using a mean to measure stability in foster care placement settings decreases the ability to detect change because the denominator is so large, above 800,000. The new measure should be more sensitive to change and is also the measure used in the other two performance outcome activities.
In FY 2000, Congress passed legislation authorizing a substantial increase in funds for independent living services for foster care youth under title IV-E of the Social Security Act. These services prepare them for independent living by enhancing their education, employment and other skills to avoid dependency; and by expanding opportunities for youth to live independently while under the auspices of the public child welfare agency. This legislation requires developing and implementing outcome measures and a data collection system for this program.
Finally, in collaboration with States, Tribes, advocacy groups, foundations and others, ACF has developed new program monitoring procedures that focus on the quality of child welfare services and the outcomes for children and families. These reviews will be implemented through Federal/State partnerships. Following these reviews, States will receive immediate feedback on the extent to which their programs are achieving the stated objectives.
PROGRAM GOAL-SAFETY: Children are protected from abuse and neglect in their homes. The risk of harm to children will be minimized.
New
7.1b. FY 2001: Decrease the percentage of children with substantiated reports of maltreatment who have a repeat substantiated report of maltreatment within 6 months from 8% in CY 1998 to 7% in CY 2001.
FY 2002: Decrease the percentage of children with substantiated reports of maltreatment who have a repeat substantiated report of maltreatment within 6 months from 8% in CY 1998 to7% in CY 2002.
Data source: National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS)
PROGRAM GOAL-PERMANENCY: Provide children foster care permanency and stability in their living situations.
7.1c. FY 2001: Of the children who exit the foster care system through reunification, increase the percentage of children who do this within one year of placement from 63% in FY 1998 to 67%.
FY 2002: Of the children who exit the foster care system through reunification, maintain the percentage of children who do this within one year of placement at 67%.
Data source: AFCARS
7.1d. FY 2001: Of the children who exit foster care through adoption, increase the percentage who are adopted within two years of placement from 23% in FY 1998 to 28%.
FY 2002: Of the children who exit foster care through adoption, increase the percentage who are adopted within two years of placement from 23% in FY 1998 to 28%.
Data source: AFCARS
These performance indicators (measures 7.1b-d and 7.1n) are reflective of a series of efforts to focus on outcomes in child welfare. They are being used in two places where they are having substantial impact on State practice. First they are being used in the Annual Child Welfare Outcomes report. This report, required under section 479b of title IV-E of the Social Security Act contains data for each State on a variety of outcome measures. In addition, these measures are being used in the Child and Family Services Reviews and failure to meet the standards associated with them can result in a State's being found not to be in substantial conformity with the State plan requirements in title IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act. The National Resource Centers funded by the Children's Bureau are offering technical assistance to States to help them improve the services they deliver to children and their families and to meet the State plan requirements.
7.1e. FY 2001: Of the children who exit foster care through guardianships, change the percentage of children who do this within 2 years from 70% in FY 1998 to 67%.
FY 2002: Of the children who exit foster care through guardianships, maintain the percentage of children who do this within 2 years at 67%.
Data source: AFCARS
This measure is being used in the Annual Child Welfare Outcomes report and technical assistance being provided in association with the Child and Family Services Reviews is focusing on all aspects of permanency, including guardianship. (See previous discussion under Program Activities, Strategies and Resources for more detail.) Note: Targets for both FY 2001 and 2002 are increases over actual FY 1999 performance. This measure continues to be affected by weaknesses in the data: guardianship, as a reason for discharge, has generally been under-reported and does not even exist as a discharge reason in some States.
7.1f. FY 2001: Make progress towards increasing the number of adoptions of children in the public foster care system between FY 1998 and FY 2002 by increasing adoptions from 36,000 in FY 1998 to 51,000.
FY 2002: Increase the number of adoptions to 56,000.
Data source: Baselines from the Adoption Incentive Program and the Adoption 2002 Initiative for FY 1997 and AFCARS for all subsequent years.
The implementation of the termination of parental rights provision of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) is expected to increase the total number of adoptions of children from the foster care system. In addition, the statute created the Adoption Incentive Program that provides incentive funds to States that increase the number of finalized adoptions over the State's baseline. The National Resource Centers and Federal staff are providing technical assistance to States to help them implement both of these activities.
In FY 2001, ACF will develop a new measure for relative adoption that is not sensitive to policy changes in large States. Under specific consideration is a measure that reports the number of States that increase their relative adoptions each year. Either this measure or another that is not sensitive to policy changes in large States and that is methodologically and programmatically sound will be included in the FY 2003 performance plan. FY 2000 will be the baseline year.
PROGRAM GOAL-FAMILY AND CHILD WELL-BEING: Minimize the disruption to the continuity of family and other relationships.
New
7.1n. FY 2001: For those children who have been in care less than 12 months, increase the percentage who had no more than two placement settings from 70% in FY 1998 to 72%.
FY 2002: For those children who have been in care less than 12 months, increase the percentage who had not more than two placement settings from 70% in FY 1998 to 74%.
Data source: AFCARS
PROGRAM GOAL--PREPARE FOSTER CARE YOUTH FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING: (a) enhance the education, employment and other skills of foster care youth to avoid dependency; and (b) expand opportunities for youth to achieve self-sufficiency while under the auspices of the public child welfare agency.
In FY 2001, ACF will develop and implement the methodology to determine the baselines for the number of foster care youth receiving independent living services and/or living independently under the auspices of the public child welfare agency and develop preferred outcome measures for independent living programs. The baseline will be established for FY 2002 and the first target will be set for FY 2003.
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (EDUCATION)
The DD education goal is: "Increase the number of students with developmental disabilities who reach their educational goals." This goal includes the following outcomes: "Students with developmental disabilities have educational experiences based on their individual needs and goals and have access to an array of educational opportunities in their neighborhood schools. Parents know their rights regarding their children's education. Educators are prepared to educate all students and public policy supports appropriate education."
(See information on DD partnership process, data, and resources under Strategic Objective 1.)
Program-wide Performance
Performance for the number of students with developmental disabilities served in more integrated /inclusive educational settings (measure 7.2a) has experienced significant increases and decreases in years prior to FY 1999. These fluctuations have been caused by the use of varying methodology from State to State and from year to year as States gained experience in making projections and collecting performance data. For that reason, FY 1999 has been selected for the baseline year. In FY 2000, Protection and Advocacy (P&A) systems in all 56 States and Territories reported results (defined as 50 or more students) for a total of 10,054 students with developmental disabilities served in more integrated/inclusive educational settings as a result of P&A system intervention. This performance is consistent with FY 1999 results and exceeded the FY 2000 target by 1,300 students. P&A interventions included counseling parents on advocating for their children, negotiating better placements, counseling school systems on the rights of students with disabilities, administrative remedies, and, in extreme cases, litigation.
Summary Table
| Performance Measures | Targets | Actual Performance |
Reference (page # in printed document) |
|---|---|---|---|
| PROGRAM GOAL: Increase the number of students with developmental disabilities who reach their educational goals. | |||
| 7.2a. Increase the number of students with developmental disabilities who are served in more integrated/inclusive educational settings as a result of DD program intervention. | FY
02:11,500 FY 01:11,000* FY 00: 8,800 FY 99: 8,000 |
FY
02 FY 01: FY 00: 10,054 FY 99:10,901Ö (Baseline) |
Px M-111 |
| Ö This
represents FY 1999 data not available when the FY 1999 report
was submitted with the FY 2001 CJ *Increases in the FY 2001 target for measure 7.2a is based on FY 2000 performance. |
|||
Performance Measures for FY 2002 and Final Measures for FY 2001
Performance for this measure is affected by a number of factors including the impact of the economy on the cost of providing educational services to people with disabilities, the impact of social attitudes regarding the desirability and potential for people with developmental disabilities to learn in the least restrictive environment, and funding priorities in individual States.
The above issues combined with data collection and interpretation difficulties continue to create instability in the data. ACF is providing technical assistance to State programs to improve data stability and programmatic outcomes.
PROGRAM GOAL: Increase the number of students with developmental disabilities who reach their educational goals.
Objective: Increase the number of students with disabilities who are served in more integrated/inclusive educational settings
7.2a FY 2001: Increase to 11,000 the number of students with developmental disabilities who are served in more integrated/inclusive educational settings as a result of DD program intervention.
FY 2002: Increase to 11,500 the number of students with developmental disabilities who are served in more integrated/inclusive educational settings as a result of DD program intervention.
Data source: P&A annual Program Performance Report (PPR)
Because the perceived cost of providing an education in less restrictive environments is high, we have limited ability to accurately project performance. Our efforts are focused on achieving gradual improvement for this measure.
To accomplish this goal, the States work with three different program delivery approaches. The Council on Developmental Disabilities (CDD) works to create systems change within the education systems, including demonstration of more desirable models. Educational and research efforts contribute to improving public and professional opinion on education for persons with developmental disabilities involving both the Council and the Centers for Excellence/University Affiliated Programs (UAPs). Protection and Advocacy Programs have worked to ensure that the rights of students with developmental disabilities to a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment are protected.
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |