Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
24822867
label
Child Welfare NPRM [Notice of Proposed Rulemaking] [Binder] [1]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
24822867
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Child Welfare NPRM [Notice of Proposed Rulemaking] [Binder] [1]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the First Lady's Office (Clinton Administration)
Nicole Rabner's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
24822867
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7763278-20121035S-043-004-2015
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
db4622a3f1595760
ocrText
Retired Files of Nicole Rabner
Special Assistant to the President & Senior Policy Advisor to the First Lady
Box # 4 of the
Foster Care and Adoption Continued
FILES
Adoption- Child Welfare- NPRM (BINDER)
Adoption- Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) Background
Adoption- Child Welfare Final Rule (BINDER)
Adoption- Child Welfare Studies and Reports and Advocacy; General Mmaterial
Adoption- Independent Living Reports
15411
ENCLOSURES FILED OVERSIZE ATTACHMENTS
NARA 12884
Thirteopfiled 3/22/2000 TT
Child
Child welfare
webfare
$ Rulemaking
NPRM
background
tanders
SEP-10-1998 16:43
OMB DEP DIR MGMT
202 395 6974 P.01/15
THE PRESIDENT
C
Executive Office of the President of the United States
OF THE OF OF OFFICE THE UNITED OFFICE BUDGET OF AND STATES ATES
Office of Management and Budget
Office of Information and Regulatory Affeirs
Human Resources and Housing Branch
New Executive office Building
Room 10235
Washington, DC 20503
FAX TRANSMITTAL
202-395-6974
FAX:
DATE:
9/10/98
TO:
NICOLE RASNER
FROM:
Dan CHENOLE
Total number of pages (Including Transmittal Sheet):
14
62878
Recipient's Fax Number:
Recipient's Telephone Number:
Comments:
CAILE WELFARE D PGES. LET'S DISCOSS
FRIDAY AM.
SEP-10-1998 16:44
OMB DEP DIR MGMT
202 395 6974
P.02/15
SEP-10-98 FRI 3:31 PM ACT/LEV APPNDUD
155 no. CUL TVI 1000
HUMAN
MISWIN
or
ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
Office of Legislative Affairs and Budget (OLAB)
Madeline Mocko, Director
370 L'Enfant Promenade SW
7th Floor West - Aerospace Building
Washington DC 20447
Tel: (202)401-9223
Fax: (202)401-4562
TO: Dan Cheask
DATE: 7/10/98
FAX:
(
,395.6914 )
SUBJECT: Cale welfare Mariday Reg
AS REQUESTED
COMMENT
CLEARANCE
FYI
Afformad are reaised Payy
to the CW Montaig Ry.
based or or can frence sall
this coftran
Thank -
Maddy
Ps. We also deleted Laurai
name from the premble- is this
approach OK?
SEP-10-1998 16:44
OMB DEP DIR MGMT
202
395 6974
P.03/15
SEP-10-98 FRI 3:37 PM ACF LEG AFF&BUD
FAX NO. 202 401 2004
1, 4
432), the Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA) as amended
by Public Law 104-188, and certain provisions of the
Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997 (Public
Law 105-99).
In addition, this NPRM proposes to set forth
regulations that clarify certain eligibility criteria
that govern the title IV-E foster care eligibility
reviews which the Administration on Children, Youth and
Families conducts to ensure a State agency's compliance
with statutory requirements under the Act.
The publication of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
often engenders confusion in the field regarding its
applicability to existing policy. The existing
regulations and policy remain in full force and effect.
Regulations published in the final rule will be
effective prospectively from the date of publication
and have no bearing on the application of policy that
was in effect prior to the publication of the final
rule.
DATES
In order to be considered, written comments on this
proposed rule must be received on or before [insert
date 90 days from date of publication in the FEDERAL
REGISTER].
- 2-
SEP-10-1998 16:44
OMB DEP DIR MGMT
202 395 6974
P.04/15
SEP-10-98 Fkl 3:38 FM ALC __V AFFOBUD
"MA nv, 707 7V1 TJUL
court documentation, but for the actual services provided to
prevent removals, facilitate reunification, or, in
conformance with the ASFA, to make and finalize alternate
permanent placements. This State plan requirement clearly
supports two of the outcomes proposed for review: 1)
children are, first and foremost. protected from abuse and
Pag.176 Day. Comment
neglect, and are safely maintained in their homes whenever
possible; and 2) children have permanency and stability in
their living situations.
In paragraph (b) (3), we propose that in order for a State to
be determined to be in substantial conformity, each outcome
to be examined must be rated as "substantially achieved" in
at least 90 percent of the cases reviewed on-site in the
initial review and 95 percent in subsequent reviews. For
example, if 40 cases are reviewed as part of an initial on-
site review, each outcome must have been "substantially
achieved" for at least 36 (90%) of these cases as determined
by the review team. The rationale for the phased-in
standard of outcome achievement is that States will need
time to focus their resources on program improvements and
the new approach to the reviews and may not be able to
conform to a 95 percent standard initially. However, given
the goal of the proposed review process to support practice
improvements over time, we believe a 95 percent standard
53
SEP-10-1998 16:44
OMB DEP DIR MGMT
202
395 6974
P.05/15
SEP-10-98 FRI 3:39 PM AC: LEG APP&SUD
PAY NV. ZUZ 401 4002
1, 4
better reflects the ongoing quality of outcomes we are
promoting.
The on-site review instruments are designed to guide
reviewers in determining the degree of outcome achievement.
Specific items in the on-site review instruments are indexed
to each outcome. These items will be examined collectively
[rom a case-specific qualitative level in determining if
each outcome has been or is being achieved at a satisfactory
level, that is, "substantially achieved." We have
published the items indexed to the outcomes at Attachment A,
at the end of this preamble, in order to give States a more
specific idea of what is reviewed during the on-site
process. We do intend to publish the self-assessment and
payment
on-site review instruments in meeting Paperwork Reduction
Act requirements. These documents provide detail regarding
the information to be collected and reviewed. We want to be
clear, however, that the items will not be published as part
of the final rule because they are subject to change as we
learn more about how particular issues affect outcomes for
children and families.
In the pilot reviews, we invested considerable effort in
preparing reviewers to collect and consider the information
needed to make decisions about outcome achievement. In
addition, we assembled a cross-section of representatives
54
SEP-10-1998 16:45
OMB DEP DIR MGMT
202 395 6974
P.06/15
SEP-10-98 FRI 3:39 PM AIR LEG AFF&BUD
FAX NO. 202 401 4562
P. 5
the plan for approval. If the State does not re-submit the
plan, or if the re-submitted plan continues to fail to meet
the requirements and cannot be approved, we propose in
paragraph (c) (4) to initiate withholding of funds in
accordance with the provisions of $1355.36 of this part. We
believe that reasonable time frames must govern the
submission of approvable program improvement plans, and
would appreciate comments as to whether the time frame for
the joint development of the program improvement plan is
adequate as proposed.
In paragraph (d), we are proposing that program improvement
plans be approved for time periods of up to two years,
depending upon the level of nonconformity. We do not expect
all program improvements to take two years to implement and
expect States to address areas of nonconformity
expeditiously. States will be required to prioritize areas
needing improvement that pose risks to child safety and
complete the appropriate action steps within a time frame to
be determined in consideration with the level of risk. We
do recognize, however, that, in some circumstances, it will
be impossible for the State to address the areas needing
improvement within the two year time frame, even with
technical assistance. In such situations we are, thus,
proposing a three-year period of time as the maximum
60
SEP-10-1998 16:45
OMB DEP DIR MGMT
202 395 6974
P.07/15
SEP-10-98 FRI 3:40 PM A:: LEG APMEBUD
PAA NV. LUL 401 4004
Γ. 0
In paragraph (e) (4), we propose the penalty structure for
States that fail to participate in the development of a
program improvement plan, or in the implementation of a
plan, as required by ACF.
$1355.37 Opportunity for Public Inspection of Review
Reports and Materials
In this section, consistent with the requirements for State
plans at 45 CFR 1355.21 (c), we propose that the State make
reports and materials related to the child and family
services reviews available for public inspection. We think
#4
it is critical that States obtain the broadest public
involvement in the implementation of child welfare programs.
We are particularly interested in comments regarding the
method of dissemination of these materials in order to
accomplish these goals.
$1355.38 Enforcement of section 471 (a) (18) of the Act
regarding the removal of barriers to interethnic adoption.
In this section, we implement the provisions of sections
474 (d) (1) and (2) of the Act. Section 474 (d) contains
enforcement provisions applicable to section 471 (a) (18) of
the Act, which requires the removal of barriers to
interethnic adoption. We have chosen to codify the section
70
SEP-10-1998 16:45
OMB DEP DIR MGMT
202 395 6974
P.08/15
SEP-10-98 FRI 3:41 PM LEG AFF&BUD
FAX NO. 202 401 4562
P. /
In paragraph (i) (2) (iii), we follow the statute in proposing
that the State need not apply section 475 (5) (E) when the
services identified in the case plan have not been provided.
We think it is critical that we assess States'
implementation of this new provision for terminating
parental rights, particularly the extent to which States
#2
make use of the exceptions discussed above. In the self-
assessment completed for the child and family services
reviews, States will be asked to document the extent to
which they make use of the exceptions provided at section
475 (5) (E) of the Act.
During the consultation process we learned of confusion
regarding the requirements for the court with respect to the
compelling reason. We are not interpreting the statutory
language which requires that the documentation of the
compelling reason be " available for court review " as
a requirement that the court make a determination with
respect to the compelling reason. To interpret this
language as requiring a court determination with respect to
the compelling reason not to file a TPR would place an
unnecessary additional burden on the State agency and the
courts. We do anticipate, however, that the court will have
the opportunity to review the compelling reason not to file
for TPR as part of its ongoing oversight.
119
SEP-10-1998 16:46
OMB DEP DIR MGMT
202 395 6974
P.09/15
SEP-10-98 FRI 3:41 PM AIF LEG AFF&BUD
FAX NO. 202 401 4562
P. 8
1355.33 (b)
17 - State
1
240
4,080
State Agency
Agencies
Self
Administering
Assessment
the Title
IV-B & E
Programs
1355.33 (c) --
17 - State
35
8
4,760
On-Site
Agencies
Review
Administering
the Title
IV-B & E
Programs
1355.35 (a) -
17 - State
1
80
1,360
Program
Agencies
Improvement
Administering
Plan
the Titles
IV-B & IV-E
Programs
1355.37 (b)
5 - State
1
80
400
and (c) -
Agencies
Corrective
Administering
Action Plan
Titles IV-B
and IV-E
1356.21 (g) -
468,000
1
4
1,872,000
Case Plan
OMB No. :
0989-0140,
Expiration
Date:
2/28/00
1356. 71 (i) -
17 - State
1
63
1,071
Program
Agencies
Improvement
Administering
Plan
the Title
IV-E Program
When the Department publishes its pre-clearance Notice
#3
requesting approval of this information collection under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, we will publish, in their entirety,
the sclf-assessment and the on-site review instruments.
151
SEP-10-1998 16:46
OMB DEP DIR MGMT
202 395 6974
P.10/15
SEP-10-98 FRI 3:42 PM
A.M/LEG APP&BUD
PAX NU. 202 401 4502
r. y
between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in
the FEDERAL REGISTER. Therefore, a comment is best assured
of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days
of publication. This does not affect the deadline for the
public to comment to the Department on the proposed
regulations. Written comments to OMB for the proposed
information collection should be sent directly to the
See
following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork
P.S.
Reduction Project, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20503, Attn: Desk Officer.
List of Subjects
45 CFR Part 1355
Adoption and foster care, child welfare, grant programs -
social service programs.
45 CFR Part 1356
Adoption and foster care, administrative costs, fiscal
requirements (title IV-E).
153
SEP-10-1998 16:46
OMB DEP DIR MGMT
202 395 6974
P.11/15
SEP-10-98 FRI 3:43 PM
AIR/LEG AFF&BUD
FAX NO. 202 401 4562
P.10
(3) aggregate data in the State self-assessment used
to examine each outcome and performance indicator
which corroborates the findings of the on-site
component of the review, and;
(4) the determination of conformity by the ACF
Regional Office based on the criteria described in
paragraphs (a) - (c) of this section.
(b) Criteria related to outcomes.
(1) A State's substantial conformity will be
determined by its ability to substantially achieve
the following child and family service outcomes:
i) In the area of child safety:
(A) Children are, first and Foremost,
protected from abuse and neglect,
pg.176
and are safely maintained in their
comment
homes whenever possible; and
(B) The risk of harm to children is
'minimized;
(ii) In the area of permanency for children:
178
SEP-10-1998 16:46
OMB DEP DIR MGMT
202 395 6974
P.12/15
SEP-10-98 Fkl 3:43 PM
A.:/LEG AFF&BUD
"AX NU, 202 401 4502
P.11
State will have 30 calendar days from the date it
receives notice from ACF that the plan has not
been approved to revise and resubmit the plan for
approval.
(4) If the State does not submit a revised program
improvement plan according to the provisions of
paragraph (c) (3) of this section, or if the plan
does not meet the provisions of paragraph (a) of
this section, withholding of funds pursuant to the
provisions of $1355.36 this part will apply.
(d) Duration of program improvement plans. A State will
have =wo years to successfully complete the provisions
in its program improvement plan. However, a State must
complete provisions in its program improvement plan
that address child safety in less than two years. The
level of risk to child safety will be considered by the
State and ACF in determining such time frames. The ACF
may grant a one-year extension, for a maximum of three
years, when the provisions in the program improvement
plan are too extensive for the State to successfully
complete within the two-year period.
(e) Evaluating program improvement plans. Program
improvement plans will be evaluated jointly by the
193
SEP-10-1998 16:47
OMB DEP DIR MGMT
202 395 6974
P.13/15
-52F-10-98 PRI 5.44 rm SUP/LEG Arrebud
PAX NV. ZUL 401 4004
16
improvement plan, as required by ACF, will be
subject to the maximum withholding of fourteen
percent of its title IV-B and title IV-E funds, as
described in paragraph (b) (5) of this section, for
each year or portion thereof to which the
withholding of funds applies.
(5) Interest on withheld funds. The State agency will
be liable for interest on the amount of funds
withheld by the Department, in accordance with the
provisions of 45 CFR 30.13.
$1355.37 Opportunity for Public Inspection of Review
Reports and Materials
The State agency must make available for public
Hey
review and inspection all self-assessments
(1355.33 (b)), report of findings (1355.33 (e)), and
program improvement plans (1355.35 (a) ) developed
as a result of a full or partial child and family
services review.
$1355.38 Enforcement of section 471 (a) (18) of the Act
regarding the removal of barriers to interethnic
adoption.
202
SEP-10-1998 16:47
OMB DEP DIR MGMT
202 395 6974
P.14/15
SEP-10-98
PRI
5.40
PM
A.M LCU Arraduv
FOR nv, LUL TVI 7006
implementation period for the plans, consistent with the
(
time frame for the ongoing full reviews.
In paragraph (e), we propose procedures for evaluating the
implementation of program improvement plans. We propose
that the State members of the review team and the ACF
Regional Cffice determine the appropriate intervals for
evaluating the plans, since the contents of each plan and
the needs of individual States will vary significantly. Our
proposal that the evaluations occur no less frequently than
annually is an effort to: 1) assure that delays in
evaluation do not prevent the State from correcting the
areas of nonconformity in a timely manner; 2) integrate the
implementation of the plans with the joint planning process
between the State and ACF; and 3) reduce the burden on
States by using the existing annual CFSP progress review and
update as the vehicle for evaluating the plans, rather than
creating an additional process.
In paragraph (e) (3), we address evaluation of individual
components of the program improvement plans. We are
proposing that the areas of nonconformity be addressed
individually when evaluating the plans, so that once they
are determined to be complete they will not require further
evaluation.
61
SEP-10-1998 16:47
OMB DEP DIR MGMT
202 395 6974
P.15/15
SEP-10-98
FRI
3:45
PM
AIF/LEG AFF&BUD
FAX NV. 202 4UI 4502
r. 15
In paragraph (b), we describe the proposed State self-
assessment process which is based on data, provided by ACF
to the States in report format, from their own most recent
submissions to the AFCARS and NCANDS systems. State review
team members will review and analyze the data to evaluate
the strengths and needs of the child and family services
systems in the State. ACF will conduct an independent
46
analysis of the AFCARS and NCANDS data and provide
consultation to the State during the development of the. self
assessment to ensure that it is complete and accurate. In
promoting the principles of State flexibility and program
improvement through the reviews, the analysis of the sclf-
assessment will provide the focus for the on-site review by
identifying particular aspects of State programs that need
further review. This approach is proposed as an alternative
to conducting standard reviews on similar populations in
every State, absent any recognition of individual State
needs. State self-assessments were used successfully to
structure the on-site reviews around specific outcome areas,
service areas, and systemic issues. We think this approach
will promote a more efficient use of State and Federal
resources.
In paragraph (c), we describe the proposed on-site review
process. The proposal that the on-site review be focused in
specified geographic locations in the State, including the
46
TOTAL P.15
On On-sute:
talk n( form, children, :-- community stake holders.
conclusin about comphane
Based on outcomes
For states in campl -
5 y- later another
for 4 states not in compl:
Program impruve plan - reeded -
$
quality not traggered until
MEPA. (no delay or dennel)
'96' specific graduated penalty
specific IV-E penalty
ACF +not experts
IV-E penalty
see - determ rolatin taken P lace
one of review
Any time - cones
OCR - referral for investgable
undersing to ACF
haven't five tuned that. - how it will walk.
one of many review factors - New -
notice of sunstantial complain
stricter enforcement - MEPA
connective action required
of subsintial- - 90% of cases - achieved
ASFA
crimal Reasonable Park Eff
Changes to Case Review
TPR Perm hearing
N-E Elig. Review Procero
-basically same
-ck list -
data system - change.
Inform slate folls part of review team.
157 8 case -mveshold - f rit ₹ yes
if # of kids helow - none for 3 yr
10 90 or 10 cares - next 3
Mg $ cas above - PIP
disallowance for netigible cases
coown pattern of see k # of cases.
Regional offnes - lead on all there rivews.
Outcome Measure, 152
self arcu hand on AFCAS
Review
lnd Invest review of acress ment
metro avea ref
.
randomne d saugh halld on self a reservent.
30-50 case
sep AFCARS penalty / review process
3 yu nt of couplien
off 3 in retroactive renal if fill out of compliance
Review Team: 2 reg. 12 central / slate review
fed
1V-B reg-
shate gual alcume 1 lan veg.
ASFA
Reasonable easy
ref under IV-E eligibility req.
built in under The review process - 10-E
Amended to include The excepte F
M
claufy - street closely -
2
Crimal B/G cls.
opt - out ability
if opt ont - prov - case plan - 3000 some
much -sofely of cluldren.
3
Perm Heavy req.
18 - 12 months -
focus of review strengmaned -
name change
preamble - context
4
TPR req.
filing
fate 15/22 months
15 mo - lt till T
steking to = sint
exempter
re! placement
- child's hert interest.
To Com
Fam Pres alt - interime guidance
*
\
Admy.t Ass program changes
adoptin for schedule
Dan Chedik
all going up
20 cat. of fees for services
[app for naturalization 195- ]
work É time accessment of each fm 400
INS has to pay for they
of all appl - most time intensive
for study team
q- & concerns of applicants
80% muumerons
2070 applic delivered in person.
Itr writing campaign
Other clarges- user fee
policy lequest perso.
waive fee : asylees / ifugees.
adain.- , adm adoption
ptreamline
5,000 5, deduction
income.
3 wks
Rule: cleared final cc rule. -
final
proposed rule
implements welfare refer
Combunes 4 funding streams
collect ( distinuate
reg.
parents state optne ( health Esafety
CC conf- admin - July 27th
Lawn Other
matter M.
Couf call 9/2
Mattic 401-9223
9am
Title IV-E Foster Care Eligibility Reviews and Child and Family Services State Plans
GENERAL:
60
1) Comment period - 60 days. Do we think 60 days is adequate for a regulation of this significance?
day
s
2) Please provide examples of reports from the test reviews. sending
3) Please provide estimates of ACF resources (by HQ and RO) necessary to perform reviews for FYs
1999-2003.
#, came
PREAMBLE: (additional tonal changes will come at a later date)
welookat p. 11/12 AFCARS offers a rich source of individual case level data at the Federal level that we D well charge
(data will drive the focus of reviews)
same time could use as an informational, oversight and monitoring tool. Please describe your plan to use this pages to
as states
we
out
what and other data in the development of the monitoring strategy going into each State.
make clear.
less seft.
areas
partnership 5) p. 12 "The proposed regulations include various provisions for flexibility and individualizing the
reviews to States." How do we guarantee consistency and fairness across States in light of the
individual nature of each of State reviews due to self-assessment?
AFCARS data -coninteat
6) p. 15 refers to a 1994 OIG report. Please provide a copy.
legons 7) p. 24 Discusses reviewing a sub-sample on non-IV-E cases during the reviews, which increases
learned "the potential for States to receive Federal funding to which they are entitled." Please provide
estimates of the additional costs. Would these costs be netted against ineligible payments?
new reviews
8) p. 26 Please provide information on historical state-by-state error rates for IV-E eligibility
determination.
9) p. 27 "Reviewing for outcomes, as opposed to procedural indicators alone, is more likely to lead
to improvements in State programs." Is there evidence from the test reviews that could support and
strengthen this claim?
10) p. 29 notes, "we have followed the statutory requirements closely when the statute has provided
specific parameters for review." Please provide a table comparing the proposed regulation and the
statute.
II) p. 30 edit We have purposely crafted the regulation so that penalties will only be imposed when
will
States fail to encourage States to make necessary program improvements.
12) p. 31-32 What are the "outcomes" and "systemic" factors reviewed?
pgs.152-154.
listed mese
p. 43 We recommend deleting the sentence "We believe this requirement provides the State the
will
opportunity for self-evaluation and an opportunity to make any needed adjustments in policy or
practice prior to another full review."
Nart-area
failver
14) p. 44 Please illustrate the differences (in chart format, if possible) between "detailed inquiries,'
formal
"reviews" and "partial reviews." Are States notified that detailed inquiries are being undertaken?
Prequest
A
15) p. 48 Please explain the following sentence: "In those pilot States where both the old and the
proposed review methods were deployed simultaneously, there was an over-reliance on the proposed
D
method to reach conclusions about the status of outcomes in the States."
16)
49
[1355.34]
"
p.
we have limited the State plan requirements subject to review to those
requirements related specifically to outcomes and the delivery of improved services." What elements
in the State plan will not be reviewed? Which of these items were reviewed in the prior system?
17) p. 53 Please provide a copy of the self-assessment and the on-site instruments
18) p. 54 edit We believe that the proposed review of outcomes is necessary if we are to achieve
the goal of improved service. reviewing for outcomes in the manner we are proposing is necessary.
19) p. 60 edit 1) assure that delays in evaluation do no prevent place the State at risk of not from
correcting the areas of nonconformity in a timely manner?
20) p. 61/62 The lack of requirements for review reports raises concerns. The potential inconsistency
among State reports makes it difficult to analyze reviews across States to develop and refine both the
review and improvement processes.
21) p. 86 What are the implications of the change in focus for parents' requirements for complying
with case plans? Has ACF estimated the effect of this on the number of TPRs? no change
Shoike Homeformes, more accountabity quicker
22)
pg. 109 Please delete Ideally, all children who are removed from their homes will be
reunited with the families, but reunification is not a possibility for some. -this appears contrary
to the spirit of ASFA, which said that permanence and safety are paramount, not reunification.
23) p. 148 Why are States required to do a self assessment only once every 3 years? What is the
basis for ACFs estimate that a self-assessment will require 240 hours?
1. burdomsome problem
2. PIP ungoing
3. stor ways touncover
publems
RULE:
Section 1355.32
rigords self-arsement
her to he linked to directly to onesile momby
24) 1355.32(a); p. 167 initial reviews.
have enroyh to knny which slates first
Why not require all States to do a self-assessment the first year? This could serve as the basis for
voluntary
selecting which States would be subject to initial reviews.
25) 1355.32(c); p. 169
Reinstatement of reviews. What is an inquiry? Does ACF have an estimate of how many of these
will be necessary each year? Are these reflected in the burden tables on page 148/149?
Section 1355.33
26) 1355.33(a)(2)(I); p. 171
Ruk
Why is there joint Federal/State approval for the service areas for on-site reviews?
27) 1355.33(b); p. 171
Who are the external members of the review team? Who is responsible for selecting them? state/fed
28) 1355.33(b); p. 171 Self Assessment
How will the accuracy of the States' self-assessments be judged? What sort of monitoring
mechanisms are in place for this process?
29) 1355.33(c)(2); p. 173
On-site reviews. Given that many States have county-based systems how meaningful will State
reviews be if they are concentrated in several specific political subdivisions within a State?
30) 1355.33(c)(3); p. 173
How will the interviews of children, parents and families be conducted? Will these be confidential? yes
How will the collection of sensitive material be handled? What sort of burden is expected for
individuals?
Section 1355.34
31) (Preamble notes sections that don't exist in rule --pg 50 of preamble refers to (a) (1) (iii)
does not exist in rule) --
32) Is the State plan data (from AFCARS) double-checked by the feds?
33) 1355.34(b); p. 176
Are each of these outcomes equally weighted? Does it make sense to stress the protection from
abuse and neglect/safety outcome -- (b)(I) (A) ?
too of
34) 1355.34(b)(iii); p. 177
rewfuce
Children have educational achievements appropriate to their abilities.
Is this within the scope
of the responsibilities of the child welfare systems? How would reviewers be in a position to
Drl
cell
determine this? The rule states that ASFA states unequivocally that our national goals for
children in the child welfare system are safety, permanency, and well-being.
ASFA never
mentions well-being as an outcome goal, although the bill reauthorizes family preservation.
(p3sy
precusson
35) 1355.34(b)(2); p. 177.
A state's level of achievement with regard to each outcome reflects the extent to which a State
has implemented the following CFSP requirements or assurances.
Is this how ACF is
translating the outcomes in (b)(1) into a working review? Does this mean that the State just has
to make the assurance, or do they actually look behind it?
36) How will the reviewer determine substantial compliance in 95% of the cases? Is there
a way to put a percentage within each outcome standard? For example, in (b)(1)(iii) if all the
Chart
children in a sample are in school, but not necessarily in needed remedial education programs, is
this substantial compliance? Or, if 80% of the children have stays of at least 8 months in the.
same foster care home, but 20% have stays less than 8 months, is this substantial compliance?
Is this a qualitative or quantitative evaluation?
37) 1355.34(b) (2); p. 177
add
Is MEPA compliance a factor looked for to determine compliance? Or is it only addressed in
relation to a reported violation? Does it make sense to proactively look for compliance with
WA
respect to policies and casework?
38) 1355.34(c); p. 179/p. 57
Should the review elements be made part of the State plan?
derived
39) 1355.34 (c) (2) (iii); p. 181
Section citation at bottom --isn't the permanency hearing in section 475 of ASFA?
40) 1355.34 (4); p. 183
Staff training requirements -is this new? Are these requirements in the law?
41) 1355.35(b); p. 190
What is the purpose of the voluntary PIP? It requires ACF involvement, yet ACF approval is not
required and there are no consequences if the State fails to achieve the goals of the VPIP. Would
ACF resources be better focused on States with mandatory PIPs? If program improvements are in
fact needed shouldn't this be more than a voluntary improvement plan? How will voluntary
improvement plans be enforced?
42) 1355.35(d); p. 192/p. 58
Please provide a chart of the continuum in the IV-E eligibility and children and family reviews
including: time frames for reviews, compliance thresholds, program improvement plan (PIP) process
and time frames; penalty process and time frames, and disallowance of funds from date of initial
review through calculation.
43) 1355.35(d) p. 192/p. 59
How will the time periods for PIPs be determined? Why will States be granted up to three years to
address problems identified in reviews? (A total of six years for States which are in the last year of
no
risk
the initial -year cycle). Three years appears to be a considerable amount of time for improvement.
Perhaps it would also be advisable to implement a risk-based time frame with maximum or
minimum time frames for States with high risk child welfare systems. (Interestingly ACF does put
a six month time cap on violations relating to denial to become an adoptive or foster parent on the
preamsle
basis of race, color or national origin (p.203)).
statutory reg.
44) 1355.35(d); p. 192/p. 59-60
What are the implications of State consultations on differences in reviews among States? Why is
State consultation critical for determining the time frames for evaluating PIPs?
45) 1355.35(e); p. 192/p. 60
What are the procedures for evaluating a PIP? What are the evaluation criteria used?
ind bux)
regim/stak
Section 1355.36
46) 1355.36(a); p. 194/p. 63
Please provide a more complete description of the pool of funds for penalties. Why only 10% of
IV-E?
47) 1355.36(b) (2); p. 195
What does this mean --funds will not be withheld if the determination of nonconformity was
caused by the State's correct use of formal written statements of Federal law or policy provided
the
State
by
DHHS
--is this an appeals provision?
statute 1127 ASSA 5rd reviewprous
48) 1355.36(b)(4); p. 195/p. 9
"shift focus to program improvement and away from financial penalties." Please provide an analysis
of penalties imposed and collected under the current and proposed systems.
49) 1355.36(b)(4); p. 196/p. 65
Please provide a schedule of State penalties based on their level on non-conformity.
50) 1356.71(I); Reg language on p. 246 seems to be inconsistent with the preamble on p. 140
Program improvement plans. The program improvement plan is composed of action steps. Each
action step is to have a projected completion date that will not extend beyond 12 months beyond
when the PIP is approved? Why should the PIP then be for three years?
2 dif reviews
Section 1355.37
51) Overall question: why is OCR not more fully involved in the MEPA violation correction
process? Why does OCR finish its investigation, hand its file to ACF and step out of the process
altogether? Why does OCR not make a recommendation to ACF about whether a violation
occurred? Why is OCR not involved in approving a state's corrective plan or in evaluating that
corrective plan? Can ACF make these determinations in consultation with OCR? Should we
blg to
come
IV-E penalty
dual coup!
Tith 11 OCR-
ale mo.
ACF wakes dif.
assesment
process
auth
violate fan ind-
immediate jeney
create a risk assessment to the MEPA corrective action timeframe?
52) 1355.37(c (1); p.203
, Mlows
Is 6 months too long for correction if there is an egregious violation in state statute or regulation
that should immediately be repealed?
53) 1355.37(e); p.205
Is the evaluation of corrective action plans federal or team? If federal, in Washington or in
regions?
federal -vg offaces vl
has 4 cerrul
Section 1356.21
54) 1356.21(b); p. 213 reasonable efforts
How much is this a change from current law? Please provide before/after scenarios.
55) 1356.21(b)(1); p. 213/p. 92 REASONABLE EFFORTS
,slatutory ASFA
What are the implications of requiring judicial determinations of reasonable efforts? Will it place
additional burdens on State courts? Does the capacity exist? What will be the increased needs for
services? What are the implications for the average amount of time children spend in foster care?
Has ACF done any outreach with the judicial community?yes D timeframe not in statute
56) 1356.21(b)(3); p. 215/p. 95
children become ineligible for IV-E if the judicial determination regarding reasonable efforts is not
made. Are States eligible for retroactive claims if a judicial determination is made subsequent to 12
months? no What does ACF estimate will be the effect of this provision?
57) 1356.21(b)(4) p. 216/p. 96
ACF proposes judicial determinations every 12 months after an initial determination is made. Why
not propose 6 months and ask for comments? ted to Cares in ck anyway
permen heavy 12 mo.
58) 1356.21(d); p. 220/p. 102/103
Will reviews become the mechanism for enforcing reasonable efforts/contrary to the welfare
provisions? if a State finds that 25% of cases reviewed did not have a judicial reasonable efforts
determination within 12 months of entering foster care, would ACF use this as a basis to project for
the entire State caseload?)
IV E review one way
59) 1356.21 (I); p. 226/p. 11 Termination of parental rights
Please provide a time line with examples of when the section 475(5)(E) 15/22 months provision
would require TPR. Why are runaway episodes not counted in the 15/22 calculation?
60) 1356.21(I) (2); p. 226
Is there judicial oversight of the state's election not to file for TPR?
not
( 118 in premble 7
Slate fices pet. -resp.
permen reary plan reven
CI review.
skhell
AFCARS 1/3 o.more w/
rel.
61) 1356.21(1)(2)(1); p. 228/p.116 exceptions to 475(5)(E).
Gives States the option not to apply the 15/22 requirement when a child is placed with a relative.
Why? Given the large and growing number of children being cared for by relatives, what are the
implications of this proposal? What proportion of the foster care caseload does ACF estimate will
be affected by this provision?
62) 1356.21(I)(2)(iii); p. 229/p. 117 exceptions to 475(5)(E).
The provision does not apply when services identified in the case plan have not been provided. Has
ACF estimated the number of cases that will be exempted from the TPR requirements because
services have not been provided?
loophole - opting out - skatute 1 how know? will we
63) 1356.21(k); p. 229/p. 119
Please provide additional explanation of the 6 month "living with" exception in the case of a child
living with a relative. a
statulary
64) 1356.21(k); p. 230
Is the six month time period for IV-E eligibility unfair (if grandma calls within 6 months, child
is eligible for assistance; if call is made 6 months and 1 day, child is ineligible)?
Section 1356.30
65) National versus state criminal records check --should we leave that to the state's discretion;
even though ASFA wasn't specific, wasn't the spirit that it should be a national check?
no -shales donts
66) 1356.30(e); p. 237/p. 130 criminal background checks.
this
Does ACF estimate that a significant number of children will be ineligible for federal maintenance
payments because a criminal background check has not been completed? Will payments be made
retroactively once background checks are completed?
no
not
until
completion
SAMPLING QUESTIONS:
67) p. 31 Selection of sample. "small discovery sample" of cases selected randomly and stratified
by type of cases, based on the findings of the self assessment. Please provide examples of how the
self assessment will guide sample selection. How will cases be selected randomly from among the
wide range of services offered (cps, out-of-home, in-home, etc.)? How will this be generalizable to
the State as a whole?
AFCARS data
Section 1355.33
not statiatically valid 1 ind. where we find P in
68) 1355.33(c)(4); p. 174/p. 48
are the sample sizes discussed based on each geographic area reviewed or are they for the entire
State? Please provide information on the number of cases that would be subject to on-site reviews
on a State-by-State basis.
Section 1356,71
69) 1356.71(c); p. 238/p. 134
1/3 for intial reviews
Sampling guidance and conduct of the review. ACF is proposing a three year transition period for
case error threshold rates to revert to 10%. This would allow States in the third year of the review
cycle 6 years to reduce their error rate. Given that these error rates may reflect a State failing to
42
provide adequate services to children, are there ways to reduce the time period for States in the
yv-
second and third year of initial reviews?
from off dala of rg.
10%
Throshed
1356.71(c)(2); p.239 Sampling guidance
70) 80 cases appears to be rather low for a representative sample, particularly for large States.
How did ACF arrive at this number?
slage 80 cares
150
cases
prev. 50 cares.
71) 1356.71(c)(4); p.240
preamble
D
Are the error rates too high --15 percent? not too
End of sampling questions
high
72) 1356.71(c)(6); p. 241/p. 135
What is the rationale for requiring that both the dollar and the case level error rates exceed 10% in
order to extrapolate a disallowance? Under what circumstances would the dollar and the caseload
rates vary significantly?
carry over from pest versent
73) 1356.71(e); p. 242/p. 136 Review Instrument.
Please provide a copy of the draft instrument. Should the State plan be modified to reflect the
content of the review instrument?
D
74) 1356.71(I); p. 245/p. 140 Program improvement plans.
ACF states that previous review systems, which allowed for recovery of funds, did not lead to
correcting deficiencies identified by reviewers. Why? How much in claims did ACF access annually?
How much was collected? How will the new system lead to more successful correction of
defer
deficiencies?
75) 1356.71(I); p. 245/p. 140
What are examples of State law changes that would be necessary to bring a State into substantial
compliance? Shouldn't State laws be consistent with titles IV-B and IV-E, as most recently amended
by the date of publication of this final rule?
ASFA
ss state law
bef: IV- E elig beailarance
charges-
-
now on-sile seen assistance
is
part of paral for it.
Comments to Child Welfare NPRM
Nicole Rabner, DPC/OFL
Note: these are my preliminary comments; more will be forthcoming, particularly tonal edits and
comments to the preamble. Also, I did not note similar comments to Oliven/McKernan: length of
review process/time frame questions/ educational outcome question/ interest in seeing a chart of
time frames, scenarios.
Section 1355.34
(Preamble notes sections that don't exist in rule -- pg 50 of preamble refers to (a) (1) (iii) -- does
not exist in rule) --
question: Is the State plan data (from AFCARS) double-checked by the feds?
(b)
question: are each of these outcomes equally weighted; does it make sense to stress the protection
from abuse and neglect/safety outcome -- (I) (A) ?
(b) (2)
question: is MEPA compliance a factor looked for to determine compliance? Or is it only
addressed in relation to a reported violation? Does it make sense to proactively look for
compliance with respect to policies and casework?
(b) (3)
question: why 90 percent compliance in the state's initial review? If we suspect many states may
be found out of compliance and therefore need to do a PIP, why not set the bar higher, i.e. 95
percent?
(c) (2) (iii)
question re: section citation at bottom -- isn't the permanency hearing in section 475 of ASFA?
Section 1355.35
Overall question about the amount of time a state has to implement its PIP without another
review, particularly if a significant safety violation were found. (Is it enough that the feds can
initiate another review at any time (noted in early section)?)
Section 1355.36
(b) (2)
question: what does this mean -- funds will not be withheld "if the determination of nonconformity
was caused the correct use of formal written statements of Federal law or policy provided the
State by DHHS" is this an appeals provision?
Section 1355.37 (MEPA)
Overall question: why is OCR not more fully involved in the MEPA violation correction process?
Why does OCR finish its investigation, hand its file to ACF and step out of the process
altogether? Why does OCR not make a recommendation to ACF about whether a violation
occurred? Why is OCR not involved in approving a state's corrective plan or in evaluating that
corrective plan? Can ACF make these determinations in consultation with OCR?
(c) (1)
Is 6 months too long for correction if there is an egregious violation in state statute or regulation
that should immediately be repealed?
(c) (5)
Doesn't this provide an incentive for states to overestimate the amount of time required to
complete its corrective action plan?
(e)
Is the evaluation of corrective action plans federal or regional ACF staff?
Section 1356.21
(b) reasonable efforts
question: how much is this a change from current law? Please provide before/after scenarios.
Meg: Just noticed - I'm missing page 216, could you please fax to 456-9412? Thanks.
(I) (2)
Is there judicial oversight of the state's election not to file for TPR?
(k)
Is the six month time period for IV-E eligibility unfair (if grandma calls within 6 months, child is
eligible for assistance; if call is made 6 months and 1 day, child is ineligible)?
Section 1356.30
National versus state criminal records check -- should we leave that to the state's discretion; even
though ASFA wasn't specific, wasn't the spirit that it should be a national check?
Section 1356.71
Are the error rates too high -- 15 percent?
Further preamble tonal comments to follow; below are some:
pg. 35
States that ASFA states "unequivocally that our national goals for children in the child welfare
system are safety, permanency, and well-being." ASFA never mentions well-being as an outcome
goal, although the bill reauthorizes family preservation.
pg. 109
strike sentence "Ideally, all children who are removed from their homes will be reunited with the
families, but reunification is not a possibility for some." -- this flies in the face of the spirit of
ASFA, which said that permanence and safety are paramount, not reunification.
Q's
State self assersment 3 yrs after on-site review
of full review but before full review?
p+76 Critena related to outcomes
1
child safety
A
Children are producted from abuse and
neglect
B
Children are safely maintained in
Their homes (whenester) pos). and are
expeditionsly removed from Their homes
when necessary
(c) Then'sh of harm to children is minimured
Commert #59
Illustration of Example for Calculating the "15 out 22 months" Requirement on Page 110 of the NPRM
O
O
O
O
1/15/98
4/15/98
10/15/98
10/15/99
Child enters
Child Discharged
Child re-enters
State must apply section 475(5)(E)
foster care
from foster care
foster care
by filing a petition for TPR or
noting relevant exception in
case plan.
Child Welfare Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
General Areas Covered:
(I) Title IV-E Foster Care Eligibility Reviews
(II) Child and Family Services State Plan Reviews
(III) MEPA as amended by the Small Business Job Protection Act
(IV) Adoption and Safe Families Act provisions
I. Title IV-E Eligibility Reviews
The NPRM reforms the IV-E Eligibility Review, which are federal reviews mandated by statute to
oversee and verify the accuracy of federal adoption and foster care maintenance payments. While
past review processes have focused on standard completion of case files, the NPRM changes the
reviews to emphasize federal collaboration with and technical assistance to states (recommended
by a 1994 HHS OIG Report). The IV-E Eligibility Review will now be done by a federal/State
joint team and give States the opportunity to correct errors before penalties are exacted. Reviews
are conducted at three year intervals, with "substantial compliance" defined as an error rate of less
than 15% in the first review, and 10% thereafter. The sample of at least 80 cases (up from at least
50 cases in prior reviews) are drawn from AFCARS (the Adoption and Foster Care Assistance
Reporting System).
II. Child and Family Services Reviews
The NPRM presents an entirely new review of State child welfare systems -- the Child and Family
Services Review (CFSR) -- to replace prior "427 reviews." The 427 Review focused on accuracy
and completion of case files, with bonus dollars awarded to fully completed files. The new CFSR
instead focuses on child and family outcomes in the areas of safety, permanence, and child and
family well-being.
The CFSR is a 2 stage review: (1) a State undergoes a self-assessment in consultation with ACF;
and (2) on the basis of that self-assessment and an independent analysis by ACF, areas for an on-
site review (substantive and geographic) are selected and the on-side review is undertaken by a
joint federal/state team (with involvement as appropriate by outside experts). The review involves
intense evaluation (on the basis of case reviews and interviews) of randomly selected cases and
focuses on outcomes for children (see attached), as well as requirements related to delivering
child welfare services which lead to improved outcomes. "Substantial Conformity" is defined as
90% of outcomes achieved in the first review, and 95% of outcomes achieved in subsequent
reviews.
Under the NPRM, States must undergo a first review within three years. If a State is found to be
in substantial conformity, another review is not required for five years. If a State is determined
not to be substantial conformity, another full CFSR is required in three years, and the State must
submit a Program Improvement Plan within six months to address areas of noncompliance. ACF
must approve the Program Improvement Plan. The NPRM gives the States up to three years to
complete its Program Improvement Plan, with interim ACF evaluations annually.
III. MEPA as amended by the 1996 Small Business Job Protection Act
The NPRM proposes a separate process for addressing violations, once identified, of the MEPA
as amended by the 1996 Small Business Job Protection Act. HHS determined that proper
enforcement requires collaboration with the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) because a State's
noncompliance constitutes a violation of title IV-E as well as of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, and because OCR has significant expertise in investigating alleged civil rights violations.
Under the NPRM, ACF will refer all cases involving potential violations to OCR for investigation
(cases may come to ACF's attention during the course of the CFSR, by letter, through media,
etc.). (Violations based on a court finding will not be referred to OCR for investigation; rather,
ACF will invoke penalty and corrective action procedures directly.) OCR will conduct an
investigation of the potential violation, and hand its completed file to ACF, which will make a
determination, based on OCR's file and in consultation with OCR, whether there has been a
violation (which could be a violation to a person or a violation based on the state's maintenance
of any statute, regulation, policy, procedure or practice). If ACF finds that no violation has
occurred, no further action is taken.
If ACF determines that a violation has occurred, it will invoke a specified enforcement process,
which includes possible penalties assessed and a corrective action plan required. By statute, an
immediate penalty will be levied against a state found to be in violation of the statute with respect
to a person or as the result of a court finding (although a state may appeal and engage in a
corrective action plan during the judicial appeals process if it so chooses). In other circumstances,
also by statute, a State will have up to six months from the date it receives notification of its
violation from ACF to implement (HHS interprets as "begin") a corrective action plan (after
which the State will be assessed a penalty). Approval of the plans are at the sole discretion of
ACF (no timetable for approval, but state must "begin" an approved plan before six months
lapses). Evaluation of a State's corrective action plan will be completed solely by HHS within 30
days of projected completion date. Penalties levied are consistent with statute.
Summary of MEPA Enforcement: (1) potential violation is brought to ACF's attention; (2)
ACF refers case to OCR for investigation; (3) OCR conducts investigation and hands file to
ACF; (4) ACF evaluates file and, in consultation with OCR, makes determination -- (a) if ACF
finds no violation, inquiry ends; (b) if ACF finds a violation with respect to a person or as the
result of a court finding, penalties are immediately assessed; or (c) if ACF finds a relevant
violation, ACF notifies the State in writing; if (c), then (5) the State must begin implementing
an ACF-approved a corrective action plan within six months; and (6) ACF must evaluate and
approve the completed corrective action plan within 30 days of projected completion.
IV. 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act Provisions
HHS has decided to regulate the provisions of the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA)
and other recent statutory amendments through two NPRM's. This rule addresses those
provisions related to the foster care maintenance program; the second rule will address the
remaining ASFA amendments to the SSA. Provisions regulated in the NPRM are:
(1) Permanency Hearing. The NPRM recognizes the statutory changes in terminology, timing
(18-12 months), and purpose.
(2) Reasonable Efforts. The NPRM implements the ASFA requirement that the State hold the
child's health and safety as its paramount concern when making reasonable efforts. It does not
provide a regulatory definition, in order neither to limit the courts' ability to make determinations
on a case-by-case nor to be so broad as to be ineffective; the NPRM does provide questions and
guidelines (such as the statutory descriptions of circumstances in which Reasonable Efforts are
not required, and a preamble discussion of possible cases). The NPRM also follows the statute
closely -- it proposes that in order to satisfy IV-eligibility requirements, there must be a judicial
determination that: (1) reasonable efforts were made to prevent a child from being removed from
home; (2) reasonable efforts were made to reunify the child with his/her family if the removal
could not be prevented; (3) if reasonable efforts were not made to prevent the child's removal
from home or to reunify the child with his/her family, that reasonable efforts are/were not
required; and (4) if the permanent plan for the child is adoption, guardianship, or some other
permanent living arrangement other than reunification, that reasonable efforts were made to make
and finalize that alternate placement. The NPRM requires that a judicial determination of
reasonable efforts must be made within 12 months, in order to encourage this assessment during
the Permanency Hearing.
(3) Termination of Parental Rights. The NPRM follows the statutory requirement for States to
file for Termination of Parent Rights (TPR) when a child has been in foster care for 15 of the
most recent 22 months. By statute, a state may elect not to file for TPR if a child is placed with a
relative; if there is a "compelling reason" that TPR is not in the child's best interests; or if
adequate services identified in the case have not been provided.
(4) Criminal Records Check Requirement. The NPRM follows the statutory requirement that the
State conduct criminal records checks for prospective foster and adoptive parents unless the State
"opts out" of this provision through a Governor's letter to the Secretary of HHS. The NPRM
leaves to state discretion whether the criminal background checks are national or state-wide
(ASFA was not specific, and HHS claims that FBI checks are too burdensome, time- and dollar-
wise, to be required).
SEP-04-1998 15:34
OMB DEP DIR MGMT
202 395 6974
P.03/14
SET 4-00 JMI L.LL IM MOT/ LEV AFTEDOD
ГЛА NV, 202 TUI TJUL
1. L
reviews. We learned from our pilot reviews that
approximately six months is required to prepare for and
conduct a review that examines the quality of services and
outcomes.
In paragraph (b), we describe the timetable for reviews
following the initial review, in accord with the statutory
requirement for less frequent reviews of States that are
determined to be in substantial conformity. We propose that
full reviews be conducted at five-year intervals in States
found to be in substantial conformity. We also propose that
the State self-assessment portion of the review be completed
three years after a review in which a State is found to be
in substantial conformity.
In addition, we propose that reviews for States determined
not to be in substantial conformity occur at three-year
intervals. This proposal is based on the recognition that
many States have technical assistance needs that will extend
beyond a year or two in order for them to implement program
improvement plans designed to correct the areas of
nonconformity in their child and family services program.
In paragraph (c), we implement the provision at section
1123A (b) (1) (C) of the Act regarding the reinstatement of
more frequent reviews of States and also provide examples of
43
SEP-04-1998 15:34
OMB DEP DIR MGMT
202 395 6974
P.04/14
SET- 4-90 SAI L.LL rm ACT/ LEV APPNOVD
PMA nv, 202 TUI TJUL
J
In paragraph (b), we describe the proposed State self-
assessment process which is based on data, provided by ACF
to the States in report format, from their own most recent
submissions to the AFCARS and NCANDS systems. State review
team members will review and analyze the data to evaluate
OMB
the strengths and needs of the child and family services
cannest
systems in the State. ACF will provide consultation and an
independent analysis of the self-assessment to ensure that
it is complete and accurate. In promoting the principles of
State flexibility and program improvement through the
reviews, the analysis of the self-assessment will provide
the focus for the on-site review by identifying particular
aspects of State programs that need further review. This
approach is proposed as an alternative to conducting
standard reviews on similar populations in every State,
absent any recognition of individual State needs. State
self-assessments were used successfully to structure the on-
site reviews around specific outcome areas, service areas,
and systemic issues. We think this approach will promote a
more efficient use of State and Federal resources.
In paragraph (c), we describe the proposed on-site review
process. The proposal that the on-site review be focused in
specified geographic locations in the State, including the
State's largest city, reflects an approach used in all of
the pilots. It provided members of the review team with
46
SEP-04-1998 15:35
OMB DEP DIR MGMT
202 395 6974 P.05/14
021 1 JU end 2.45 1 101 AVT/ DDV 0000
111 no, 202 TVI TJUL
I
opportunities to speak to local stakeholders and conduct
face-to-face interviews with children and families, service
providers, foster families and staff from various
localities. Because the nation's large metropolitan areas
are often characterized by complex social and organizational
issues that affect large numbers of children and families,
we propose that each State's largest metropolitan area be
one of the locations selected for an on-site review.
In paragraph (c) (3), we propose that ACF has final approval
if consensus cannot be reached regarding the selection of
#26
programmatic areas of emphasis for the on-site reviews and
the geographic locations in which the on-site review will
occur. However, our experience from the pilot reviews
suggests that, in most cases, the State and ACF will reach
consensus.
The proposed approach of using various sources of
information to determine substantial conformity with the
outcomes and systemic factors is also based on the pilot
reviews. The comparative experiences in the pilots revealed
that the reviews yield findings of greater quality and
higher accuracy when they include case reviews and
interviews rather than rely solely on the case records.
47
ON
on-sited
willinchedu
>ck.reg.
SEP-04-1998 15:35
OMB DEP DIR MGMT
202 395 6974
P.06/14
1 WILL 6.67 10 AUTY DEV APTEDOD
"MA NU, 202 401 4002
r, 0
requirement to make effective use of cross-jurisdictional
resources to place children in adoptive homes.
While the requirement at section 471 (a) (18) of the Act has a
direct impact on permanency for the children affected, we
have proposed only to use the child and family services
37
review as a mechanism for identifying potential section
471 (a) (18) compliance issues rather than as a mechanism to
determine compliance with this provision, hence its
exclusion from this paragraph. The statutory requirements
for enforcing section 471 (a) (18) necessitate a different
approach from that taken in the child and family services
review. However, [the self-assessment and the instruments
for the on-site portion of the review will include questions
designed to probe for potential section 471 (a) (18)
compliance issues. Once identified through a child and
family services review, or otherwise, potential
noncompliance with section 471 (a) (18) will be addressed
through the process proposed at section 1355.37.
]
In paragraph (b) (2) (vii), the proposed review of the title
IV-E requirement regarding reasonable efforts is not a
duplication of the review of reasonable efforts
determinations performed in the title IV-E foster care
eligibility reviews. We are not proposing to review for
reasonable efforts determinations in court orders or other
52
SEP-04-1998 15:35
OMB DEP DIR MGMT
202
395 6974
P.07/14
JEI 7 JU was 2.29 111 Ave, LBV AFFEDUL
I'MA NV. 202 401 4002
r. U
would appreciate comments as to whether the time frame for
the joint development of the program improvement plan is
adequate as proposed.
In paragraph (d), we are proposing to link the time frames
for implementing the plans to the time frames for the
ongoing full reviews. Specifically, our proposal is that
program improvement plans be approved for time periods of up
to three years, depending upon the level of nonconformity,
to conform to the proposed three year cycles of full reviews
for States determined not to be in substantial conformity.
We recognize that some areas needing improvement will not be
easily ameliorated, even with technical assistance, and are,
thus, proposing a three-year period of time as the maximum
#43
implementation period for the plans. We do not expect all
program improvements to take three years to implement and
expect States to address areas of nonconformity
expeditiously. States will be expected to prioritize areas
needing improvement which pose risks to child safety and
complete the appropriate action steps in a time frame
consistent with the level of risk.
In paragraph (e), we propose procedures for evaluating the
implementation of program improvement plans. We propose
that the State members of the review team and the ACF
Regional Office determine the appropriate intervals for
60
SEP-04-1998 15:36
OMB DEP DIR MGMT
202 395 6974
P.08/14
JET I. JU car 2.23 1" nor/ LEV AFTEROP
104 no, 202 TUI TJUL
the Act, which requires the removal of barriers to
interethnic adoption. We have chosen to codify the section
1808 enforcement procedures in regulations in conjunction
with the 1123A review process because the statute
specifically identifies the 1123A review process as a
mechanism for assuring State compliance with section
471 (a) (18) of the Act. While the 1123A review process is an
appropriate mechanism for detecting possible violations of
section 471 (a) (18) of the Act, the corrective action and
penalty structure required by section 474 (d) of the Act does
not fit within the "substantial conformity" standard by
which other title IV-B and title IV-E State plan
requirements are measured in the 1123A review process.
Therefore, ACF has developed a separate process for
addressing violations of section 471 (a) (18), once
identified.
After considering a number of options, we determined that
implementing section 474 (d) of the Act requires
collaboration with OCR because it has significant expertise
in investigating alleged civil rights violations. Moreover,
#51
a State's noncompliance with section 471 (a) (18) of the Act
is also a violation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964. OCR and ACF will collaborate throughout the process
of bringing the State into compliance with section
471 (a) (18) of the Act which includes consultation during the
70
reat
?
SEP-04-1998 15:37
OMB DEP DIR MGMT
202 395 6974 P.14/14
0217 4 JU val 2.20 1 171
development, approval, implementation, and evaluation of
corrective action plans.
In paragraph (a) (1), we propose that ACF refer all cases
involving potential violations of section 471 (a) (18) of the
Act to OCR for investigation. Such cases may come to our
attention during the course of a child and family services
review or by other means, such as a letter of complaint.
Violations based on a court finding will not be referred to
OCR for investigation. Rather, ACF will invoke the
appropriate penalty and corrective action procedures
described in the regulation.
In paragraph (a) (2), we propose that after OCR completes its
investigative procedure, it will make its file available to
ACF, which will then make a determination, based on the OCR
file, whether there has been a violation of section
471 (a) (18) In paragraphs (a) (2) (i) and (a) (2) (ii),
consistent with statutory language, we propose that a
violation of section 471 (a) (18) occurs with respect to a
person if the agency delays or denies placement based on
race, color, or national origin. In paragraph (a) (2) (iii),
we have included as a violation of section 471 (a) (18) of the
Act a State's maintenance of any statute, regulation,
policy, procedure, or practice that would result in the
delay or denial of placement based on race, color, or
71
TOTAL P.14
SEP-04-1998 15:36
OMB DEP DIR MGMT
202 395 6974 P.09/14
021 ,4.00 en 2.20 17171 nor/ LLV AFFEDVD
104 no, LUL TUI TJUL
U
or are deficient, an alternative sampling frame will be
selected in conjunction with the State agency for the period
of time comparable to the most recent AFCARS reporting
period.
In determining the sample size for this new review system,
we elected not to rely on or replicate that used in the
prior review system, 50 cases. We originally planned to use
a "discovery" sampling methodology with respect to the
initial review. However, by definition, this would have
resulted in a State being in non-compliance if one or more
cases were found to be ineligible by the review team.
Therefore, after deliberating over various combinations of
sample sizes and critical numbers of ineligible cases, a
more reasonable "acceptance" sampling methodology requiring
a sample size of 80 (plus a 10 percent oversample of eight
cases) with a critical number of eight (ineligible cases) is
proposed based on the following information.
According to Appendix D: Table for Determining Minimum
Sample Size and for Evaluating Attributes Sample Results in
Practical Statistical Sampling for Auditors (A copy is
reprinted at Attachment B at the end of this Freamble with
permission of the publisher) by Arthur J. Wilburn, there is
an 88 percent probability that the population ineligibility
case error rate (case error rate) in a universe size that
134
SEP-04-1998 15:36
OMB DEP DIR MGMT
202 395 6974
P.10/14
SEP- 4-98 SAI 2.21 rm AUF/LEU APPNDVW
ГКЛ NV, 202 901 9002
1, J
(1) Consist of a two-phase process that includes a
State self-assessment and an on-site review; and
(2) Bc conducted by a team of Federal and State
reviewers that includes:
#22
Deteted
Reference
(i) Staff of the State child and family services
to portnership
agency, including the State and local offices
approach
who represent the service areas that are the
focus of any particular review;
(ii) Representatives selected by the State, in
collaboration with the ACF Regional Office,
from those with whom State was required to
consult in developing its CFSP, as described
and required in 45 CFR part 1357.15 (1) ;
(iii) Federal staff of HHS; and
(iv) Other individuals, as deemed appropriate and
agreed upon by the State and ACF.
(b) State self-assessment. The first phase of the full
review will be a State self-asseesment conducted by the
internal and external State members of the review team.
The self-assessment must assess:
172
SEP-04-1998 15:36
OMB DEP DIR MGMT
202 395 6974 P.11/14
OCI
T
JU
un
State, provided the State's largest metropolitan
subdivision is one of the locations selected for
the on-site review.
(3) ACF has final approval of the selection of
specific areas of the State's child and family
#28
services continuum described in (c) (1) and
selection of the political subdivisions referenced
in (c) (2)
(4) Sources of information collected during the on-
site review to determine substantial conformity
must include, but are not limited to:
(i) Case records on children and families served
by the agency;
(ii) Interviews with children and families whose
case records have been reviewed and who are,
or have been, recipients of services of the
agency;
(iii) Social workers, foster parents, and service
providers for the cases selected for the on-
site review; and
174
SEP-10-98 FRI 9:51 AM ACF/LEG AFF&BUD
FAX NO. 202 401 4562
P. 1
HUMAN SERVICES USA)
HEALTH
:
UNIVERSITY
ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
Office of Legislative Affairs and Budget (OLAB)
Madeline Mocko, Director
370 L'Enfant Promenade SW
7th Floor West - Aerospace Building
Washington DC 20447
Tel: (202)401-9223
Fax: (202)401-4562
TO: Nicole Robner
DATE: 9/50/98
FAX:
(
)
456.2878
SUBJECT: Ckid weifere Mantory Real
AS REQUESTED
COMMENT
CLEARANCE
FYI
Affrached are the State
Plan requirements as we
discussed
Talk to you soon
Moddy
§ 1355.21
45 CFR Ch. XIII (10-1-97 Edition)
Office of Human Development vices, HHS
$1355.30
interventions to meet the needs of the
Federal matching of any payments
1355.21 State plan requirements for
(d) 45 CFR Part 76-Governmentwide
family and the best interests and need
that are made.
titles IV-E and IV-B.
Debarment and Suspension (Non-
Foster family home means the home of
of the individual(s) who may be placed
procurement) and Governmentwide Re-
(a) The State plans for titles IV-E
in out-of-home care.
ai an individual or family licensed or ap-
and IV-B must provide for safeguards
quirements for Drug-Free Workplace
proved by the State licensing or ap-
(e) Services are timely. flexible, CO-
(Grants).
on the use and disclosure of informa-
ordinated, and accessible to families
proval authority(ies) (or with respect
tion which meet the requirements con-
(e) 45 CFR Part 80-Nondiscrimina-
to foster family homes on or near In-
and individuals, principally delivered
tained in section 471(a)(8) of the Act.
in the home or the community, and are
tion Under Programs Receiving Fed-
dian reservations, by the tribal licens-
(b) The State plans for titles IV-E
ing or approval authority(ies)). that
delivered in a manner that is respectful
eral Assistance Through the Depart-
and IV-B must provide for compliance
provides 24-hour out-of-home care for
of and builds on the strengths of the
ment of Health and Human Services Ef-
with the Department's regulations list-
children. The term may include group
community and cultural groups.
fectuation of Title VI of the Civil
ed in 45 CFR 1355.30.
(f) Services are organized as a contin-
Rights Act of 1964.
homes, agency operated boarding
(c) The State agency and the Indian
homes or other facilities licensed or
num, designed to achieve measurable
(f) 45 CFR Part 81-Practice and Pro-
Tribe must make available for public
approved for the purpose of providing
outcomes, and are linked to a wide va-
cedure for Hearings Under Part 80 of
review and inspection the Child and
FAX NO. 202 4562
foster care by the State agency respon-
riety of supports and services which
This Title.
Family Services Plan (CFSP) and the
can be crucial to meeting families' and
(g) 45 CFR Part 84-Nondiscrimina-
sible for approval or licensing of such
Annual Progress and Services Reports.
facilities.
children's needs, for example, housing,
tion on the Basis of Handicap in Pro-
(See 45 CFR 1357.15 and 1357.16.) The
Independent Living Program (ILP)
substance abuse treatment, mental
grams and Activities Receiving Federal
State agency also must make available
means the programs and activities es-
health, health, education, job training,
Financial Assistance.
for public review and inspection the
tablished and implemented by the
child care, and informal support net-
(h) 45 CFR Part 91-Nondiscrimina-
title IV-E State Plan.
works.
State to assist youth, as defined in sec-
tion on the Basis of Age in HHS Pro-
tion 477(a)(2) of the Act, to prepare to
[48 FR 23114. May 23. 1983, as amended at 61
(g) Most child and family services are
grams or Activities Receiving Federal
live independently upon leaving foster
FR 58654, Nov. 18, 1996]
community-based, involve community
Financial Assistance.
care. Programs and activities that may
organizations, parents and residents in
1355.25 Principles of child and family
(1) 45 CFR Part 92-Uniform Adminis-
be provided are found in section 477(d)
services.
their design and delivery, and are ac-
trative Requirements for Grants and
of the Act.
countable to the community and the
The following principles. most often
Cooperative Agreements to State and
State means, for title IV-B, the 50
client's needs.
identified by practitioners and others
Local Governments (Applicable only to
States, the District of Columbia, the
(h) Services are intensive enough and
as helping to assure effective services
the title IV-B programs and the Inde-
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Guam,
of sufficient duration to keep children
for children. youth. and families,
pendent Living Program under Section
the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth
safe and meet family needs. The actual
should guide the States and Indian
477 of the Act).
of the Northern Mariana Islands, and
level of intensity and length of time
Tribes in developing. operating. and
American Samoa. For title IV-E, the
needed to ensure safety and assist the
(j) 45 CFR Part 93-New Restrictions
improving the continuum of child and
family may vary greatly between pre-
on Lobbying.
term "State" means the 50 States and
family services.
the District of Columbia.
ventive (family support) and crisis
(k) 45 CFR Part 95-General Adminis-
(a) The safety and well-being of chil-
intervention services (family preserva-
tration-Grant Programs (Public As-
State agency means the State agency
dren and of all family members is para-
administering or supervising the ad-
tion), based on the changing needs of
sistance and Medical Assistance). (Ap-
mount. When safety can be assured,
ministration of the title IV-B and title
children and families at various times
plicable to title IV-B and title IV-E ex-
strengthening and preserving families
in their lives. A family or an individual
cept that, notwithstanding 45 CFR
IV-E State plans and the title XX so-
is seen as the best way to promote the
does not need to be in crisis in order to
95.1(a), Subpart A, Time Limits for
SEP-10-98 FRI 9:52 AM ACF/LEG AFF&BUD
cial services block grant program. An
healthy development of children. One
exception to this requirement is per-
receive services.
States to File Claims, does not apply
important way to keep children safe is
mitted by section 103(d) of the Adop-
to title IV-B (subparts 1 and 2) and the
to stop violence in the family including
[61 FR 58654, Nov. 18, 1996]
tion Assistance and Child Welfare Act
Independent Living Program.)
violence against their mothers.
of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-272). Section 103(d).
1355.30 Other applicable regulations.
(1) 45 CFR Part 97-Consolidation of
(b) Services are focused on the family
provides that, if on December 1, 1974,
Grants to the Insular Areas. (Applica-
as a whole; service providers work with
Except as specified. the following
the title IV-B program (in a State or
families as partners in identifying and
ble only to the title IV-B programs).
regulations are applicable to all pro-
local agency) and the social services
meeting individual and family needs;
grams funded under titles IV-B and IV-
(m) 45 CFR Part 100-Intergovern-
program under section 402(a)(3) of the
family strengths are identified, en-
E of the Act.
mental Review of Department of
Act (the predecessor program to title
hanced, respected, and mobilized to
(a) 45 CFR Part 16-Procedures of the
Health and Human Services Programs
XX) were administered by separate
help families solve the problems which
Departmental Grant Appeals Board.
and Activities. (Only one section is ap-
agencies, that separate administration
compromise their functioning and well-
(b) 45 CFR Part 30-Claims Collec-
plicable: 45 CFR 100.12, How may a
of the programs could continue at
being.
tion.
State simplify, consolidate, or sub-
State option.
(c) Services promote the healthy de-
(c) 45 CFR Part 74-Administration of
stitute federally required State plans?).
(b) Unless otherwise specified, the
velopment of children and youth, pro-
Grants (Applicable only to title IV-E
(n) 45 CFR Part 201-Grants to States
definitions contained in section 475 of
mote permanency for all children and
foster care and adoption assistance, ex-
for Public Assistance Programs. Only
the Act apply to all programs under ti-
help prepare youth emancipating from
cept that: (1) Section 74.23 Cost Shar-
the following sections are applicable:
tles IV-E and IV-B of the Act.
the foster care system for self-suffi-
ing or Matching. and (2) section 74.52
(1) 5 201.5-Grants. (Applicable to title
[48 FR 23114. May 23, 1983. as amended at 57
ciency and independent living.
Financial Reporting Requirements,
IV-E foster care and adoption assist-
FR 30429, July 9. 1992; 58 FR 67924, Dec. 22,
(d) Servi may focus on prevention,
will not apply.)
8 B only.)
1993; 61 FR 58653, Nov. 18, ]
protection, or other short or long-
n
369
368
§1
40
45 CFR Ch. XIII (10-1-97 Edition)
Office of I
Development rices, HHS
$1355.40
(2) $201.6-Withholding of payment;
ments will be required; in addition,
reduction of Federal financial partici-
States will also be required to report
State certification that the data on the
on the most recent case plan goal af-
child have been reviewed and are cur-
days of the event (removal from home
pation in the costs of social services
rent.
or discharge from foster care).
and training.
fecting those children. For children in
(3) $201.7-Judicial review.
out-of-State placement, the State plac-
(3) Adoption data are to be reported
(2) Penalties shall be invoked as pro-
during the reporting period in which
vided in paragraph (e) of this section.
(4) 201.15-Deferral of claims for
ing the child and making the foster
care payment submits and continually
the adoption is legalized or, at the
(e) Penalties. (1) Failure by a State to
Federal financial participation. (Appli-
cable only to title IV-E foster care and
updates the data.
State's option, in the following report-
meet any of the standards described in
adoption assistance.)
ing period if the adoption is legalized
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this sec-
(3) For the purposes of adoption re-
(5) $ 201.66-Repayment of Federal
within the last 60 days of the reporting
tion is considered a substantial failure
porting, data are required to be trans-
funds by installments. (Applicable only
mitted by the State on all adopted
period. For a semi-annual period in
to meet the requirements of the title
which no adoptions have been legal-
IV-E State plan. Penalties for substan-
to title IV-E foster care and adoption
children who were placed by the State
ized, States must report such an occur-
tial noncompliance will be assessed
assistance.)
title IV-B/TV-E agency. and on all
(o) 45 CFR Part 204.1-Submittal of
rence.
semi-annually against a State's title
adopted children for whom the State
IV-E administrative cost reimburse-
State Plans for Governor's Review.
FAX NO. 202 401 4562
agency is providing adoption assistance
(4) A summary file of the semi-an-
ment in an amount that is equal to no
(D) 45 CFR Part 205-General Admin-
(either ongoing or for nonrecurring ex-
nual data transmission must be sub-
more than 10 percent of the State's an-
istration-Public Assistance Programs.
penses), care or services directly or by
mitted and will be used to verify the
nual share of title IV-B funds above
Only the following sections are appli-
contract or agreement with other pri-
completeness of the State's detailed
the base appropriation of $141 million.
cable:
vate or public agencies. Full adoption
submission for the reporting period.
(1) $205.5-Plan amendments.
The amount of incentive funds, section
data as specified in appendix B to this
(5) A variety of internal data consist-
(2) §205.10-Hearings.
427 of the Act, against which a penalty
part are required only for children
ency checks will be used to judge the
(3) $ 205.50-Safeguarding information
can be assessed will remain the same as
adopted after the implementation date
internal consistency of the semi-an-
for the financial assistance programs.
the amount promulgated as being
of October 1, 1994. For children adopted
(4) $205.100-Single State agency.
nual detailed data submission. These
available to the States as of June 30,
prior to October 1, 1994, who are con-
are specified in Appendix E to this
1993, the date of issuance of the amount
[61 FR 58654, Nov. 18, 1996]
tinuing to receive title IV-E subsidies,
part.
of section 427 funds for fiscal year 1993
aggregate data are to be reported. For
(c) Missing data standards. (1) The
(see Appendix F to this part). The pen-
1355.40 Foster care and adoption
a child adopted out-of-State, the State
data collection.
term "missing data" refers to in-
alties will be calculated and applied re-
which placed the child submits the
stances where no data have been en-
gardless of any determination of com-
(a) Scope of the data collection system.
data.
tered, if applicable, for a particular
pliance with the requirements of
(1) Each State which administers or su-
(b) Foster care and adoption reporting
data element. In addition, all data ele-
tion 427, and regardless of whether any
pervises the administration of titles
requirements. (1) The State agency shall
ments which fail a consistency check
State has withdrawn its certification
IV-B and IV-E must implement a sys-
transmit semi-annually, within 45 days
for a particular case will be converted
with respect to section 427. Years One
tem that begins to collect data on Oc-
of the end of the reporting period (i.e.,
to missing data. All data which are
through three (October 1, 1994 through
tober 1, 1994. The first transmission
by May 15 and November 14), informa-
"out of range" (i.e., the response is be-
September 30, 1997) will be three pen-
must be received in ACF no later than
tion on each child in foster care and
yond the parameters allowed for that
alty-free years of operation. Year Four
May 15, 1995. The data reporting system
each child adopted during the reporting
particular data element) will also be
(October 1, 1997 through September 30,
must meet the requirements of
period. The information to be reported
converted to missing data. Details of
1998) will be at half penalty and Year
$1355.40(b) and electronically report
consists of the data elements found in
the circumstances under which data
Five (October 1, 1998 through Septem-
certain data regarding children in fos-
appendices A and B to this part. The
will be converted to missing data are
ber 30, 1999) and thereafter will be at
SEP-10-98 FRI 9:54 AM ACF/LEG AFF&BUD
ter care and adoption. The foster care
data must be extracted from the data
specified in appendix E to this part.
full penalty. The maximum annual
data elements are listed and defined in
system as of the last day of the report-
Data elements with responses of "can-
penalty is 20 percent.
Appendix A to this part and the adop-
ing period and must be submitted in
not be determined" or "not yet deter-
(2) Penalties will be assessed semi-
tion data elements are listed and de-
electronic form as described in appen-
mined" are not considered as having
annually against B State's title IV-E
fined in Appendix B to this part.
dix C to this part and in record layouts
missing data.
administrative cost reimbursement for
(2) For the purposes of foster care re-
as delineated in appendix D to this
(2) For missing data in excess of 10
the period in which the noncompliance
porting. each State's data transmission
part.
percent for any one data element, the
occurred and any subsequent period of
must include all children in foster care
(2) For foster care information, the
penalty will be applied.
noncompliance. Following a decision
for whom the State title IV-B/IV-E
child-specific data to be transmitted
(3) The penalties for missing data are
sustaining ACYF's proposed action.
agency has responsibility for place-
must reflect the data in the informa-
specified in paragraph (e) of this sec-
funds will be recovered until the State
ment. care, or supervision. This in-
tion system when the data are ex-
tion.
demonstrates, by submitting an ac-
cludes Native American children cov-
tracted. Dates of removal from the
home and discharge from foster care
(d) Timeliness of foster care data re-
ceptable report, that it will no longer
ered under section 427 protection on
fail to comply.
must be entered in accordance with
ports. (1) For each child, a computer
the same basis as any other children.
(3) Half of the maximum allowable
paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The
generated transaction date must re-
For children in care less than 30 days,
flect the actual date of data entry and
assessed penalty for a given reporting
only a core set of information will be
date of the most recent periodic review
period is applicable to foster care re-
(either administrative or court) must
must accompany the date of latest re-
required, as noted in appendix A to this
be entered for children who have been
moval from the home and the date of
porting and half to adoption reporting.
part. For children who enter foster
in foster care for more than nine
exit from foster care. Ninety percent of
(4) The penalty for foster care report-
care prior to October 1. 1995 and who
the subject transactions must have
ing will be applied for any semi-annual
are still in the system, core data ele-
months. Entry of this date constitutes
period when a State fails to meet one
entered into the system within 60
or more of the following criteria:
370
371
1357.10
45 CFR Ch. XIII (10-1-97 Edition)
Office of Hu
Development Services, HHS
1357.15
individuals and families residing there-
enhance child development. Family
substantive and procedural matters re-
in. These services may be provided
support services may include:
lated to the CFSP.
(2) States and Indian Tribes that are
consolidating the requirements for a
under public or private nonprofit aus-
(1) Services. including in-home visits,
[61 FR 58655, Nov. 18, 1996]
CFSP in FY 1995, in accordance with
pices.
parent support groups, and other pro-
$ 1357.15(a), must submit the CFSP and
Families includes. but is not limited
grams designed to improve parenting
$1357.15 Comprehensive child and
to, biological, adoptive, foster, and ex-
skills (by reinforcing parents' con-
a CFS-101 for FY 1995 and 1996 by June
family services plan requirements.
30, 1995.
tended families.
fidence in their strengths, and helping
them to identify where improvement is
(a) Scope. (1) The CFSP provides an
(3) States and eligible Indian Trl
Family preservation services refers to
services for children and families de-
needed and to obtain assistance in im-
opportunity to lay the groundwork for
choosing to phase-in the requirements
signed to protect children from harm
proving those skills) with respect to
a system of coordinated, integrated,
for a consolidated CFSP in FY 1996 and
matters such as child development,
culturally relevant family focused
1997 must submit the CFSP, the CFS-
and help families (including foster,
adoptive. and extended families) at
family budgeting, coping with stress,
services. This section describes the re-
101 for FY 1995 for subpart 1 and 2, and
risk or in crisis, including-
health. and nutrition;
quirements for the development. imple-
the CFS-101 for subpart 2 for FY
(1) Preplacement preventive services
(2) Respite care of children to provide
mentation and phase-in of the five-year
by June 30, 1995.
comprehensive child and family serv-
programs, such as intensive family
temporary relief for parents and other
(4) The CFSP will be approved only if
FAX NO. 202 401 4562
ices plan (CFSP). The State's CFSP
preservation programs. designed to
caregivers:
the plan was developed jointly by ACF
(3) Structured activities involving
must meet the requirements of both of
help children at risk of foster care
and the State (or the Indian Tribe). and
placement remain with their families,
parents and children to strengthen the
the following programs. The Indian
only after broad consultation by the
where possible:
parent-child relationship:
Tribe's CFSP must meet the require-
State (and the Indian Tribe) with a
(2) Service programs designed to help
(4) Drop-in centers to afford families
ments of one or both of the following
wide range of appropriate public and
children. where appropriate, return to
opportunities for informal interaction
programs depending on the Tribe's eli-
non-profit private agencies and com-
gibility:
families from which they have been re-
with other families and with program
munity-based organizations with expe-
moved; or be placed for adoption, with
staff;
(1) Child welfare services under title
rience in administering programs of
IV-B, subpart 1; and
a legal guardian, or, if adoption or
(5) Transportation, information and
services for children and families (in-
legal guardianship is determined not to
referral services to afford families ac-
(ii) Family preservation and family
cluding family preservation and sup-
be appropriate for a child, in some
cess to other community services, in-
support services under title IV-B, sub-
port services).
part 2.
other planned. permanent living ar-
cluding child care, health care, nutri-
(5) By June 30, 1996, each gran
rangement;
tion programs, adult education literacy
(2) For States only, the CFSP also
must submit and have approved the
(3) Service programs designed to pro-
programs, legal services, and counsel-
must contain information on the fol-
first Annual Progress and Services Re-
vide follow-up care to families to whom
ing and mentoring services; and
lowing programs:
port and a CFS 101 for FY 1997 that
a child has been returned after a foster
(6) Early developmental screening of
(1) The independent living program
meets the statutory and regulatory re-
care placement;
children to assess the needs of such
under title IV-E, section 477 of the Act;
quirements of title IV-B. subparts 1
and
(4) Respite care of children to provide
children, and assistance to families in
and 2.
temporary relief for parents and other
securing specific services to meet these
(ii) The Child Abuse and Neglect
(6) The Annual Progress and Servi
caregivers (including foster parents);
needs.
State grant program (known as the
Report will be approved if it was devel-
(5) Services designed to improve
Joint planning means an ongoing
Basic State Grant) under the Child
oped jointly by ACF and the State (or
parenting skills (by reinforcing par-
partnership process between ACF and
Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
the Indian Tribe) and if meets the re-
ents' confidence in their strengths, and
the State and between ACF and an In-
(CAPTA) (42 U.S.C. 5101 et. seq.).
quirements of 45 CFR 1357.16.
helping them to identify where im-
dian Tribe in the development. review,
(3) States must meet all require-
(7) The five-year CFSP for FYs 1995-
provement is needed and to obtain as-
analysis, and refinement and/or revi-
ments of this section except those that
1999 may be submitted in the format of
SEP-10-98 FRI 9:57 AM ACF/LEG AFF&BUD
sistance in improving those skills) with
sion of the State's and the Indian
apply only to Indian Tribes. Indian
the State's or the Indian Tribe's choice
respect to matters such as child devel-
Tribe's child and family services plan.
Tribes must meet the requirements of
and must be submitted no later than
opment, family budgeting. coping with
Joint planning involves discussions,
this section only as specified.
June 30, 1995, to the appropriate ACF
stress, health, and nutrition: and
consultation, and negotiation between
(4) States and eligible Indian Tribes
Regional Office.
(6) Case management services de-
ACF and the State or Indian Tribe in
have the option to phase-in the re-
(c) Assurances. The following assur-
signed to stabilize families in crisis
all areas of CFSP creation such as, but
quirements for a consolidated CFSP.
ances will remain in effect on an ongo-
such as transportation, assistance with
not limited to. identifying the service
The consolidated CFSP requirements
ing basis and will need to be re-submit-
housing and utility payments, and ac-
needs of children, youth, and families;
must be in place by June 30, 1997 and
ted only if a significant change in the
cess to adequate health care.
selecting the unmet service needs that
meet the requirements of 45 CFR
State or the Indian Tribe's program af-
will be addressed; developing goals and
1357.16.
Family support services means commu-
fects an assurance:
nity-based services to promote the
objectives that will result in improving
(b) Eligibility for funds. (1) In order to
(1) The State or Indian Tribe must
well-being of children and families de-
outcomes for children and families; de-
receive funding under title IV-B. sub-
assure that it will participate in any
signed to increase the strength and sta-
veloping a plan to meet the matching
parts 1 and 2, each State and eligible
evaluations the Secretary of HHS may
bility of families (including adoptive,
requirements; and establishing a more
Indian Tribe must submit and have ap-
require.
foster, and extended families), to in-
comprehensive, coordinated and effec-
proved a consolidated, five-year Child
(2) The State or Indian Tribe must
crease parents' confidence and .com-
tive child and family services delivery
and Family Services Plan (CFSP) and a
assure that it will administer the
petence in their parenting abilities, to
system. The expectation of joint plan-
CFS-101, Budget Request and Esti-
CFSP in accordance with methods de-
afford children a stable and supportive
ning is that both ACF and the State or
mated Expenditure Report that meets
the requirements under 45 CFR 1357.16.
termined by the Secretary to be proper
family environment, and otherwise to
Indian Tribe will reach agreement on
and efficient.
406
407
1357.15
45 CFR Ch. XiiI (10-1-97 Edition)
Office of Human Developm
vices, HHS
(3) The State or Indian Tribe must
(2) The CFSP must include a d rip-
$1357.15
assure that it has a plan for the train-
tion of the organization and function of
their families or on elements of service
ing and use of paid paraprofessional
the State agency and organizational
delivery (such as quality) that are
scope of existing public and privately
staff, with particular emphasis on the
charts as appropriate. It also must
linked to outcomes in important ways.
funded family support and family pres-
P.
full-time or part-time employment of
identify the organizational unit(s)
Each objective should include both in-
ervation services; the extent to which
low-income persons, as community
within the State agency responsible for
terim benchmarks and a long-term
each service is available and being pro-
the operation and administration of
timetable, as appropriate, for achiev-
vided in different geographic areas and
vice aides; and a plan for the use of
nonpaid or partially paid volunteers in
the CFSP, and include a description of
ing the objective.
to different types of families; and im-
providing services and in assisting any
the unit's organization and function
(2) For States and Indian Tribes ad-
portant gaps in service, including
advisory committees established by
and a copy of the organizational
ministering the title IV-B, subpart 1
mismatches between available services
the State or Tribe.
chart(s).
program, the CFSP must include objec-
and family needs as identified through
(f) Indian Tribal organization admin-
tives to make progress in covering ad-
baseline data and the consultation
(4) The State or Indian Tribe must
assure that standards and require-
istering the program(s). (1) The Indian
ditional political subdivisions, reach-
process. Other services which impact
ments imposed with respect to child
Tribe's CFSP must provide the name of
ing additional children in need of serv-
on the ability to preserve and support
care under title XX shall apply with re-
ices, expanding and strengthening the
families may be included in the assess-
the Indian Tribal organization (TTO)
FAX NO. 202 401 4562
spect to day care services, if provided
range of existing services, and develop-
ment. The Indian Tribe must collect
designated to administer funds under
under the CFSP. except insofar as eli-
title IV-B, subpart 1, child welfare
ing new types of services.
and analyze information on family
services and/or under subpart 2, family
(j) Measures of progress. The CFSP
preservation and family support serv-
gibility for such services is involved.
(d) The child and family services plan
preservation and family support serv-
must describe the methods to be used
ices currently available within their
(CFSP): general. The State and the In-
ices. If the Indian Tribe receives funds
in measuring the results, accomplish-
service delivery area including the in-
under both subparts, the same agency
ments, and annual progress toward
formation in this paragraph as appro-
dian Tribe must base the development
or organization must administer both
meeting the goals and objectives, espe-
priate. An Indian Tribe may submit
of the CFSP on a planning process that
includes:
cially the outcomes for children,
documentation prepared to satisfy the
programs.
(1) broad involvement and consulta-
(2) The Indian Tribe's CFSP must in-
youth, and families. Processes and pro-
requirements of other Federal child
tion with a wide range of appropriate
clude a description of the organization
cedures assuring the production of
welfare grants, or contracts (such as
public and non-profit private agencies
and function of the office responsible
valid and reliable data and information
the section 638 reporting form), along
and community-based organizations,
must be specified. The data and infor-
with a descriptive addendum address-
for the operation and administration of
the CFSP, an organizational chart of
mation must be capable of determining
ing specifically the family preservation
parents, including parents who are in-
that office, and a description of how
whether or not the interim bench-
and family support services available.
volved or have experience with the
that office relates to Tribal and other
marks and multiyear timetable for ac-
(3) The CFSP must include a sum-
child welfare system. and others;
(2) coordination of the provision of
offices operating or administering serv-
complishing CFSP goals and objectives
mary of the information used in devel-
are being met.
oping the plan; an explanation of how
services under the plan with other Fed-
ices programs within the Indian Tribe's
eral and federally assisted programs
service area (e.g., Indian Health Serv-
(k) Baseline information. (1) For FY
this information and analysis were
1995, the State and the Indian Tribe
used in developing the goals, objec-
serving children and families, includ-
ice.)
(g) Vision Statement. The CFSP must
must base the development of the
tives, and funding and service deci-
ing youth and adolescents; and
include a vision statement which ar-
CFSP vision, goals, objectives, and
sions, including decisions about geo-
(3) collection of existing or available
ticulates the grantee's philosophy in
funding and service decisions on an
graphic targeting and service mix: a
information to help determine vulner-
analysis of available baseline informa-
description of how information will be
able or at-risk populations or target
providing child and family services and
areas; assess service needs and re-
tion and any trends over time on indi-
used to measure progress over the five-
developing or improving a coordinated
sources; identify gaps in services: se-
cators in the following areas: the well-
year period; and how this information
service delivery system. The vision
SEP-10-98 FRI 10:00 AM ACF/LEG AFF&BUD
being of children and families; the
will be used to facilitate the coordina-
lect priorities for targeting funding
should reflect the service principles at
tion of services.
and services; formulate goals and ob-
section 1355.25.
needs of children and families; the na-
ture, scope, and adequacy of existing
(1) Consultation. (1) The State's CFSP
jectives; and develop opportunities for
(h) Goals. The CFSP must specify the
bringing about more effective and ac-
goals, based on the vision statement.
child and family and related social
must describe the internal and external
cessible services for children and fami-
that will be accomplished during and
services. Additional and updated infor-
consultation process used to obtain
broad and active involvement of major
lies.
by the end of the five-year period of the
mation on service needs and organiza-
(e) State agency administering the pro-
plan. The goals must be expressed in
tional capacities must be obtained
actors across the entire spectrum of
grams. (1) The State's CFSP must iden-
terms of improved outcomes for and
throughout the five-year period to
the child and family service delivery
tify the name of the State agency that
the safety. permanency and well-being
measure progress in accomplishing the
system in the development of the plan.
goals and objectives cited in the CFSP.
The description should explain how
will administer the title IV-B pro-
of children and families, and in terms
grams under the plan. Except as pro-
of a more comprehensive, coordinated,
A description of how this process will
this process was coordinated with or
vided by statute, the same agency is
and effective child and family service
continue to be carried out must be in-
was a part of other planning processes
required to administer or supervise the
delivery system.
cluded in the CFSP. and any revisions
in the State; how it led or will lead to
should be provided in the Annual
improved coordination of services.
administration of all programs under
(1) Objectives. (1) The CFSP must in-
Progress and Services Report
(2) The Indian Tribe's CFSP must de-
titles IV-B and IV-E of the Act and the
clude the realistic, specific, quantifi-
(2) The State must collect and ana-
scribe the consultation process appro-
social services block grant program
able and measurable objectives that
lyze State-wide information on family
priate to its needs and circumstances
under title XX of the Act. (See the defi-
will be undertaken to achieve each
nition of "State agency" in 45 CFR
goal. Each objective should focus on
preservation and family support serv-
used to obtain the active involvement
outcomes for children, youth, and/or
ices currently available to families and
of major actors providing child and
1355.20.)
children, including the nature and
family services within the Tribe's area
of jurisdiction.
408
409
174-169
1357.15
45 CFR Ch. XIII (10-1-97 Edition)
Office of
an
Development
vices,
HHS
§ 1357.15
(3) For States and Indian Tribes, the
programs, Part H programs); devel-
(e.g., integrated service models, im-
consultation process must involve:
opmental disabilities; nutrition serv-
proved accessibility, use of a consoli-
this section, and the independent living
(1) All appropriate offices and agen-
ices (Food Stamps, Special Supple-
program.
dated application or intake form.
cies within the State agency or within
mental Food Program for Women, In-
inter-disciplinary training, coordinated
(o) Family preservation and family sup-
the Indian Tribal service delivery sys-
fants and Children (WIC)); Title IV-A;
port services and linkages to other social
case management for several programs,
tem (e.g., child protective services
runaway youth. youth gang, juvenile
and health services. (1) The State's
pooled resources through blended fi-
(CPS). foster care and adoption, the so-
justice programs and youth residential
CFSP must explain how the funds
nancing, shared information across
cial services block grant, reunification
and training institutions; child care
services providers and compatible and
under title IV-B, subpart 2 of the Act,
services, independent living, and other
and development block grant (CCDBG)
will be used to develop or expand fam-
linked automated information sys-
services to youth;)
and respite care programs; domestic
ily support and family preservation
tems, co-location of several services or
(ii) In a State-supervised, county-ad-
and community violence prevention
services; how the family support and
programs.)
ministered State, county social serv-
and services programs; housing pro-
family preservation services relate to
(3) The Indian Tribe must include in
ices and/or child welfare directors or
grams; the health agency (substance
the coordination process representa-
existing family support and family
representatives of the county social.
abuse, Healthy Start, maternal and
preservation services; and how th
tives of other Federal or federally as-
services/child welfare administrators'
child health, Early and Periodic
family support and preservation serv-
sisted child and family services or re-
FAX NO. 202 4562
association;
Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment
ices will be linked to other services in
lated programs. The Indian Tribe's
(1ii) A wide array of State, local,
(EPSDT). mental health, and public
the child and family services contin-
CFSP must describe how services under
uum.
Tribal, and community-based agencies
health nursing): law enforcement; Chil-
the plan will be coordinated over the
and organizations. both public and pri-
dren's Trust Funds; Community-Based
five-year period with services or bene-
(2) The State's CFSP must explain
vate nonprofit with experience in ad-
Family Resource Programs, and new
whether and/or how funds under the
fits under other Federal or federally as-
ministering programs of services for
Federal initiatives such as the
CAPTA and independent living pro-
sisted programs serving the same popu-
infants, children, youth, adolescents,
Empowerment Zones and Enterprise
grams are coordinated with and inte-
lations to achieve the goals and objec-
and families, including family preser-
Communities Program; and
grated into the child and family serv-
tives in the plan. The descriptions
vation and family support services;
(ix) Administrators, supervisors and
ices continuum described in the plan.
must include the participants in the
(iv) Parents, including birth and
front line workers (direct service pro-
(3) The State's CFSP must describe
process and any examples of how the
adoptive parents, foster parents, fami-
viders) of the State child and family
the existing or current linkages and
process led or will lead to additional
lies with a member with a disability.
services agency.
the coordination of services between
coordination of services.
children both in and outside the child
(4) The CFSP must describe the ongo-
the services in the child and family
(n) Services. (1) The State's CFSP
ing consultation process that each
services continuum and the services in
welfare system, and consumers of serv-
must describe the publicly funded child
ices from diverse groups;
grantee will use to ensure the contin-
other public services systems (e.g.,
and family services continuum: child
(v) For States. representatives of In-
ued involvement of a wide range of
health, education, housing, substance
welfare services (including child abuse
dian Tribes within the State;
major actors in meeting the goals and
abuse, the courts). and other Federal
and neglect prevention, intervention.
(vi) For States, representatives of
objectives over the five-year oper-
and non-federally funded public and
and treatment services; and foster
local government (e.g., counties, cities,
ational period of the plan and develop-
nonprofit private programs (e.g., Chil-
care); family preservation services;
and other communities, neighborhoods,
ing the Annual Progress and Services
dren's Trust Funds, Community-Based
family support services; and services to
or areas where needs for services are
Report.
Family Resource Programs, private
support reunification, adoption, kin-
(m) Services coordination. (1) States
foundations.)
great;)
ship care, independent living. or other
(vii) Representatives of professional
must include in the ongoing coordina-
(p) Services in relation to service prin-
permanent living arrangements.
tion process representatives of the full
ciples. The CFSP must describe how the
and advocacy organizations (including.
(2) The Indian Tribe's CFSP must de-
for example foundations and national
range of child and family services pro-
child and family services to be pro-
SEP-40-98 FRI 10:03 AM ACF/LEG AFF&BUD
scribe the child welfare services (in-
vided by the State agency as well as
vided are designed to assure the safety
resource centers with expertise to as-
cluding child abuse and neglect preven-
other service delivery systems provid-
and protection of children as well as
sist States and Indian Tribes to design,
tion, intervention, treatment services
ing social, health, education. and eco-
the preservation and support of fami-
expand, and improve the delivery of
and foster care) and/or the family sup-
nomic services (including mental
lies, and how they are or will be de-
services): individual practitioners
port and family preservation services
signed to be consistent with the other
working with children and families; the
health. substance abuse, developmental
to be provided.
disabilities, and housing) to improve
service principles in 45 CFR 1355.25.
courts; representatives or other States
(3) For each service described, the
or Indian Tribes with experience in ad-
access and deliver a range of services
(q) Services in relation to permanency
CFSP must include the following infor-
to children and their families.
planning. For States administering
ministering family preservation and
mation, or it must be listed on the
family support services: and academi-
(2) The State's CFSP must describe
both title IV-B programs (subparts 1
CFS-101, Part II:
cians, especially those assisting the
how services under the plan will be co-
and 2), the CFSP must explain how
(1) The population(s) to be served;
ordinated over the five-year period
these services will help meet the per-
child and family service agency with
(ii) The geographic area(s) where the
with services or benefits under other
manency provisions for children and
management information systems,
services will be available;
training curricula, and evaluations;
Federal or federally assisted programs
families in sections 422(b)(9) and 471 of
(iii) The estimated number of indi-
(viii) Representatives of State and
serving the same populations to
the Act (e.g., preplacement preventive
viduals and/or families to be served;
local agencies administering Federal
achieve the goals and objectives in the
services, reunification services, inde-
(iv) The estimated expenditures for
and federally assisted programs which
plan. The description must include the
pendent living services.) The CFSP
these services from Federal, State,
participants in the process and exam-
must describe the arrangements. joint-
may include: Head Start; the local edu-
local, and donated sources, including
ples of how the process led or will lead
ly developed with the Indian Tribes
cation agency (school-linked social
title IV-B, subparts 1 and 2, the CAPTA
to additional coordination of services
within its borders, made for the provi-
services, adult education and literacy
program referenced in paragraph (a) of
sion of the child welfare servi and
410
411
1357.16
45 CFR Ch. XIII (10-1-97 Edition)
Office of Human Development
vices, HHS
1357.16
protections in section 422(b)(9) to In-
(3) The State's CFSP must describe
a more comprehensive, coordinated. ef-
dian children under both State and
any evaluation and research activities
Tribal jurisdiction.
tinuum; fective child and family services con-
services 1997.) must be submitted by June 30,
underway or planned with which the
P.
(r) Decision-making process: selection of
State agency is involved or participat-
(2) Any revisions in the statement of
(2) In order for States and eligible In-
1
y support programs for funding. The
ing and which are related to the goals
goals and objectives, or to the training
dian Tribes to receive title IV-B. sub-
State's CFSP must include an expla-
and objectives in the plan.
(u) Quality assurance. The State must
circumstances; plan. if necessary, to reflect changed
parts 1 and 2 allocations a CFS-101
nation of how agencies and organiza-
must be submitted for each fiscal year.
tions were selected for funding to pro-
include in the CFSP a description of
(3) For Indian Tribes, a description of
(3) States and Indian Tribes which
vide family support services and how
the quality assurance system it will
the child welfare and/or family preser-
have consolidated the requirements for
these agencies and organizations meet
use to regularly assess the quality of
vation and family support services to
title IV-B, subparts 1 and 2, must sub-
services under the CFSP and assure
the requirement that family support
be provided in the upcoming fiscal year
mit the CFS-101 to the appropriate
that there will be measures to address
services be community-based.
highlighting any changes in services or
ACF Regional Office no later than June
identified problems.
(s) Significant portion of funds used for
program design and including the in-
30 of the year prior to the fiscal year in
(v) Distribution of the CFSP and the
family support and family preservation
formation required in 45 CFR 1357.15(n);
which the services will be provided
annual progress and services report. The
services. With each fiscal year's budget
(4) For States, a description of the
(e.g., for FY 1997 allocations, the CFS-
FAX NO. 202 401 4562
CFSP must include a description of
request, each State must indicate the
child protective, child welfare, family
101 must be submitted by June 30, 1996;
how the State and the Indian Tribe will
specific percentage of family preserva-
preservation, family support, and inde-
for FY 1998 allocations, the CFS-101
make available to interested parties
tion and family support funds (title IV-
pendent living services to be provided
must be submitted by June 30, 1997.)
the CFSP and the Annual Progress and
B, subpart 2) that the State will expend
in the upcoming fiscal year highlight-
(4) States and eligible Indian Tribes
Services Report. (See 45 CFR 1355.21(c)
for community-based family support
ing any additions or changes in serv-
choosing to phase-in the requirements
and 45 CFR 1357.16(d)). State agencies
and for family preservation services,
ices or program design and including
for a consolidated CFSP must:
and Indian Tribal organizations within
and the rationale for the decision. The
the State must exchange copies of
1357.15(n); the information required in 45 CFR
(1) Submit by June 30, 1996 a CFS-101
State must have an especially strong
their CFSPs and their annual services
for title IV-B, subpart 1 for FY 1996 al-
rationale if the request for either per-
(5) Information on activities in the
locations; a CFS-101 for title IV-B, sub-
reports.
tage is below 25 percent. It must
areas of training, technical assistance,
part 2 for FY 1997 allocations; and, if a
also include an explanation of how this
[61 FR 58656, Nov. 18, 1996)
research, evaluation, or management
distribution was reached and why it
EFFECTIVE DATE NOTE: At 61 FR 58656,
information systems that will be car-
State or eligible Indian Tribe chooses,
a CFS-101 for subpart 1 FY 1997 alloca-
meets the requirements that a "signifi-
Nov. 18, 1996, $1357.15 was revised. The sec-
ried out in the upcoming fiscal year in
tions.
it portion" of the service funds must
tion contains information collection and rec-
support of the goals and objectives in
the plan;
(ii) Submit by June 30, 1997 a CFS-101
be spent for each service. Examples of
ordkeeping requirements and will not be-
important considerations might in-
come effective until approval has been given
(6) For States only. the information
for title IV-B, subpart I for FY 1997 al-
locations, if not previously submitted
by the Office of Management and Budget.
clude the nature of the planning efforts
required to meet the maintenance of
that led to the decision, the level of ex-
effort (non-supplantation) requirement
by June 30, 1996; and a CFS-101 for FY
1357.16 Annual progress and services
in section 432(a) (7) and (8) of the Act;
1998 for subparts 1 and 2 allocations.
isting State effort in each area, and the
reports.
(7) For States and eligible Indian
(c) Annual progress and services reports
Iting need for new or expanded
(a) Annual progress and services Te-
Tribes phasing in requirements for a
on FY 1994 family support and family
services.
ports. Annually, each State and each
consolidated CFSP, information on ac-
preservation services. Each State and In-
(t) Staff training, technical assistance,
Indian Tribe must conduct an interim
tivities and progress directed toward a
dian Tribe that used FY 1994 funds
and evaluation. (1) The State's CFSP
review of the progress made in the pre-
consolidated plan by June 30, 1996 or
under title IV-B, subpart 2, for services
must include a staff development and
vious year toward accomplishing the
1997. The report must include informa-
must describe in the CFSP what serv-
SEP-10-98 FRI 10:05 AM ACF/LEG AFF&BUD
training plan in support of the goals
goals and objectives in the plan, based
tion that demonstrates States' and eli-
Ices were provided, the population(s)
and objectives in the CFSP which ad-
on updated information. In developing
gible Indian Tribes' progress toward
served, and the geographic areas where
dresses both of the title IV-B programs
paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(4) of this
the consolidation of a CFSP, including
services were available. The CFSP also
covered by the plan. This training plan
section, the State and the Indian Tribe
activities that have been accomplished
must include the amount of FY 1994
also must be combined with the train-
must involve the agencies, organiza-
and still need to be accomplished; and
funds used for planning, for family
ing plan under title IV-E as required
tions, and individuals who are a part of
(8) Any other information the State
preservation services, for family sup-
by 45 CFR 1356.60(b)(2). Training must
the on-going CFSP-related consulta-
or the Indian Tribe wishes to include.
port services, and a brief statement on
be an on-going activity and must in-
tion and coordination process. On the
(b) Submittal of the annual progress
how these services met the service pri-
clude content from various disciplines
basis of this review, each State and In-
and services report and CFS-101. (1) The
orities of the State or the Indian Tribe.
and knowledge bases relevant to child
dian Tribe must prepare and submit to
State and the Indian Tribe must send
(d) Availability of the annual progress
and family services policies, programs
ACF. and make available to the public.
the Annual Progress and Services Re-
and services report. The State and the
and practices. Training content must
an Annual Progress and Services Ro-
port and the CFS-101 to the appro-
Indian Tribe must make the Annual
also support the cross-system coordina-
port which must include the follow-
priate ACF Regional Office no later
Progress and Services Report available
tion consultation basic to the develop-
ing-
than June 30 of the year prior to the
to the public including the agencies,
ment of the CFSP.
(1) A report on the specific accom-
fiscal year in which the services will be
organizations, and individuals with
(2) The State's CFSP must describe
plishments and progress made in the
provided (e.g., the report submitted
which the State or the Indian Tribe is
the technical assistance activities that
past fiscal year toward meeting each
and made public by June 30, 1996 will
coordinating services or consulting and
will be undertaken in support of the
goal and objective, including improved
describe the services to be provided in
to other interested members of the
goals and objectives in the plan.
outcomes for children and families, and
FY 1997. The report covering FY 1998
public. Each State and eligible Indian
Tribe within the State must exchange
412
413
7.20
45 CFR Ch. XIII (10-1-97 E in)
Office of Human Development Services, HHS
1357.32
copies of their Annual Progress and
(b) In meeting the requirements for
Services Reports.
the inventory and statewide informa-
with the terms of the grant under title
tion system in sections 427 (a)(1) and
IV-B, subpart 1, the provisions of 45
(iii) Adoption assistance payments.
(e) FY 1999 Final Review. In FY 1999,
CFR 92.43 and 92.44 will apply.
(3) A State applying for an amount of
each State and eligible Indian Tribe
(2)(A) of the Act, the inventory and
(e) Matching or cost-sharing. Federal
Federal funds under title IV-B greater
must conduct a final review of progress
statewide information system must in-
clude those children under the place-
financial participation is available
than the amount of title IV-B, subpart
toward accomplishing the goals and ob-
jectives in the plan. On the basis of the
ment and care responsibility of the
only if costs are incurred in imple-
1 funds received by that State in FY
final review, it must-
menting sections 422, 423, and 425 of the
1979 shall certify:
State title IV-B or IV-E agencies. At
Act in accordance with the grants ad-
(i) The amount of their expenditure
(1) Prepare a final report on the
the State's discretion. other children
ministration requirements of 45 CFR
in FY 1979 for child welfare services as
progress made toward accomplishing
may be included. The six month re-
quirement in section 427(a)(1) and the
part 92 with the following conditions-
described in paragraphs (g) (1) and (2)
the goals and objectives; and
(1) The State's contribution may be
of this section, and
(2) Send the final report to the ACF
twelve month requirement in section
in cash, donated funds, and non-public
(ii) The amount of State and local
Regional Office and make it available
427(a)(2)(A) of the Act must also be
third party in-kind contributions.
funds that have been appropriated and
to the public.
met.
(2) The total of Federal funds used for
are available for child welfare services
(f) FY 2000 Five-Year State Plan. Based
(The requirement has been approved by
FAX NO. 202 401 4562
the following purposes under title IV-
as described in paragraphs (g) (1) and
on the FY 1999 final review and final
the Office of Management and Budget
B, subpart 1 may not exceed an amount
(2) of this section for the fiscal year for
Annual Progress and Services Report,
under OMB Control Number 0980-0138)
equal to the FY 1979 Federal payment
which application for funds is being
and in consultation with a broad range
(c) If. for each of any two consecutive
under title IV-B:
made. Records verifying the required
of agencies, organizations, and individ-
fiscal years after FY 1979, there is ap-
(1) Child day care necessary solely be-
certification shall be maintained by
uals, the States and eligible Indian
propriated under Section 420 of the Act
cause of the employment, or training
the State and made available to the
Tribes must develop a new five-year
a sum equal to or greater than
to prepare for employment, of a parent
Secretary as necessary to confirm com-
CFSP following the requirements of 45
$266,000,000, a State's allotment
or other relative with whom the child
pliance with this section.
CFR 1357.15.
amount for any fiscal year after two
involved is living. plus;
(h) Reallotment. (1) When a State cer-
[61 FR 58659, Nov. 18. 1996]
such consecutive fiscal years shall be
(ii) Foster care maintenance pay-
tifles to the Commissioner that funds
reduced to an amount equal to what
ments, plus;
available to that State under its title
EFFECTIVE DATE NOTE: At 61 FR 58659,
the allotment amount would have been
(iii) Adoption assistance payments.
IV-B, subpart 1 allotment will not be
Nov. 18. 1996, $1357.16 was added. The section
contains information collection and record-
for FY 1979 unless the State has imple-
(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (e)(2)
required, those funds shall be available
keeping requirements and will not become
mented the requirements of section
of this section, State expenditures re-
for reallotment to other States.
effective until approval has been given by
427(b) of the Act.
quired to match the title IV-B, subpart
(2) When a State, after receiving no-
the Office of Management and Budget.
(d) In meeting the requirements of
1 allotment may include foster care
tice from the Commissioner of the
section 427(a)(2)(B) of the Act for
amount. maintenance expenditures in any
availability of funds, does not certify
1357.20 Child abuse and neglect pro-
dispositional hearings the State agency
by a date fixed by the Commissioner
grams.
must meet the requirements of section
(f) Prohibition against purchase or con-
that it will be able to expend during
The State agency must assure that,
475(5)(C) of the Act and 45 CFR
struction of facilities. Funds awarded
the period stated in paragraph (1) of
with regard to any child abuse and ne-
1356.21(e).
under title IV-B may not be used for
this section all of the funds available
glect programs or projects funded
(e) A State may appeal a final deci-
the purchase or construction of facili-
to it under its title IV-B, subpart 1 al-
under title IV-B of the Act, the re-
sion by ACYF that the State has not
ties:
lotment, those funds shall be available
quirements of section 106(b) (1) and (2)
met the requirements of this section
(g) Maintenance of effort. (1) A State
for reallotment to other States.
of the Child Abuse Prevention and
and section 427 of the Act to the De-
may not receive an amount of Federal
(3) The Commissioner may reallot
SEP-40-98 FRI 10:08 AM ACF/LEG AFF&BUD
Treatment Act, as amended, are met.
partment Grant Appeals Board under
funds under title IV-B in excess of the
available funds to another State when
These requirements relate to the State
the provisions of 45 CFR part 16.
Federal payment made in FY 1979
it is determined that-
plan and assurances required for the
under title IV-B unless the State's
(i) The requesting State's plan re-
[48 FR 23118, May 23. 1983]
Child Abuse and Neglect State Grant
total expenditure of State and local ap-
quires funds in excess of the State's
Program.
1357.30 State fiscal requirements
propriated funds for child welfare serv-
original allotment: and
(title IV-B, subpart 1, child welfare
ices under title IV-B of the Act is equal
(11) the State will be able to expend
[61 FR 58660, Nov. 18. 1996]
services).
to or greater than the total of the
the additional funds during the period
I 1357.25 Requirements for eligibility
(a) Scope. The requirements of this
State's expenditure from State and
stated in paragraph (1) of this section.
for additional payments under sec-
section shall apply to all funds allotted
local appropriated funds used for simi-
(i) Time limit on expenditures. Funds
tion 427.
or reallotted to States under title IV-
lar covered services and programs
under title IV-B, subpart 1, must be ex-
(a) For any fiscal year after FY 1979
B, subpart 1.
under title IV-B in FY 1979.
pended by September 30 of the fiscal
in which a sum in excess of $141,000,000
(b) Allotments. Allotments for each
(2) In computing a State's level of ex-
year following the fiscal year in which
State shall be determined in accord-
penditures under this section in FY
the funds were awarded.
is appropriated under Section 420 of the
ance with section 421 of the Act.
1979 and any subsequent fiscal year, the
Act, a State is not eligible for payment
(c) Payments. Payments to States
following costs shall not be included-
[61 FR 58660, Nov. 18, 1996]
of an amount greater than the amount
shall be made in accordance with sec-
(1) Expenditures and costs for child
for which it would be eligible if the ap-
day care necessary to support the em-
$ 1357.32 State fiscal requirements
propriation were equal to $141,000,000
tion 423 of the Act.
(title IV-B, subpart 2, family preser-
unless the State complies with the re-
(d) Enforcement and termination. In
ployment of a parent or other relative;
vation and family support services).
quirements of Section 427(a) of the Act.
the event of a State's failure to comply
(ii) Foster care maintenance pay-
ments; and
(a) Scope. The requirements of this
section apply to all funds allocated to
414
415
ON-SITE REVIEW INSTRUMENT REVISED 6-96
Face Sheet
STATE/COUNTY
DATE
RECORD TYPE
Foster Care/Adoption
REVIEWER
CHILD'S NAME
CHILD'S DOB
RACE/ETHNICITY
Case Data
DATE CASE OPENED
DATE OF CURRENT PLACEMENT
DATE RETURNED HOME (if applicable)
DATE CASE CLOSED (if applicable)
What was the cause of the agency's involvement with this family? (Check all that apply and
asterisk the primary reason.)
Physical abuse
Sexual abuse
Emotional maltreatment
Neglect (not including medical neglect)
Medical neglect
Abandonment
Child behavior
Mental/physical health of parent(s)
Mental/physical health of child
Substance abuse by parent(s)
Substance abuse by child
Domestic violence in child's home (spouse abuse)
Delinquency of child
Other (specify)
SECTION I: SAFETY
Outcome S1: Children are protected from abuse and neglect in their homes whenever
possible.
Item 1. Services to Family to Protect Child(ren) in Home (CASE
RECORD/INTERVIEWS WITH SOCIAL WORKER, PARENTS, SERVICE
PROVIDER - Outcome S1)
In cases of substantiated or indicated abuse or neglect, or imminent risk of harm to children
in the family, has the agency provided services to the family to protect the child(ren) in
his/her own home, including family preservation, family support or other placement
prevention services, within the past 12 months or the last 12 months before the child entered
foster care (if applicable)? Yes
No
Exploratory issues:
types of services provided to protect the child(ren)
appropriateness of in-home services for the family
reason services were not provided
2
Item 2. Current Risk of Harm to Child - Complete only for children in foster care
with permanency goal of reunification and for families receiving in-home/CPS services
(INTERVIEWS WITH SOCIAL WORKER, PARENTS, SERVICE PROVIDER
Outcomes S1 & S2)
A. Is there a current risk of harm to the child(ren) in the family that is the basis for the
child(ren) remaining in foster care or for the case to be kept open for services?
Yes
No
B. If yes, are efforts being made to reduce or remove the risk of harm through specific
interventions by the agency?
Yes
No
Exploratory issues:
nature of the current risk of harm
what is needed to reduce or remove the risk
how the risk is being addressed through services or other interventions
3
DISCUSSION OF SAFETY OUTCOME #1
Outcome S1: Children are protected from abuse and neglect in their homes whenever
possible.
Check the level of outcome achievement that best describes the extent to which this outcome
is being or has been achieved based on the interviews and case record review. In the box,
support the level of outcome achievement selected by describing the indicators in the
instrument that relate to the outcome.
Level of Outcome Achievement:
Substantially Achieved
Partially Achieved
Not Achieved
N/A
Items 1,2
4
Outcome S2: The risk of harm to children will be minimized.
Item 3. Timeliness of Initiating Investigations of Reports of Child Maltreatment (CASE
RECORD/INTERVIEW WITH SOCIAL WORKER - Outcome S2)
A. How many reports of suspected abuse or neglect have been received on children in the
family?
.
B. In how many of the reports were the investigations initiated in accordance with the
State's time frame and requirements, for a report of that priority?
Missing
Information
C. When was face-to-face contact with the child made by the investigating worker?
Exploratory Issues:
priority level assigned to each report
agency requirements for initiating an investigation with this priority level, i.e., time
frame, other requirements
when the investigating worker initiated the investigation
what activities actually constituted "initiating" the investigation, e.g., face to face
contact with the child
5
Item 4. Repeat Maltreatment (CASE RECORD/INTERVIEW WITH SOCIAL
WORKER - Outcome S2)
Where there have been multiple substantiated or indicated reports of abuse or neglect on
children in this family, have any of them involved,
Yes
No
No Multiple Reports
the same perpetrator?
the same general complaint?
Exploratory issues:
the nature of each report
relationship of the perpetrator to the child
6
DISCUSSION OF SAFETY OUTCOME #2
Outcome S2: The risk of harm to children will be minimized.
Check the level of outcome achievement that best describes the extent to which this outcome
is being or has been achieved based on the interviews and case record review. In the box,
support the level of outcome achievement selected by describing the indicators in the
instrument that relate to the outcome.
Level of Outcome Achievement:
Substantially Achieved
Partially Achieved
Not Achieved
N/A
Items 2, 3 & 4
7
Item 6. Stability of foster care placement (CASE RECORDS/INTERVIEW WITH
SOCIAL WORKER, FOSTER PARENTS - Outcome P1)
A.
Has the child changed placement settings during the current episode of foster care?
Yes
No
B. Have any of the placement changes occurred for reasons not directly related to helping the
child achieve the goals in his or her case plan? Yes
No
No Placement Changes
C.
Is the current placement setting stable, i.e., no apparent threat of disruption?
Yes
No
Exploratory issues:
reasons for moves
efforts to prevent unnecessary moves, if applicable
correct match of placement setting to child's needs
how current placement is being supported by agency
reasons for instability, if applicable
9
SECTION II: PERMANENCY
Outcome P1: Children will have permanency and stability in their living situations.
Item 5. Foster Care Re-entries (CASE RECORD/INTERVIEWS WITH SOCIAL
WORKER, PARENTS - Outcome P1)
A. Has the child had multiple entries into foster care?
Yes
No
B. Have any of them resulted from the same general reason? Yes
No
Exploratory issues:
reason child entered foster care each time
8
Item 7. Permanency Goal for Child (CASE RECORD/INTERVIEW WITH SOCIAL
WORKER - Outcome P1)
A. What is the childs current permanency goal?
B. How long has the goal been in place and unachieved?
C. Are the services being provided in the case consistent with the stated permanency goal?
Yes
No
Exploratory issues:
changes/lack of changes in child's permanency goal
reasons for changes in goals
factors considered in decision-making about permanency goal
barriers to achieving current goal
how services currently being provided promote achievement of current permanency
goal
10
Item 8. Independent Living Services - Complete only for children age 16 or older
(CASE RECORD/INTERVIEWS WITH SOCIAL WORKER, CHILD, FOSTER
PARENT - Outcome P1)
A. Does the child have a written independent living plan in the record? Yes
No
child not age 16 or older
B. Are independent living services being provided consistent with the childs needs? Yes
No
child not age 16 or older
Exploratory issues:
services the youth is receiving to prepare for independent living
extent to which services being provided match the youth's needs
need for additional independent living services
how well prepared the youth will be to live independently upon emancipation or
achievement of his/her permanency goal
11
Item 9. Long-Term Foster Care - (CASE RECORD/INTERVIEWS WITH SOCIAL
WORKER, FOSTER PARENT, CHILD, PARENT - Outcome P1)
**Complete only for children with permanency goals of long-term foster care or
emancipation*
For children with a permanency goal of long-term foster care, have other. more permanent
goals been considered and appropriately ruled out for the child? Yes
No
Child's goal is not long term foster care
Exploratory issues:
factors that were considered in determining the goal of long-term foster care
reasons long-term foster care was selected rather than legal guardianship or adoption
reviews of the goal for continuing appropriateness since the goal was initially
established
12
Item 10. Adoption - Complete only for children with a permanency goal of adoption
(CASE RECORD/INTERVIEWS WITH SOCIAL WORKER - Outcome P1)
A. For children who are legally free for adoption, has an adoptive family been identified?
Yes
No
Child not free for adoption
B. For children who are legally free for adoption, Are there current delays (more than 60
days' duration) in placing the child in an adoptive family that are within the agencys ability
to correct? Yes
No noted delays
No delays within the agency's ability to correct
C. For children who are not legally free for adoption, are there delays (more than 60 days'
duration) in freeing the child that are within the agencys ability to correct?
Yes
No
Child is legally free for adoption
Exploratory issues:
is the child legally free for adoption
current efforts to identify an adoptive family
barriers to placing the child for adoption
current efforts to legally free the child for adoption
barriers to freeing the child
13
DISCUSSION OF PERMANENCY OUTCOME #1
Outcome P1: Children will have permanency and stability in their living situations.
Check the level of outcome achievement that best describes the extent to which this outcome
is being or has been achieved based on the interviews and case record review. In the box,
support the level of outcome achievement selected by describing the indicators in the
instrument that relate to the outcome.
Level of Outcome Achievement:
Substantially Achieved
Partially Achieved
Not Achieved
N/A
Items 5,6,7,8,9 & 10
14
Outcome P2: The continuity of family relationships and connections will be preserved for
children.
Item 11. Proximity of current placement (CASE RECORDS/INTERVIEW WITH
SOCIAL WORKER, PARENT - Outcome P2)
A. What is the proximity of the childs current placement to the parents?
Same community
Same county
Out of county
Out of State
B. For children placed outside the community or county of their parents' residence. is the
reason for the location of the placement clearly related to helping the child achieve his or her
case plan goals? Yes
No
Child not placed outside community/county of
parents residence
C. For children placed outside the State, is the child visited at least every 12 months by a
social worker of the supervising agency and a report filed to the agency holding custody?
Yes
No
Exploratory issues:
which parent is working with agency and most likely to be reunified with child
reasons for placement settings
how the placement location supports or inhibits achieving the child's case plan goals
impact of placement location on maintaining important family and community
connections
15
Item 12. Placement With Siblings (CASE RECORD/INTERVIEWS - Outcome P2)
A. If the child has siblings who also are in foster care, are they currently placed together?
Yes
No
No siblings in foster care
B. If no, is there clear evidence that separation is necessary to meet the needs of the
children? Yes
No
No siblings in foster care
Exploratory issues:
reasons siblings are not placed together, if applicable
efforts made to place or keep them together
history of their placement together, including reasons for prior separations
16
Item 13. Visiting with Parents and Siblings in Foster Care (CASE
RECORD/INTERVIEWS WITH SOCIAL WORKER, PARENTS - Outcome P2)
A. What is the most typical pattern of visiting frequency between the child and parents?
Weekly
Bi-weekly
Monthly
Less than monthly
B. What is the most typical pattern of visiting frequency between the child and siblings
placed separately in foster care? Weekly
Bi-weekly
Monthly
Less than
monthly
No siblings placed separately
Exploratory issues:
reasons for restrictions or prohibitions on visits
barriers to visiting less frequently than weekly
agency services/supports to encourage more frequent visiting
custody status of child, including termination of parental rights
17
Item 14. Preserving Connections (INTERVIEWS WITH SOCIAL WORKER,
PARENTS, FOSTER PARENTS, CHILD - Outcome P2)
A.
Are the primary connections and characteristics of the child being preserved in the
foster care placement?
To a large extent
Partially
Not at all
B.
Are the interests of Native American children being addressed through,
Yes
No
Not applicable
Placement with Native American families
(child not Nat. Am.)
Referral to tribal court
(child not Nat. Am.)
Other ICWA provisions
(Specify)
(child not Nat. Am.)
Exploratory issues:
primary connections of the child to neighborhood, community, family, friends
unique characteristics of the family and child, including language, religion, values and
beliefs, traditions, background, and so forth
how they are addressed in the agency's work with the family and child
how the foster care provider supports these needs for the child in care
18
Item 15. Relative Placement (CASE RECORD/INTERVIEWS WITH SOCIAL
WORKER, CHILD'S CARETAKER, PARENTS - Outcome P2)
For children not placed with relatives, were relatives considered for placement of the child?
Yes
No
child placed with relatives
Exploratory issues:
extent to which relatives were sought out and evaluated
reasons relatives were not evaluated, if applicable
reasons relatives were not used for placement, if applicable
19
Item 16. Current Relationship of Child in Care with Parents (INTERVIEWS WITH
CHILD, PARENTS, FOSTER PARENT, SERVICE PROVIDER - Outcomes P2 &
WB1)
Is there evidence of a strong, emotionally supportive relationship between the child in foster
care and the childs parent(s)? Yes
No
Exploratory issues:
nature of current relationship from child's and parents' perspectives
parental participation in activities with child, e.g, school functions, special occasions
parental decision-making regarding child's needs and activities
20
DISCUSSION OF PERMANENCY OUTCOME #2
Outcome P2: The continuity of family relationships and connections will be preserved for
children..
Check the level of outcome achievement that best describes the extent to which this outcome
is being or has been achieved based on the interviews and case record review. In the box.
support the level of outcome achievement selected by describing the indicators in the
instrument that relate to the outcome.
Level of Outcome Achievement:
Substantially Achieved
Partially Achieved
Not Achieved
N/A
Items 11,12,13,14,15 & 16
21
SECTION 3: WELL-BEING
Item 17.
Needs and Services of Child, Parents, Foster Parents (CASE
RECORD/INTERVIEWS WITH SOCIAL WORKER, CHILD, PARENTS, FOSTER
PARENTS, SERVICE PROVIDERS - Outcome WB1 and others as applicable)
Are the identified needs of the child, parents and foster parents being addressed through
appropriate services?
Yes
No
N/A
A. The child in foster care
B. The childs parents
(plan does not incl. SVS. to parent)
C. The childs foster parents
(child not in foster care)
Exploratory issues:
what services are being provided in relation to current needs?
match of services to needs
accessibility of services, e.g., location, schedule, cost
availability of services
worker accessibility to foster parents
is child placed in setting most appropriate, most family-like and best suited the child's
interests and needs?
are services intensive enough to meet identified needs?
22
Item 18.
Child and Family Involvement in Case Planning (INTERVIEWS WITH
SOCIAL WORKER, PARENT(S), CHILD, SERVICE PROVIDER - Outcome WB1)
A.
Are the parent(s) and child (when old enough) actively involved in the case planning
activities?
Yes
No
N/A
Child
(child not old enough or incapacitated)
Parents
(case plan does not include services to parents)
B.
Are procedural safeguards in place with respect to parental rights pertaining to the
removal of children from home, changes in placements and visiting privileges?
Yes
No
Exploratory issues:
level of involvement in identifying needs and services, establishing goals and
evaluating progress
reasons for non-involvement
notification of parents when child is moved, changes made in visiting arrangements,
or changes made in case plans
23
Item 19.
Worker Visits With Child (CASE RECORD/INTERVIEWS WITH
SOCIAL WORKER, CHILD, FOSTER PARENT - Outcome WB1 and others, as
applicable)
A. What has been the most typical pattern of visiting frequency between the social worker
and the child during the last six months (or the last six months before the case was closed. if
applicable)?
Weekly
Bi-weekly
Monthly
Less than monthly
B. Where visits are occurring less frequently than monthly, are there other agency staff.
volunteers or service providers, e.g., contract providers, who are visiting the child at least
monthly? Yes
No
Exploratory issues:
child's needs for contacts with worker
factors impacting on frequency of visits
24
Item 20.
Worker Visits with Parents (CASE RECORD/INTERVIEWS WITH
SOCIAL WORKER, PARENTS - Outcome WB1 and others as applicable)
What has been the most typical pattern of visiting frequency between the social worker and
the parent(s) during the last six months (or the last six months before the case was closed, if
applicable)?
Weekly
Bi-weekly
Monthly
Less than monthly
B. Where visits are occurring less frequently than monthly, are there other agency staff,
volunteers or service providers, e.g., contract providers, who are visiting the parent(s) at
least monthly? Yes
No
Exploratory issues:
parents' needs for contacts with worker
factors impacting on frequency of visits
reasons for infrequent visiting, if applicable
25
DISCUSSION OF WELL-BEING OUTCOME #1
Outcome WBI: Families will have enhanced capacity to provide for their children's needs.
Check the level of outcome achievement that best describes the extent to which this outcome
is being or has been achieved based on the interviews and case record review. In the box.
support the level of outcome achievement selected by describing the indicators in the
instrument that relate to the outcome.
Level of Outcome Achievement:
Substantially Achieved
Partially Achieved
Not Achieved
N/A
Items 16,17,18,19 & 20
26
Outcome WB2: School-age children will have educational achievements appropriate to their
abilities.
Item 21. Educational Needs of the Child (CASE RECORD/INTERVIEWS WITH SOCIAL
WORKER. CHILD, FOSTER PARENTS, PARENTS - Outcome WB2)
A. If the child is in foster care, has the child been enrolled in multiple schools as the result
of being placed in foster care? Yes
No
Child not school age
Child not in foster care
B. Are the child(ren)s educational needs being addressed through,
Yes
No
N/A
Special education classes
(no identified special ed. needs)
Normal grade placement
(child not school age)
Services for identified educational needs
(no unusual ed. needs noted)
Early intervention for pre-school children
(early intervention not needed)
Inclusion of school records in case file
(child not school age)
C. For children who have identified educational needs, is the agency addressing the needs
through,
Yes
No
N/A
Advocacy with the education/school system
(no needs/not school age)
Attention to education in case planning
(no needs/not school age)
Exploratory issues:
reasons for changing schools, if applicable
testing/evaluation to determine educational needs of child
current functioning in school
identified needs of child related to school performance
services provided to address educational needs
match of services to identified needs
worker activities to address educational needs
27
288
DISCUSSION OF WELL-BEING OUTCOME #2
Outcome WB2: School-age children will have educational achievements appropriate to their
abilities.
Check the level of outcome achievement that best describes the extent to which this outcome
is being or has been achieved based on the interviews and case record review. In the box.
support the level of outcome achievement selected by describing the indicators in the
instrument that relate to the outcome.
Level of Outcome Achievement:
Substantially Achieved
Partially Achieved
Not Achieved
N/A
Item 21
29
Outcome WB3: Children will receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental
health needs.
Item 22. Physical Health of the Child (CASE RECORD/INTERVIEWS WITH SOCIAL
WORKER, CHILD, FOSTER PARENTS, PARENTS - Outcome WB3)
A.
If the child is in foster care, was an initial health screening (or other comprehensive
medical examination) provided within the time frame specified in the State's
guidelines?
Yes
No
Child not in foster care
B. Are the child(ren)s physical health needs being met through,
Yes
No
N/A
Preventive health care
Preventive dental care
Immunizations
Treatment for identified health needs
(no identified health needs)
Treatment for identified dental needs
(no identified dental needs)
Inclusion of health records in case file
Giving health records to foster parents
Exploratory issues:
what are State's guidelines for timing of initial health examinations for children
entering foster care
type and timing of initial screening received by child in foster care
recency of immunizations
periodicity of subsequent health screenings and preventive dental care
current identified health or dental needs
how health and dental needs are being treated
how the agency tracks medical needs and services
does foster parent (provider) have copies of child's health records
30
31
Item 23. Mental Health of the Child (INTERVIEWS WITH SOCIAL WORKER,
PARENT, FOSTER PARENT, SERVICE PROVIDER - Outcome WB3)
A.
If the child is in foster care, was an initial mental health screening or assessment
provided upon entry into foster care (or within the time frame specified in the
State's guidelines, if applicable)?
Yes
No
Child not in foster care
No State guidelines
B.
Are the childs mental health needs being addressed through,
Yes
No
N/A
Assessment or screening
Treatment for identified needs
(no identified health needs)
Exploratory issues:
assessment for mental health needs at initial agency involvement or upon entering
foster care
current mental health needs
services provided for mental health needs
match of services to identified needs
32
DISCUSSION OF WELL-BEING OUTCOME #3
Outcome WB3: Children will receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental
health needs.
Check the level of outcome achievement that best describes the extent to which this outcome
is being or has been achieved based on the interviews and case record review. In the box,
support the level of outcome achievement selected by describing the indicators in the
instrument that relate to the outcome.
Level of Outcome Achievement:
Substantially Achieved
Partially Achieved
Not Achieved
N/A
Items 22,23
33
Child Welfare Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
General Areas Covered:
(I) Title IV-E Foster Care Eligibility Reviews
(II) Child and Family Services State Plan Reviews
(III) MEPA as amended by the Small Business Job Protection Act
(IV) Adoption and Safe Families Act provisions
I. Title IV-E Eligibility Reviews
The NPRM reforms the IV-E Eligibility Review, which are federal reviews mandated by statute to
oversee and verify the accuracy of federal adoption and foster care maintenance payments. While
past review processes have focused on standard completion of case files, the NPRM changes the
reviews to emphasize federal collaboration with and technical assistance to states (recommended
by a 1994 HHS OIG Report). The IV-E Eligibility Review will now be done by a federal/State
joint team and give States the opportunity to correct errors before penalties are exacted. Reviews
are conducted at three year intervals, with "substantial compliance" defined as an error rate of less
than 15% in the first review, and 10% thereafter. The sample of at least 80 cases (up from at least
50 cases in prior reviews) are drawn from AFCARS (the Adoption and Foster Care Assistance
Reporting System).
II. Child and Family Services Reviews
The NPRM presents an entirely new review of State child welfare systems -- the Child and Family
Services Review (CFSR) -- to replace prior "427 reviews." The 427 Review focused on accuracy
and completion of case files, with bonus dollars awarded to fully completed files. The new CFSR
instead focuses on child and family outcomes in the areas of safety, permanence, and child and
family well-being.
The CFSR is a 2 stage review: (1) a State undergoes a self-assessment in consultation with ACF;
and (2) on the basis of that self-assessment and an independent analysis by ACF, areas for an on-
site review (substantive and geographic) are selected and the on-side review is undertaken by a
joint federal/state team (with involvement as appropriate by outside experts). The review involves
intense evaluation (on the basis of case reviews and interviews) of randomly selected cases and
focuses on outcomes for children (see attached), as well as requirements related to delivering
child welfare services which lead to improved outcomes. "Substantial Conformity" is defined as
90% of outcomes achieved in the first review, and 95% of outcomes achieved in subsequent
reviews.
Under the NPRM, States must undergo a first review within three years. If a State is found to be
in substantial conformity, another review is not required for five years. If a State is determined
not to be substantial conformity, another full CFSR is required in three years, and the State must
submit a Program Improvement Plan within six months to address areas of noncompliance. ACF
must approve the Program Improvement Plan. The NPRM gives the States up to three years to
complete its Program Improvement Plan, with interim ACF evaluations annually.
III. MEPA as amended by the 1996 Small Business Job Protection Act
The NPRM proposes a separate process for addressing violations, once identified, of the MEPA
as amended by the 1996 Small Business Job Protection Act. HHS determined that proper
enforcement requires collaboration with the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) because a State's
noncompliance constitutes a violation of title IV-E as well as of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, and because OCR has significant expertise in investigating alleged civil rights violations.
Under the NPRM, ACF will refer all cases involving potential violations to OCR for investigation
(cases may come to ACF's attention during the course of the CFSR, by letter, through media,
etc.). (Violations based on a court finding will not be referred to OCR for investigation; rather,
ACF will invoke penalty and corrective action procedures directly.) OCR will conduct an
investigation of the potential violation, and hand its completed file to ACF, which will make a
determination, based on OCR's file and in consultation with OCR, whether there has been a
violation (which could be a violation to a person or a violation based on the state's maintenance
of any statute, regulation, policy, procedure or practice). If ACF finds that no violation has
occurred, no further action is taken.
If ACF determines that a violation has occurred, it will invoke a specified enforcement process,
which includes possible penalties assessed and a corrective action plan required. By statute, an
immediate penalty will be levied against a state found to be in violation of the statute with respect
to a person or as the result of a court finding (although a state may appeal and engage in a
corrective action plan during the judicial appeals process if it so chooses). In other circumstances,
also by statute, a State will have up to six months from the date it receives notification of its
violation from ACF to implement (HHS interprets as "begin") a corrective action plan (after
which the State will be assessed a penalty). Approval of the plans are at the sole discretion of
ACF (no timetable for approval, but state must "begin" an approved plan before six months
lapses). Evaluation of a State's corrective action plan will be completed solely by HHS within 30
days of projected completion date. Penalties levied are consistent with statute.
Summary of MEPA Enforcement: (1) potential violation is brought to ACF's attention; (2)
ACF refers case to OCR for investigation; (3) OCR conducts investigation and hands file to
ACF; (4) ACF evaluates file and, in consultation with OCR, makes determination -- (a) if ACF
finds no violation, inquiry ends; (b) if ACF finds a violation with respect to a person or as the
result of a court finding, penalties are immediately assessed; or (c) if ACF finds a relevant
violation, ACF notifies the State in writing; if (c), then (5) the State must begin implementing
an ACF-approved a corrective action plan within six months; and (6) ACF must evaluate and
approve the completed corrective action plan within 30 days of projected completion.
IV 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act Provisions
HHS has decided to regulate the provisions of the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA)
and other recent statutory amendments through two NPRM's. This rule addresses those
provisions related to the foster care maintenance program; the second rule will address the
remaining ASFA amendments to the SSA. Provisions regulated in the NPRM are:
(1) Permanency Hearing. The NPRM recognizes the statutory changes in terminology, timing
(18-12 months), and purpose.
(2) Reasonable Efforts. The NPRM implements the ASFA requirement that the State hold the
child's health and safety as its paramount concern when making reasonable efforts. It does not
provide a regulatory definition, in order neither to limit the courts' ability to make determinations
on a case-by-case nor to be so broad as to be ineffective; the NPRM does provide questions and
guidelines (such as the statutory descriptions of circumstances in which Reasonable Efforts are
not required, and a preamble discussion of possible cases). The NPRM also follows the statute
closely -- it proposes that in order to satisfy IV-eligibility requirements, there must be a judicial
determination that: (1) reasonable efforts were made to prevent a child from being removed from
home; (2) reasonable efforts were made to reunify the child with his/her family if the removal
could not be prevented; (3) if reasonable efforts were not made to prevent the child's removal
from home or to reunify the child with his/her family, that reasonable efforts are/were not
required; and (4) if the permanent plan for the child is adoption, guardianship, or some other
permanent living arrangement other than reunification, that reasonable efforts were made to make
and finalize that alternate placement. The NPRM requires that a judicial determination of
reasonable efforts must be made within 12 months, in order to encourage this assessment during
the Permanency Hearing.
(3) Termination of Parental Rights. The NPRM follows the statutory requirement for States to
file for Termination of Parent Rights (TPR) when a child has been in foster care for 15 of the
most recent 22 months. By statute, a state may elect not to file for TPR if a child is placed with a
relative; if there is a "compelling reason" that TPR is not in the child's best interests; or if
adequate services identified in the case have not been provided.
(4) Criminal Records Check Requirement. The NPRM follows the statutory requirement that the
State conduct criminal records checks for prospective foster and adoptive parents unless the State
"opts out" of this provision through a Governor's letter to the Secretary of HHS. The NPRM
leaves to state discretion whether the criminal background checks are national or state-wide
(ASFA was not specific, and HHS claims that FBI checks are too burdensome, time- and dollar-
wise, to be required).
Q
]
e- mail
-
SEP-04-1998 15:37
OMB DEP DIR MGMT
202 395 6974 P.12/14
(3) aggregate data in the State self-assessment used
to examine each outcome and performance indicator
which corroborates the findings of the on-site
component of the review, and;
(4) the determination of conformity by the ACF
Regional Office based on the criteria described in
paragraphs (a) - (c) of this section.
(b) Criteria related to outcomes.
(1) A State's substantial conformity will be
determined by its ability to substantially achieve
the following child and family service outcomes:
(i) In the area of child safety:
Is this
(A) Children are safe from abuse and
all,w all
#33
neglect; children are safely
their
maintained in their homes (whenever
waves?
possible) i and
(B) The risk of harm to children is
minimized;
(ii) In the area of permanency for children:
take fow
Miss. polot
are 176 refect own in homes Their whenever possible
SEP-04-1998 15:37
OMB DEP DIR MGMT
202 395 6974
P.13/14
SEPT 4-90 DMI 2.20 Γ M Mor/ LEV APTEDOD
104 nv. LVL TVI 1000
(B) The risk of harm to children is
minimized;
(ii) In the area of permanency for children:
(A) Children have permanency and stability
in their living situations; and
(B) The continuity of family relationships
and connections is preserved for
children; and
(iii) In the area of child and family well-being:
(A) Families have enhanced capacity to
provide for their children's needs;
(B) Children will receive appropriate
34
services to meet their educational
needs; and
(C) Children receive adequate services to
meet their physical and mental health
needs.
(2) A State's level of achievement with regard to each
outcome reflects the extent to which a State has
implemented the following CFSP requirements or
assurances:
178