80 FR 27263 - Statewide Data Indicators and National Standards for Child and Family Services Reviews

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 92 (May 13, 2015)

Page Range		27263-27266
FR Document		2015-11515

On October 10, 2014, the Administration of Children and Families (ACF) published a document in the Federal Register (79 FR 61241). The document provided CB's final plan to replace the statewide data indicators used to determine a state's substantial conformity with titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act through the Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs). This document provides corrections to errors and misstatements in that document and some of the calculations of the statewide data indicators.

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 92 (Wednesday, May 13, 2015)

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 92 (Wednesday, May 13, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27263-27266]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11515]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families

45 CFR Part 1355

Statewide Data Indicators and National Standards for Child and
Family Services Reviews

AGENCY: Children's Bureau (CB), Administration for Children and
Families (ACF), Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF),
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Final Notice of Statewide Data Indicators and National
Standards for Child and Family Services Reviews; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On October 10, 2014, the Administration of Children and
Families (ACF) published a document in the Federal Register (79 FR
61241). The document provided CB's final plan to replace the statewide
data indicators used to determine a state's substantial conformity with
titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act through the Child and
Family Services Reviews (CFSRs). This document provides corrections to
errors and misstatements in that document and some of the calculations
of the statewide data indicators.

DATES: Effective: May 13, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Miranda Lynch Thomas, Children's
Bureau, 1250 Maryland Ave. SW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20024, (202)
205-8138.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

CB implemented the CFSRs in 2001 in response to a mandate in the
Social Security Amendments of 1994. The reviews are required for CB to
determine whether such programs are in substantial conformity with
title IV-B and IV-E plan requirements. The review process, as regulated
at 45 CFR 1355.31-37, grew out of extensive consultation with
interested groups, individuals, and experts in the field of child
welfare and related areas.
The CFSRs enable CB to: (1) Ensure conformity with federal child
welfare requirements; (2) determine what is actually happening to
children and families as they are engaged in child welfare services;
and (3) assist states to enhance their capacity to help children and
families achieve positive outcomes. CB conducts the reviews in
partnership with state child welfare agency staff and other partners
and stakeholders involved in the provision of child welfare services.
We have structured the reviews to help states identify strengths as
well as areas needing improvement within their agencies and programs.
We use the CFSR to assess state performance on seven outcomes and
seven systemic factors. The seven outcomes focus on key items measuring
safety, permanency, and well-being. The seven systemic factors focus on
key state plan requirements of titles IV-B and IV-E that provide a
foundation for child outcomes. If we determine that a state has not
achieved substantial conformity in one or more of the areas assessed in
the review, the state is required to develop and implement a program
improvement plan addressing the areas of nonconformity within 2 years.
CB supports the states with technical assistance and monitors
implementation of their program improvement plans. If the state is
unable to complete its program improvement plan successfully, a portion
of the state's federal title IV-B and IV-E funds is withheld.
Most relevant to this document are the national standards for state
performance on statewide data indicators CB uses to determine whether a
state is in substantial conformity with certain child outcomes. We are
authorized by the regulations at 45 CFR

[[Page 27264]]

1355.34(b)(4) and (5) to add, amend, or suspend any of the statewide
data indicators and to adjust the national standards when appropriate.
If we determine that a state is not in substantial conformity with a
related outcome due to its performance on an indicator, the state will
include that indicator in its program improvement plan. The improvement
a state must achieve is relative to the state's baseline performance at
the beginning of the program improvement plan period.
In an April 23, 2014, Federal Register document (79 FR 22604), we
provided a detailed review of the consultation with the field and
information considered in developing the third round of the CFSRs and
proposed a set of statewide data indicators for public comment. We
considered all public comments and issued a final plan in the October
10, 2014, Federal Register (79 FR 61241). Simultaneously, CB released
CFSR Technical Bulletin #8, which provided more details on calculation
methods and a workbook that showed individual state performance on the
indicators and preliminary findings of whether the state met the
national standards at that time based on data submitted as of July
2014. In responding to state and other stakeholder questions since the
release of those publications, we have found errors in our descriptions
and calculations that we are correcting here. We will release an
amended technical bulletin and workbook concurrently with this Federal
Register document to make applicable corrections to those documents. We
will also release the associated syntax in SPSS and STATA format so
that states and other interested parties can review the detail related
to the indicators. Although we intend to provide tools that allow the
state to monitor its performance results on the indicators on a
periodic basis, we know the additional detail is helpful to states that
want to monitor themselves more frequently or in more depth. Finally,
since this document focuses on just the revisions and clarifications
necessary to the Federal Register document from October 2014, we will
also publish a document that incorporates these revisions and
clarifications into the original document.

Language Errors and Clarifications

This section discusses the language errors and clarifications we
are making to the original Federal Register document.

Clarification of the Trial Home Visit Adjustment to Permanency
Performance Areas 1, 2, and 3

On page 61244, we provided a description of how we calculated the
permanency in 12 months for children entering foster care indicator. In
part, we explained that we had applied a trial home visit adjustment to
this indicator. We stated that this meant that if a child discharges
from foster care during the 12-month period to reunification with
parents or other caretakers after a placement setting of a trial home
visit, any time in that trial home visit that exceeds 30 days is
discounted from the child's length of stay in foster care. We use six
6-month Adopting and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS)
reporting periods of data (3 years) to calculate the numerator in this
indicator. We are clarifying that the trial home visit adjustment is
applied to all AFCARS reporting periods used for the indicator.
If a child discharges from foster care to reunification with
parents or other caretakers after a placement setting of a trial home
visit during any of the six report periods used for the indicator, any
time in that trial home visit that exceeds 30 days is discounted from
the length of stay in foster care. In other words, the actual date of
discharge to permanency could occur at any time during the 3 years used
to calculate this indicator, and the trial home visit would then be
applied to see if it may result in a reduction in the length of time in
foster care for the purposes of this data indicator.
On pages 61244-61245, we explained that the trial home visit
adjustment was also applied to the following indicators: Permanency in
12 months for children in foster care 12 to 23 months and permanency in
12 months for children in foster care 24 months or more. However, this
is not accurate. We do not apply the trial home visit adjustment to
these indicators because it has no impact on the outcomes for children
in care on the first day and followed for only 12 months. This is
because these indicators rely on only two AFCARS report periods (one
year of data) and do not look beyond the 12-month period to see whether
a child has discharged to permanency.

Revisions to Attachment A--Statewide Data Indicators

Attachment A provided a summary of each final statewide data
indicator including the numerators, denominators, risk adjustments, and
data periods used to calculate the national standards.
In describing the permanency in 12-months indicator for children
entering foster care, we said that we used the AFCARS periods 2011B
through 2013A for calculating the national standard for this indicator.
This was a typographical error. We used six AFCARS report periods for a
total of 3 years of data: 2011B through 2014A.
Also, the applicable exclusions and notes were partly in error for
the following indicators: Permanency in 12 months for children in
foster care 12 to 23 months and permanency in 12 months for children in
foster care 24 months. We carried forward the same error described in
the previous section with regard to the trial home visits adjustment.
We do not apply the trial home visit adjustment to these indicators.

Revisions to Attachment D--Data Quality Items, Limits, and Applicable
Measures

Attachment D provided information on the data quality limits
applied in determining whether to include state data for calculating
the indicators.
Data quality limits are applied to avoid skewing results. There may
be a number of reasons why a state's data exceeds a data quality limit,
including outliers that exist in the data. Therefore, not all
exclusions are necessarily the result of poor data quality. The data
quality limits outlined in Attachment D are intended to be a guide to
avoid misrepresenting state performance or national standards.
Two listed data quality items had typographical errors that changed
their meaning. The AFCARS Within-file data quality check, ``Percent of
children on 1st removal,'' is applied to all indicators with the
exception of recurrence of maltreatment. The limit noted was less than
95 percent but it should read more than 95 percent. The NCANDS Cross
File Check named ``Child IDs don't match across years'' should read
``Child IDs match across years.'' This means that the state has not met
the item limit if less than 1 percent of the Child IDs match across
years, as we expect them to be based on patterns of recurrence.
In addition, the term ``Dropped cases'' was used in the section on
AFCARS Cross File Checks. This term refers to instances in which a
child who is reported during one 6-month period is not reported in the
next period, and there is no record that the child exited. However,
this term is technically incorrect, as it is the record of the case
that drops from the file. For clarity, this cross file check should
instead be referred to as ``Dropped records.''

[[Page 27265]]

For all NCANDS data quality items outlined in Attachment D, it
should be noted that these data quality items were applied to victims
only. This includes all NCANDS cross file and within-file checks.
With regard to the data quality items applied to the indicator of
maltreatment in foster care, the table indicates that we apply the
NCANDS cross file check, ``Child IDs match across years, but dates of
birth and sex do not match,'' to this indicator. We do not apply this
check to the maltreatment in foster-care indicator because it requires
only 1 year of data.
Finally, for clarification, the NCANDS data quality item ``Some
victims have AFCARS IDs'' was previously located in the ``NCANDS Data--
Cross File Checks'' section. It should be in the ``NCANDS Within file
checks'' section, because it requires only the NCANDS child file and
does not match with AFCARS.

Changes to National Standards and State Performance

This section discusses the changes or clarifications in the methods
of calculating the national standards and state performance that affect
the national standards we provided in the original document.
We made one change to the application of data quality items that
has an implication for the calculation of national standards and state
performance. There was an oversight in the application of the data
quality items for the measure of permanency in 12 months for children
entering foster care. For this indicator, we originally applied the
data quality items only to the first four data periods, but upon
further investigation we determined that the data quality items should
be applied to all six periods used in the calculation of this measure.
There was a slight modification made to several calculations that
require the date of discharge. When calculating the length of stay in
foster care, age at exit, or other variables that require the data of
discharge, we previously used an imputed version of the date of
discharge. An imputed date of discharge was used when the date of
discharge was missing for a child in one report period, but in the
subsequent 6-month period the child was reported as being in a new
removal episode with a value for his or her date of discharge from the
prior foster care episode. We are no longer using the date of discharge
from the prior foster care episode to impute missing dates of discharge
and are using only the date of discharge from foster care submitted to
us by the state. If that date is missing, it is treated as a missing
value and no attempt is made to impute the value using subsequent
files.
In determining the national standards and the state-by-state
performance outlined in the workbook, we inadvertently did not use the
most recent submission for all periods of data for three states. We
have re-run the analysis and national standards to incorporate these
resubmissions and all data are now current as of July 10, 2014.
Due to the above noted changes, Table 1 on page 61249 should be
replaced as follows:

Table 1--National Standards for CFSR Round 3 Statewide Data Indicators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statewide Data Indicators for Safety
Outcome 1:
Maltreatment in Foster Care............ 8.50 victimizations per 100,000 days in foster care.
Recurrence of Maltreatment............. 9.1 percent.
Statewide Data Indicators for Permanency
Outcome 1:
Permanency in 12 Months for Children 40.5 percent.
Entering Foster Care.
Permanency in 12 Months for Children in 43.6 percent.
Foster Care 12 to 23 Months.
Permanency in 12 Months for Children in 30.3 percent.
Foster Care 24 Months or More.
Re-Entry to Foster Care in 12 Months... 8.3 percent.
Placement Stability.................... 4.12 moves per 1,000 days in foster care.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On page 61254, we provided an overview of the number of states
excluded from the national standards for each data indicator. Based on
the changes noted here, these should be updated as follows:
Permanency in 12 months for first day cohorts with 12-23
months and 2 or more years prior time in care: Three states are now
excluded instead of one.
Permanency in 12 months for children entering foster care
indicator: Four states are now excluded instead of three.
Recurrence of maltreatment: Five states are now excluded
instead of four.
There was no change to the number of states excluded for the
indicators of re-entry to foster care in 12 months, maltreatment in
foster care, or placement stability.

Changes to Monitoring Statewide Data Indicators in Program Improvement
Plans

The changes noted in relation to the calculation of national
standards also have relevance to the calculation of each state's
observed and risk-standardized performance, as well as the improvement
factors used to set program improvement plan goals. Revised state-level
data, including changes to results indicating the need for a program
improvement plan, are reflected in the revised workbook.
The changes in the workbook regarding setting program improvement
plan targets also reflect a revision to the bootstrapping process
outlined in Technical Bulletin #8. We began with three observed values
for 3 years of data, aggregated at the state level. From those three
values, we averaged them in different combinations to get seven values.
From those 7 values, a bootstrapping process was used to get 30 values.
These 30 values were then resampled 1,000 times. After careful review,
we have determined that we do not have justification for bootstrapping
to 30 values. We have eliminated that step and are now bootstrapping
the 7 values to get 1,000 resamples. This yields a grand mean and
improvement factor that is very similar to the original set, but is
more reflective of the true parameters.
Because of these changes, Table 2 has also been revised. In
addition, upon further reflection we believe that in order to avoid
confusion, it is best to use the terminology of floors and caps versus
minimum and maximum amounts of improvement. Using the terms of floors
and caps is also consistent with the previously issued Technical
Bulletin #8. All other references to minimum and maximum levels of
improvement in the original Federal Register document should be

[[Page 27266]]

read as floors and caps. Table 2 should be replaced as follows:

Table 2--Caps and Floors on Program Improvement Plan Improvement Factors
Relevant to the Statewide Data Indicators
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Floor Cap
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statewide Data Indicators for Safety
Outcome 1:
Maltreatment in Foster Care......... 0.904 0.812
Recurrence of Maltreatment.......... 0.951 0.902
Statewide Data Indicators for Permanency
Outcome 1:
Permanency in 12 Months for Children 1.031 1.063
Entering Foster care...............
Permanency in 12 Months for Children 1.046 1.082
in Foster Care 12 to 23 months.....
Permanency in 12 Months for Children 1.042 1.091
in Foster Care 24 Months or More...
Re-Entry to Foster Care in 12 Months 0.891 0.834
Placement Stability................. 0.959 0.904
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: May 5, 2015.
Mark H. Greenberg,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.
[FR Doc. 2015-11515 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-25-P

27264 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 92 / Wednesday, May 13, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

1355.34(b)(4) and (5) to add, amend, or Clarification of the Trial Home Visit In describing the permanency in 12-
suspend any of the statewide data Adjustment to Permanency Performance months indicator for children entering
indicators and to adjust the national Areas 1, 2, and 3 foster care, we said that we used the
standards when appropriate. If we On page 61244, we provided a AFCARS periods 2011B through 2013A
determine that a state is not in description of how we calculated the for calculating the national standard for
substantial conformity with a related permanency in 12 months for children this indicator. This was a typographical
outcome due to its performance on an entering foster care indicator. In part, error. We used six AFCARS report
indicator, the state will include that we explained that we had applied a trial periods for a total of 3 years of data:
indicator in its program improvement home visit adjustment to this indicator. 2011B through 2014A.
plan. The improvement a state must We stated that this meant that if a child Also, the applicable exclusions and
achieve is relative to the state’s baseline discharges from foster care during the notes were partly in error for the
performance at the beginning of the 12-month period to reunification with following indicators: Permanency in 12
program improvement plan period. parents or other caretakers after a months for children in foster care 12 to
placement setting of a trial home visit, 23 months and permanency in 12
In an April 23, 2014, Federal Register months for children in foster care 24
any time in that trial home visit that
document (79 FR 22604), we provided months. We carried forward the same
exceeds 30 days is discounted from the
a detailed review of the consultation error described in the previous section
child’s length of stay in foster care. We
with the field and information with regard to the trial home visits
use six 6-month Adopting and Foster
considered in developing the third Care Analysis and Reporting System adjustment. We do not apply the trial
round of the CFSRs and proposed a set (AFCARS) reporting periods of data (3 home visit adjustment to these
of statewide data indicators for public years) to calculate the numerator in this indicators.
comment. We considered all public indicator. We are clarifying that the trial Revisions to Attachment D—Data
comments and issued a final plan in the home visit adjustment is applied to all Quality Items, Limits, and Applicable
October 10, 2014, Federal Register (79 AFCARS reporting periods used for the Measures
FR 61241). Simultaneously, CB released indicator.
CFSR Technical Bulletin #8, which If a child discharges from foster care Attachment D provided information
provided more details on calculation to reunification with parents or other on the data quality limits applied in
methods and a workbook that showed caretakers after a placement setting of a determining whether to include state
individual state performance on the trial home visit during any of the six data for calculating the indicators.
indicators and preliminary findings of report periods used for the indicator, Data quality limits are applied to
whether the state met the national any time in that trial home visit that avoid skewing results. There may be a
standards at that time based on data exceeds 30 days is discounted from the number of reasons why a state’s data
submitted as of July 2014. In responding length of stay in foster care. In other exceeds a data quality limit, including
words, the actual date of discharge to outliers that exist in the data. Therefore,
to state and other stakeholder questions
permanency could occur at any time not all exclusions are necessarily the
since the release of those publications,
during the 3 years used to calculate this result of poor data quality. The data
we have found errors in our quality limits outlined in Attachment D
descriptions and calculations that we indicator, and the trial home visit would
then be applied to see if it may result are intended to be a guide to avoid
are correcting here. We will release an misrepresenting state performance or
amended technical bulletin and in a reduction in the length of time in
foster care for the purposes of this data national standards.
workbook concurrently with this Two listed data quality items had
indicator.
Federal Register document to make typographical errors that changed their
On pages 61244–61245, we explained
applicable corrections to those that the trial home visit adjustment was meaning. The AFCARS Within-file data
documents. We will also release the also applied to the following indicators: quality check, ‘‘Percent of children on
associated syntax in SPSS and STATA Permanency in 12 months for children 1st removal,’’ is applied to all indicators
format so that states and other interested in foster care 12 to 23 months and with the exception of recurrence of
parties can review the detail related to permanency in 12 months for children maltreatment. The limit noted was less
the indicators. Although we intend to in foster care 24 months or more. than 95 percent but it should read more
provide tools that allow the state to However, this is not accurate. We do not than 95 percent. The NCANDS Cross
monitor its performance results on the apply the trial home visit adjustment to File Check named ‘‘Child IDs don’t
indicators on a periodic basis, we know these indicators because it has no match across years’’ should read ‘‘Child
the additional detail is helpful to states impact on the outcomes for children in IDs match across years.’’ This means
that want to monitor themselves more care on the first day and followed for that the state has not met the item limit
frequently or in more depth. Finally, only 12 months. This is because these if less than 1 percent of the Child IDs
since this document focuses on just the indicators rely on only two AFCARS match across years, as we expect them
revisions and clarifications necessary to report periods (one year of data) and do to be based on patterns of recurrence.
the Federal Register document from not look beyond the 12-month period to In addition, the term ‘‘Dropped cases’’
October 2014, we will also publish a see whether a child has discharged to was used in the section on AFCARS
document that incorporates these permanency. Cross File Checks. This term refers to
revisions and clarifications into the instances in which a child who is
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Revisions to Attachment A—Statewide reported during one 6-month period is
original document. Data Indicators not reported in the next period, and
Language Errors and Clarifications Attachment A provided a summary of there is no record that the child exited.
each final statewide data indicator However, this term is technically
This section discusses the language including the numerators, incorrect, as it is the record of the case
errors and clarifications we are making denominators, risk adjustments, and that drops from the file. For clarity, this
to the original Federal Register data periods used to calculate the cross file check should instead be
document. national standards. referred to as ‘‘Dropped records.’’

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:51 May 12, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MYR1.SGM 13MYR1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 92 / Wednesday, May 13, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 27265

For all NCANDS data quality items calculating the national standards and was used when the date of discharge
outlined in Attachment D, it should be state performance that affect the was missing for a child in one report
noted that these data quality items were national standards we provided in the period, but in the subsequent 6-month
applied to victims only. This includes original document. period the child was reported as being
all NCANDS cross file and within-file We made one change to the in a new removal episode with a value
checks. application of data quality items that for his or her date of discharge from the
With regard to the data quality items has an implication for the calculation of prior foster care episode. We are no
applied to the indicator of maltreatment national standards and state longer using the date of discharge from
in foster care, the table indicates that we performance. There was an oversight in the prior foster care episode to impute
apply the NCANDS cross file check, the application of the data quality items missing dates of discharge and are using
‘‘Child IDs match across years, but dates for the measure of permanency in 12 only the date of discharge from foster
of birth and sex do not match,’’ to this months for children entering foster care. care submitted to us by the state. If that
indicator. We do not apply this check to For this indicator, we originally applied date is missing, it is treated as a missing
the maltreatment in foster-care indicator the data quality items only to the first value and no attempt is made to impute
because it requires only 1 year of data. four data periods, but upon further the value using subsequent files.
Finally, for clarification, the NCANDS
investigation we determined that the In determining the national standards
data quality item ‘‘Some victims have
data quality items should be applied to and the state-by-state performance
AFCARS IDs’’ was previously located in
all six periods used in the calculation of outlined in the workbook, we
the ‘‘NCANDS Data—Cross File Checks’’
this measure. inadvertently did not use the most
section. It should be in the ‘‘NCANDS
Within file checks’’ section, because it There was a slight modification made recent submission for all periods of data
requires only the NCANDS child file to several calculations that require the for three states. We have re-run the
and does not match with AFCARS. date of discharge. When calculating the analysis and national standards to
length of stay in foster care, age at exit, incorporate these resubmissions and all
Changes to National Standards and or other variables that require the data data are now current as of July 10, 2014.
State Performance of discharge, we previously used an Due to the above noted changes, Table
This section discusses the changes or imputed version of the date of 1 on page 61249 should be replaced as
clarifications in the methods of discharge. An imputed date of discharge follows:

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

Statewide Data Indicators for Safety Outcome 1:
Maltreatment in Foster Care ........................................................................................................ 8.50 victimizations per 100,000 days in fos-
ter care.
Recurrence of Maltreatment ......................................................................................................... 9.1 percent.
Statewide Data Indicators for Permanency Outcome 1:
Permanency in 12 Months for Children Entering Foster Care .................................................... 40.5 percent.
Permanency in 12 Months for Children in Foster Care 12 to 23 Months ................................... 43.6 percent.
Permanency in 12 Months for Children in Foster Care 24 Months or More ............................... 30.3 percent.
Re-Entry to Foster Care in 12 Months ......................................................................................... 8.3 percent.
Placement Stability ....................................................................................................................... 4.12 moves per 1,000 days in foster care.

On page 61254, we provided an Changes to Monitoring Statewide Data bootstrapping process was used to get
overview of the number of states Indicators in Program Improvement 30 values. These 30 values were then
excluded from the national standards Plans resampled 1,000 times. After careful
for each data indicator. Based on the review, we have determined that we do
The changes noted in relation to the not have justification for bootstrapping
changes noted here, these should be
calculation of national standards also to 30 values. We have eliminated that
updated as follows:
have relevance to the calculation of each step and are now bootstrapping the 7
• Permanency in 12 months for first state’s observed and risk-standardized values to get 1,000 resamples. This
day cohorts with 12–23 months and 2 or performance, as well as the yields a grand mean and improvement
more years prior time in care: Three improvement factors used to set factor that is very similar to the original
states are now excluded instead of one. program improvement plan goals. set, but is more reflective of the true
• Permanency in 12 months for Revised state-level data, including parameters.
children entering foster care indicator: changes to results indicating the need Because of these changes, Table 2 has
Four states are now excluded instead of for a program improvement plan, are also been revised. In addition, upon
three. reflected in the revised workbook. further reflection we believe that in
The changes in the workbook order to avoid confusion, it is best to use
• Recurrence of maltreatment: Five
regarding setting program improvement the terminology of floors and caps
states are now excluded instead of four.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES

plan targets also reflect a revision to the versus minimum and maximum
There was no change to the number bootstrapping process outlined in amounts of improvement. Using the
of states excluded for the indicators of Technical Bulletin #8. We began with terms of floors and caps is also
re-entry to foster care in 12 months, three observed values for 3 years of data, consistent with the previously issued
maltreatment in foster care, or aggregated at the state level. From those Technical Bulletin #8. All other
placement stability. three values, we averaged them in references to minimum and maximum
different combinations to get seven levels of improvement in the original
values. From those 7 values, a Federal Register document should be

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:51 May 12, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13MYR1.SGM 13MYR1

Document Created: 2015-12-16 07:47:07
Document Modified: 2015-12-16 07:47:07

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Rules and Regulations
Action		Final Notice of Statewide Data Indicators and National Standards for Child and Family Services Reviews; correction.
Dates		Effective: May 13, 2015.
Contact		Miranda Lynch Thomas, Children's Bureau, 1250 Maryland Ave. SW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 205-8138.
FR Citation		80 FR 27263

80 FR 27263 - Statewide Data Indicators and National Standards for Child and Family Services Reviews

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICESAdministration for Children and Families

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 92 (May 13, 2015)

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families