| |
Child Welfare League of America
Comments on ACF's Proposed Rule for the Chafee National Youth in Transition Database
Submitted by Shay Bilchik, President/CEO
September 12, 2006
Proposed measures:
The Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) and the National Working Group to Improve Child Welfare Data, representing all 50 states and the District of Columbia, are pleased to respond to the proposed rule for the Chafee National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD) described in the Federal Register of July 14, 2006.
Part 1: General Comments
CWLA and the National Working Group commend the Children's Bureau for the effort and attention involved in producing this proposal. We find that, compared to earlier suggested versions of the NYTD, the proposed rule incorporates significant positive changes and reduces states' reporting burden. We recognize that the Children's Bureau has listened to states' concerns and appreciate its responsiveness.
CWLA and the National Working Group support the collection of information on youth who receive independent living services or who exit from foster care as young adults. We agree that this information will enable states to evaluate and improve their services, better preparing youth for successful outcomes in their adult lives. In addition, this data will help focus attention on the needs of older youth. The development of federal rules that improve consistency and comparability of data among states is a laudable goal and we are pleased that the Children's Bureau has set this direction.
CWLA and the National Working Group appreciate the opportunity to share several concerns with the proposed rules presented in this notice. First, CWLA and the National Working Group believe that the full costs and burden of implementing the proposed rule are underestimated. States will incur significant costs and impacts on resources. Part 2 of this response describes these costs in more detail.
Second, CWLA and the National Working Group are concerned that the proposed funding mechanisms are inadequate and will result in reduced services to youth. Services in states with small service populations or without a SACWIS will be disproportionately impacted. Also, it is unclear how increased costs for ongoing data collection and increased social worker burden will be funded. We strongly recommend that the Children's Bureau identify new funding to cover the costs of this new federal requirement. Part 3 of this response describes these concerns and recommendations in more detail.
Third, the proposed time frames for implementation and report submission are too short and reporting annually rather than semi-annually would be more efficient. Regarding the one-year implementation time frame, many states cannot complete all the work required to develop specifications and systems and collect and report data within 12 months. Regarding the submission time frame, CWLA and the National Working Group believe requiring the same due date as AFCARS may unduly burden staff responsible for report submissions. The National Working Group recommends a three-year implementation period for an annual file with a 60-day submission time frame. Part 4 of this response describes these concerns and recommendations in more detail.
Fourth, CWLA and the National Working Group note that locating young adults who have left foster care and for whom states no longer have any authority will be difficult and costly. We are concerned that states do not have the resources or experience necessary to achieve a 60-percent participation rate for this group and that a penalty for not achieving this rate is not justified since states are being held responsible for the actions of young adults for whom they have no control or authority. In addition, population characteristics such as geographic mobility or tribal relationship vary from state to state and may put some states at a disadvantage for achieving the target. The National Working Group supports the provision of technical assistance to states to help them achieve the required response rate. Part 5 of this response describes the National Working Group's concerns on this topic in more detail.
Fifth, CWLA and the National Working Group recommend that penalties should not be assessed against ETV funds. Unlike general Chafee funds, ETV funds are dedicated to one service-education. Reducing these funds directly reduces the number of youth who receive this service, which is one of the most beneficial and most likely to improve outcomes. Also, since these funds serve youth through age 23, penalizing them is detrimental to youth who are not the subjects of the NYTD. In general, penalties that impact services are counter to accomplishing the goal of improving outcomes. If penalties are assessed against any Chafee funds, we recommend that the amounts withheld be designated to help states meet the NYTD requirements.
Finally, CWLA and the National Working Group request clarification on several definitions and data elements as detailed in Part 6 of this response.
Part 2: Costs and Estimate of Burden
CWLA and the National Working Group strongly disagree with the determination that "the costs to the States as a result of this rule will be minor" and believe that the burden estimate in the Federal Register is unrealistically low. States will incur significant costs to implement the proposed rule including developing a new database system or changing an existing information system, hiring new staff to track and survey young adults who have exited from foster care, training and providing social workers to collect information from 17-year olds in foster care, developing survey tools and providing financial incentives for participation, developing the NYTD extract, monitoring data quality and verifying submissions.
The National Working Group notes that costs and burden will vary significantly among states. Some states already collect similar data and have processes and systems in place that can be modified with less effort. Other states do not have staff and system resources available. Some states will have to build a system from scratch or make major modifications to their SACWIS. One state estimated it would cost $100,000 - 150,000 to build a web-based interface to the NYTD. States in the development or implementation phase of a SACWIS or integrating a recently implemented system may find it especially costly to meet the additional demands on technical resources.
CWLA and the National Working Group also consider the estimated costs and burden of data collection for each of the three population groups to be too low. For the services population, technical and administrative barriers make it difficult for states to collect data on independent living services provided by contractors or tribes. Also, data on services that are not paid for by the CFCIP agency may be collected currently, but not entered into state systems in a manner that can be used for automated reporting.
For the baseline population, states will incur costs to train and support existing workers in collecting data and to monitor the quality of the data collected. For this population, CWLA and the National Working Group believe the estimate of 15 minutes to collect outcome data is too low. In addition to the actual survey time, administrative time may be needed to identify youth due for a survey, track attempted contacts, schedule and travel to appointments, explain the survey, and submit results. One state reported that an effort to look up the equivalent of one data element and record it for a survey took longer than 15 minutes even when the information was available in existing records.
CWLA and the National Working Group are particularly concerned about the costs and burden of tracking and surveying the follow-up population once the youth have left foster care and have no obligation to respond to the state's CFCIP agency. Many youth in this population leave the area or state after exiting care and do not have permanent ties in the community that could provide contact information. Many have cell phones and will not be listed in phone directories. The technical assistance document accompanying the proposed rule acknowledges these difficulties and includes time-intensive suggestions such as accessing public records or making door-to-door contacts at all units within an apartment building. Considering the difficulties involved, states believe the estimated tracking burden of two hours per youth over a two-year period is underestimated.
CWLA and the National Working Group also question the assumption that existing state staff will perform the work of tracking youth in the follow-up population. As noted in the discussion in the proposal, in other surveys a participation rate in the range of 60 percent was achieved by using specialized, trained staff that did not have other responsibilities. States do not currently have this resource. Existing workers are already overburdened and cannot absorb additional work. The cost of hiring and training additional staff is significant.
Once these youth are located, states expect it will take longer than the proposal's estimate of 15 minutes to explain the survey, gain the youth's cooperation and collect the data. To increase participation rates, time may be needed to listen to the youth's needs or concerns in addition to asking the required questions. Also, even with good survey techniques, states believe they will not achieve the 60-percent participation rate target for the follow-up population without offering financial incentives to the young adults to participate.
Experience from other national studies supports states' assessment that the cost and time of tracking down youth who have left foster care are formidable. For example, the Foster Care Alumni Studies conducted by Casey Family Programs, used individuals whose sole duty was data collection. In addition to mailings, phone calls and accessing public records, it contracted with professional search firms and conducted on-site searches to locate contact information. Casey Family Programs found that incentives of $75 to $200 per interview were necessary to achieve its overall target response- rate of 70 percent.
For the final comment in this Part, the National Working Group notes that implementing the NYTD will negatively impact other resources. System changes for the NYTD will compete with other needs for scarce technical resources, delaying implementation of functionality critical to meeting other state needs. Also, in many states, social workers cannot assume additional responsibilities, such as collecting data on the baseline population, without reducing services in other areas.
Part 3: Funding
CWLA and the National Working Group believe the proposed funding options are inadequate. First, the option to use CFCIP funds for system development results in less funding for services to youth. A funding option that reduces services is not acceptable to the states.
Second, for states with a SACWIS, allowable costs for system changes may be reimbursed up to 50 percent. This option covers only partial costs that meet certain conditions and is not available to states that do not have a SACWIS. Those states would have to fund the full cost of system development from CFCIP funds, further reducing services. Also, to meet a one-year implementation period, states will have to pay for additional development resources, as their current capacity cannot absorb the work within that short time frame. States that are in the process of developing a SACWIS may have to develop the NYTD twice--once pre-SACWIS and again with SACWIS, increasing their costs.
Third, while the discussion in the Federal Register recognizes that states will incur costs to train workers, record information, and implement a strategy to collect outcome information from older youth, the proposed funding options address only the cost of changes to states' information systems.
Fourth, because many system development and other costs are independent of the size of the population served, states with small service populations will be disproportionately impacted. For example, systems development will likely consume a higher percentage of their CFCIP funds, resulting in a greater reduction in services.
CWLA and the National Working Group strongly recommend that the Children's Bureau identify new funding to cover the full costs of this new federal requirement.
Part 4: Proposed Implementation and Reporting Time Frames
The National Working Group does not consider a one-year implementation period to be realistic for many states given the level of effort associated with computer system changes and the limited resource and staff support in their technology centers. For example, several states report that obtaining approval for changes to SACWIS systems alone typically takes at least one year and approval of needed funds may take longer. Design, development and implementation work would follow. Also, a longer implementation period may decrease the number of states faced with developing a standalone system prior to implementing a SACWIS. Finally, incurring all costs in one year results in a large reduction in Chafee funds available for services in that year. Spreading the cost over a longer period may allow states to maintain more consistent service provision. Given these considerations, the National Working Group proposes that states be given up to three years to fully implement NYTD, with the condition that they submit a plan setting benchmarks to be completed in each year of development that results in meeting all reporting requirements no later than the end of the third year. The Children's Bureau should consider whether those states that determine they could submit data sooner, should do so.
Regarding the submission time frame, CWLA and the National Working Group recommend that the NYTD be reported annually rather than semi-annually. An annual reporting period avoids the complications of creating an annual file from two six-month files and simplifies the calculation of outcomes and penalties. It also allows more time for states to locate the follow-up population. To gain the benefits of reporting for the same period as AFCARS, the National Working Group recommends that AFCARS change to an annual report period. States have commented in previous AFCARS proposals that they support changing AFCARS to an annual period.
The National Working Group notes that the same staff members may be responsible for preparing and verifying the data quality of both the AFCARS and NYTD submissions. Having these reports due at the same time increases the burden on these workers and may result in reduced quality for both reports. In addition, some states may need to produce AFCARS first in order to meet the proposal's requirement to use the same identification number in both reports. The National Working Group recommends a minimum 60-day window for reporting the NYTD.
Part 5: Tracking Youth Who Have Left Foster Care
As noted in Part 2, achieving a 60-percent participation rate for the follow-up population will be difficult and costly. The National Working Group recognizes that some states have already tried to survey youth who have exited care. These states report varying degrees of success, ranging from having to cancel the survey due to lack of participation to exceeding a 60-percent response rate. Obtaining information on children in tribes who are not included in AFCARS is another difficulty for some states. The National Working Group supports the federal provision of technical assistance to help states achieve the required participation rate.
There are additional concerns with tracking young adults who have exited foster care. Many youth who exit care will move to other states, making tracking more difficult and putting states with highly mobile populations at a disadvantage for achieving the required participation rate. Having each state develop and implement processes to track youth nationwide who have exited foster care increases costs and makes data inconsistencies more likely. Turnover in case workers and the need for specially trained and dedicated staff to achieve the required participation rate reduces the benefit of personal relationships developed between workers and youth. Often, young adults in this population do not want further contact with a state child-welfare agency and may be more likely to respond to surveys received from a different source.
To address these issues, the National Working Group discussed a proposal to move the responsibility for tracking this population to the national level, supported by Chafee research funds. With this approach, states would report data on the services and baseline populations. Tracking the follow-up populations would be contracted at a national level, with one agency providing consistent methodology, training and oversight, similar to the NSCAW study performed by the Research Triangle Institute. Under this proposal, the penalty for states that do not achieve a 60-percent participation rate for the follow-up population would be removed. While some states strongly supported this approach, there was not a consensus to include it as a recommendation in these comments. However, the National Working Group asks that the Children's Bureau consider the noted concerns and how they might be addressed.
Regarding the length of the follow-up period, the National Working Group agrees that a longer period would be beneficial to learn the outcomes of foster care children, and would consider appropriate a pilot project with a few states, on a voluntary basis, and with adequate funding support, to attempt to reach youth at age 23. The National Working Group does not support adding a requirement to track youth through age 23 to the regulation unless the states agree that the feasibility of collecting the data has been demonstrated.
Part 6: Enhancing the Quality, Usefulness, and Clarity of the Information
Clear and consistent definitions are critical to obtaining quality data that can be used to compare outcomes across time and across states. Based on the information in the Federal Register, CWLA and the National Working Group ask that the Children's Bureau consider the following points for changes or further clarification.
First, the definition of foster care used for the NYTD, particularly as it differs from the definition of foster care used for AFCARS, needs to be clarified. CWLA and the National Working Group find that using different definitions for different federal programs is confusing, increases training and development costs, and increases errors. The AFCARS definition of foster care should be used for the NYTD. Specific questions regarding the definitional differences follow:
- Does the NYTD definition include children placed out of home less than 24 hours, those on trial home visits, in shelter care, or in unlicensed placements not receiving IV-e funds?
- For states that include juvenile justice children in the AFCARS population, are these children also included in the NYTD population?
- Besides the inclusion of children in tribal placements in the NYTD population, are there other differences from AFCARS?
Second, the National Working Group notes that the definition of the served population, which includes only youth who receive independent living services "paid for or provided by the CFCIP agency," captures only limited information for states that have increased collaboration with other service providers. At least one state noted that the majority of their services would not be reported under the proposed definition. It was also noted that states have been encouraged to coordinate services through other programs such as the Department of Labor's Shared Vision for Youth and these services may be missed. The National Working Group considered, but did not reach consensus on, adding services "arranged by" the CFCIP agency to the definition. Some states supported the change, believing it would provide a truer picture of services. However, other states were concerned at the difficulty in consistently defining and collecting data on arranged services. The National Working Group suggests that a better understanding of how service provision varies between states is needed in order to properly interpret the data.
Third, some of the data elements for the served population, such as academic support, career preparation, housing education and home management training, health education and risk prevention, are defined so broadly that, for almost all youth, the response will be 'Yes.' CWLA questions the usefulness of collecting data that does not differentiate responses.
In addition, CWLA and the National Working Group comment on specific data elements as follows:
Element 6, Race: American Indian or Alaska Native, is defined as "a youth has origins in any of the original peoples of North or South America (including Central America) and maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment." This element is the only race category that includes a condition of community affiliation. This condition should be removed as tribal membership is reported in element 16. If it is not possible to remove the condition, clarification should be provided on reporting race for self-identified American Indians or Alaska Natives who do not have tribal affiliation or community attachment.
For elements 19-33, we suggest that federal instructions, such as those in Appendix A of the proposal, specify the service period for which a 'yes' response applies.
For elements 23, career preparation, and 24, Employment programs or vocational training, we recommend adding appropriate volunteer activity to the definitions.
For element 29, mentoring, CWLA and the National Working Group are concerned that relationships with adults that are being encouraged and supported by the CFCIP agency but which occur in normal life, such as parents of friends, coaches, teachers, former foster parents and employers, are excluded. Limiting the definition of mentoring to screened and trained adults does not fully capture the intent of the Chafee Act to help youth develop long-term relationships with adults. Therefore the definition of mentoring needs to be broadened.
For elements 38 and 39, current full-time/part-time employment clarification is needed on coding youth who are working multiple jobs. For example, would a youth working two 20-hour jobs be coded as in full-time or part-time employment?
For element 41, Social Security, clarification is needed on reporting SSI/SSDI payments that are applied to the cost of foster care. Should states report 'yes' for youth whose payments are applied to foster care? If so, should states correct the response of a youth who answers 'no' if the state is receiving the payments?
For element 46, other support, we note that the definition in Appendix B of the proposal specifies that the support be from a spouse or family member and ask for clarification reporting non-familial sources of support. For example, the description of this element in the section-by-section discussion of the NPRM states that funds from a legal settlement would be reported in this element.
For element 49, connection to adult, CWLA notes that the definition in Appendix B does not specify that it excludes adult peers and spouses, as defined in the regulation.
For element 52, incarceration, The National Working Group is concerned that including youth who were wrongfully arrested and those who have not been convicted of any crime risks reinforcing negative stereotypes and unfairly stigmatizing this population of youth. One state noted that a youth detained for smoking would be included under the current definition. We recommend that the definition be narrowed to include only youth who have been convicted of a crime. If the definition is not changed, CWLA suggests changing the wording in the definition given in Appendix B of the proposal, from "an alleged crime…committed by a youth" to "a crime…allegedly committed by the youth."
For element 54, marriage at child's birth, the definition in Appendix B of the proposal, which refers to every child born in the past year, conflicts with the definition in the regulation, which refers to any child reported in element 53.
Part 7: Additional Comments
CWLA and the National Working Group support efforts to evaluate and improve services to youth in foster care so that they achieve positive outcomes as adults. We strongly support development of the NYTD. However, we believe that it is critical that these efforts do not reduce the quantity and quality of services available to youth.
We thank the Children's Bureau for the opportunity to comment and look forward to further collaboration between the Children's Bureau, state child welfare agencies and national organizations as we work to improve outcomes for youth.
Chafee Comments
Child Welfare League of America
September 12, 2006
 Back to Top  Printer-friendly Page  Contact Us
|
|
