Detailed Information on the
Independent Living Program Assessment

Use National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD) to develop ambitious performance and efficiency measures. These measures are to focus on program outcomes, including employment and homelessness rates of Independent Living Program (ILP) youth who have aged out of the foster care system.

Implementing the National Youth in Transition Database, which will offer data on recipient demographics and how well they transition over time.

Utilize interim efficiency measure to maximize program efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

Implementing the National Youth in Transition Database, which will offer data on recipient demographics and how well they transition over time. Milestone: Analyze Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) comments and begin drafting final rule.

Use National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD) to develop ambitious performance and efficiency measures. These measures are to focus on program outcomes, including employment and homelessness rates of Independent Living Program (ILP) youth who have aged out of the foster care system. Milestone: Analyze Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) comments related to proposed NYTD outcome measures, including employment and homelessness, and begin drafting final rule.

Utilize interim efficiency measure to maximize program efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Milestone: Report FY05 data as part of the FY08 Congressional Justification/budgetary process. Assess progress towards future targets.

Use National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD) to develop ambitious performance and efficiency measures. These measures are to focus on program outcomes, including employment and homelessness rates of Independent Living Program (ILP) youth who have aged out of the foster care system. Milestone: Departmental clearance of final rule.

Utilize interim efficiency measure to maximize program efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Milestone: Analyze Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP) FY 2005 SF-269 close-out reports to identify underexpending states.

Implementing the National Youth in Transition Database, which will offer data on recipient demographics and how well they transition over time. Milestone: Departmental clearance of final rule.

Measure: Promote efficient use of Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP) funds by 1) increasing the number of jurisdictions that completely expend their allocations within the 2 year expenditure period, and 2) decreasing the total amount of funds that remain unexpended by States at the end of the prescribed period.

Explanation:This measure is an interim efficiency measure, until the National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD) is implemented. This efficiency measure aims to increase the efficiency of the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program operations through the timely and total expenditure of grant funds pursuant to section 477 (d)(3) of the Social Security Act. While some States may not be able to fully expend 100 percent of their Chafee allocation due to unforeseeable reasons (e.g. inability to meet matching requirements), ACF's goal is to maximize the amount of funds all States will expend within the allotted time period.

Measure: Promote efficient use of Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP) funds by 1) increasing the number of jurisdictions that completely expend their allocations within the 2 year expenditure period, and 2) decreasing the total amount of funds that remain unexpended by States at the end of the prescribed period.

Explanation:This measure is an interim efficiency measure, until the National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD) is implemented. This efficiency measure aims to increase the efficiency of the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program operations through the timely and total expenditure of grant funds pursuant to section 477 (d)(3) of the Social Security Act. While some States may not be able to fully expend 100 percent of their Chafee allocation due to unforeseeable reasons (e.g. inability to meet matching requirements), ACF's goal is to maximize the amount of funds all States will expend within the allotted time period.

Measure: Increase the percentages of CFCIP youth who avoid high-risk behaviors which might otherwise lead to criminal investigations and incarceration. (Measure added, February 2007)

Explanation:This is a developmental outcome efficiency measure, which has been approved by OMB. The program will develop a full set of performance measures once the National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD) is implemented and finalized. NYTD is designed to meet statutory requirements for data collection and performance management. Although the program cannot develop outcome performance measures until NYTD is implemented, the program has established an interim efficiency measure and a developmental efficiency measure to support the President's Management Agenda initiative on Budget-performance integration.

Measure: Increase the percentages of CFCIP youth who avoid high-risk behaviors which might otherwise lead to criminal investigations and incarceration. (Measure added, February 2007)

Explanation:This is a developmental outcome efficiency measure, which has been approved by OMB. The program will develop a full set of performance measures once the National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD) is implemented and finalized. NYTD is designed to meet statutory requirements for data collection and performance management. Although the program cannot develop outcome performance measures until NYTD is implemented, the program has established an interim efficiency measure and a developmental efficiency measure to support the President's Management Agenda initiative on Budget-performance integration.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Federal Independent Living Program (ILP) hereafter known as the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP) has a clear and specific legislative mandate. Originally enacted in 1986 by Public Law (P.L.) 99-272, through the addition of section 477 to title IV-E of the Social Security Act (the Act), ILP was designed to prepare 16-18 year olds in foster care for a successful transition to adulthood. Its original appropriation was $45 million dollars. In 1993, the program was permanently authorized by P.L.103-66. In 1999, the Foster Care Independence Act (FCIA), Public Law 106-169 was passed, amending section 477 of the Act. Title I of FCIA created the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP- hereafter referred to as the Chafee Program) with five specific program purposes, with an authorization of $140 million dollars. The specific program purposes are to identify youth who are likely to remain in foster care until 18 years of age and to help these youth make the transition to self-sufficiency.

Evidence: (Section 477(a) (1-5) of the Foster Care Independence Act (Public Law 106-169 'Appendix A)

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest or need?

Explanation: Congress received extensive information from researchers, service providers, foster parents and youth during the hearings for the FCIA. The overwhelming majority of the written evidence and testimony supported the fact that most adolescents in foster care as well as those 'aging out' have significant difficulty making a successful transition to adulthood. Recent studies indicate that less than half of all older foster children (14 and older) live in foster families. Selected studies indicated that youth aging out of foster care show higher rates of homelessness, non-marital childbearing, poverty and delinquency or criminal behavior than youth of the same age range in the general population within 2 to 4 years after leaving care(see Appendix C). Also, these studies suggest that more than half of youth aging out of foster care have not graduated from high school.

Evidence: : (1) Foster Care Independence Act (FCIA); (2) AFCARS Table ' Age Distribution of Children in Care, Sept. 2002; (3) Improving Educational Outcomes for Youth in Care. Child Welfare League of America. Washington, DC. 2002. (4) Wertheimer, R. Youth Who 'Age Out' 0f Foster Care: Troubling Lives, Troubling Prospects. Washington, D.C. Child Trends, 2002. (5) Appendix C of this document.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: CFCIP funds are awarded to the State who has the flexibility to provide CFCIP services and supports in a manner to most effectively meet local needs. For example, a jurisdiction may serve the eligible population directly through State operated programs or they may out-source with private sector providers. There are several significant differences between Chafee and the Transitional Living Program (TLP) administered under Part B of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program in terms of program eligibility and administration. The Chafee Program only serves eligible youth who are the responsibility of the State public child welfare agency and/or were formerly in foster care. While a transitional living program participant may have been in foster care; at the time they enter the TLP, they are homeless (defined as being 16 years old and not having a safe, alternative living arrangement.) A homeless youth who has never been in the public child welfare system cannot receive Chafee services.

Evidence: (1) Title I of the Foster Care Independence Act, section 477(c) (1); (2) Part B of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act ' Transitional Living Program; (3) 2001 NOFA (Federal Register/ Vol.66, No. 133/ Weds. July 11, 2001) Page 36432 -Eligibility; (4) DOL/WIA ' Statutory citation ' Appendix __

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The provisions of the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (FCIA) specifically corrected the identified design flaws in the areas of data collection, data reporting and program evaluation. Title I of the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (FCIA) is an effective mechanism for supporting State efforts to serve older children and youth in the public child welfare system. The Chafee Program contains several provisions to address design flaws in the original Federal statute that hindered the agency's ability to identify and establish performance goals for the States and to meet its program objectives. The new statute broadened the service population to include former foster care recipients (ages 18-21); and improved services that a State can provide including housing and Medicaid coverage.

Evidence: (1) Caliber Associates. (1999). Title IV-E Independent Living Programs: A Decade in Review: Executive Summary. (Contract No. 105-94-1514). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2) Title I of the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (FCIA), P.L. 106-169; (3) Report to Congress on the Implementation of Data Collection and Outcome Measures under the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program, Title I of the Foster Care Independence Act, September, 2001; (4) Appendix C ' Relevant Works Referenced

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: Chafee formula grants are awarded to States in accordance with a legislatively mandated formula (section 477(c)(1)) based on the total number of children in foster care.

Evidence: (1) AFCARS Table showing the allocation of funds based on each State's percent of children in ILP-target ages 16-20 years. (2) Sample of Chafee Comprehensive Child and Family Services 5 year plan from State of North Carolina; (3) Allocation of FY 2004 CFCIP by State.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The Children's Bureau will establish 2-3 long-term performance measures for the Chafee program based on the six proposed outcome measures presently being drafted as a part of the Notice of Proposed Rule-making (NPRM) for the National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD). Once the NYTD regulation has been approved and implemented and State performance in operating programs to serve this population can be assessed. HHS will then establish and refine measures that are salient, meaningful and appropriate to address the most important aspects of the program purpose and goals, as described under Section 1.

Evidence: NYTD Proposed Outcome Measures ' Appendix .

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: Targets and timeframes will be developed once the performance measures (under 2.1) have been identified, reviewed and approved by the Department and OMB.

Evidence:  

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The annual performance measures and targets specifically for the Chafee Program will be developed once NYTD has been regulated and implemented.

Evidence: (1) Proposed NYTD Data Elements, Proposed NYTD Outcome Measures (see appendix); (2) GPRA measure related to placement stability: For those children who had been in care less than 12 months, maintain the percentage that had no more than two placement settings.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Targets and timeframes will be developed once the performance measures (under 2.1) have been identified, reviewed and approved by the Department and OMB.

Evidence: See Appendix B

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: A program that receives a "No" for sections 2.1 and 2.3 must also receive a "No" for this section.

Evidence:

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: In accordance with section 477 (g)(1) of FCIA, ACF is conducting a random assignment evaluation of programs for foster youth who are exiting out-of-home care. ACF contracted with the Urban Institute and University of Chicago, Chapin Hall to conduct this evaluability assessment. While OMB agrees that the evaluation is of sufficient quality and independence, it is not of sufficient national scope.

Evidence: Synopsis of Chafee National Evaluation

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: ACF is developing a budget request for the FY 2006 performance budget which integrates performance and budget information. However, it is necessary, but alone not sufficient for HHS to submit a more fully integrated budget for all of ACF. ACF must also be able to answer "What would an additional $x million (or a y% increase) buy in CFCIP services?" In other words, what does the marginal dollar buy toward the program's long-term or annual performance measures. It is not sufficient for ACF's budget to align programs and dollars by strategic goal, or to account for the full costs of CFCIP. ACF must show how it would expect CFCIP performance to change as funding levels change.

Evidence: FY 2005 CJ and HHS Annual Performance Plan.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The Children's Bureau is engaged in several activities to meaningfully address planning deficiencies related to the design and operation of the Chafee program. We have designed and pilot tested a uniform data collection and reporting system, the National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD). NYTD will enable the CB to establish baseline information on the demographics and Chafee services provided to youth in care. NYTD will also provide data to be used to improve our ability to track State performance in operating Chafee programs.

Evidence: Appendix B - Proposed NYTD Data Elements and Outcome Measures

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: States are required to develop and submit a five year plan on how the State intends to carry out specified requirements and certifications (section 477(b)(2 and 3). On an annual basis, States are required to report on CFCIP expenditures and program activities as part of the Annual Program and Services Report (APSR) required of all Title IV B and E programs. States also submit to Child and Family Services reviews whereby outcomes related to preparing youth to emancipate from foster care are among those assessed. Once the NYTD is implemented, CB will receive data on State performance in the operation of IL programs in a uniform manner. States will be required to submit data on IL services provided to children participating in the program, thus providing the agency with data to inform program management, resource management, and program performance as well as to assess the performance of its partners.

Evidence: FY 2004 Chafee Allocation Table; CFSR findings

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: The Division director and team leader have been identified as responsible for oversight of the CFCIP program through ACF regional offices, in accordance with ACF's Statement of Organization and Functions. Performance standards are defined in employees' performance plans. States are held accountable through monitoring, joint planning with the regional offices, and regional office reviews of standard form SF-269.

Evidence: (1) Appendix D, RO VI 2004 Chafee/PYD performance element; (2) Completed SF-269 for State of _______.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Funds are obligated in a timely manner. ACF issues grant awards based on financial data submitted by States on the CFS-101 on an annual basis. States have two years to expend funds awarded. Annual expenditure reports (SF-269's) are reviewed by Regional financial specialists to ascertain whether grant funds are expended properly. Funds that are not expended properly may be disallowed. As part of the audit resolution process, grantees must agree to implement recommendations made in the audit disallowance letter sent to them by the ACF Grants Office and indicate when required corrective action has occurred.

Evidence: : (1) Program Instruction: ACYF-CB-PI-04-01; (2) FY 2004 Chafee Allocation Table; (3) Completed CFS-101; (4) Chafee Awards Table; (5) Completed SF-269 for State of ________.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation:  

Evidence:  

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Many States have established or are establishing Youth Advisory Boards or other mechanisms such as stakeholder groups (section 477(b)(3)(H)) to ensure that the changing needs of the foster care and transitioning youth populations are recognized and addressed. Also, through the CFSR, the Children's Bureau (CB) assesses the efficacy of a State's collaborative efforts with other public and private agencies that serve the same general population. ACF also collaborates with other Federal agencies in developing policies and programs that benefit the foster youth population. Through staff work in the Children's Bureau, ACF has been successful in having foster care youth identified as a targeted service population in HUD's Family Unification Program and the Department of Labor's Workforce Investment Act (WIA) program. Also, States have consistently performed well on the CFSR measure related to coordination with related programs: Forty-five out of 46 States have been found in substantial conformity with this requirement.

Evidence: (1) 2004 IL/TLP National Pathways to Adulthood Conference Brochure; (2) FCIA, Public Law 106-169; (3) 2001 NOFA (Federal Register/ Vol.66, No. 133/ Weds. July 11, 2001) Page 36432 -Eligibility; (4) Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Public Law 105-220, Section 101, Definitions

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Financial management practices presently in place for the CFCIP include a statutory provision for the re-allotment of unapplied for funds (section 477(d) (4)) under which we monitor expenditures and spending patterns to make sure States expending grant funds in a timely manner. Also, States are required to submit annual expenditure reports (SF 269) and participate in state and IG audits. ACF Regional financial management staff review state claims and resolve any disputes. In addition, ACF submits to an audit annually.

Evidence: Clifton Gunderson LLC's ACF FY 2003 audit was clear of material weaknesses. Program Instruction communicating re-allotments to the States: ACYF-CB-PI-01-02 Audit from State of California A-09-01-68897, including Chafee Program

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: Procedures are in place to address management deficiencies on both the fiscal and program level. On the program level, States submit a detailed report on their Chafee services and activities to the ACF Regional Offices in the Annual Progress and Services Report (APSR) by June 30 of each year. The APSR's are reviewed by the Regional Office; and if any questions and/or concerns surface, the State may initiate a partial program review focused on Chafee or any other comp of the child welfare system. Any finding or deficiency substantiated during the partial review forms the basis for a program improvement plan. The plan is monitored by the Regional Office Program Specialist.

Evidence: : (1) 2003 APSR (Chafee section from State of Oklahoma (2) SF- 269 from State of Oklahoma

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: Assessments of the Chafee Program are conducted by the ACF Regional Offices. The ACF Regional Office designates responsibility for each program, including Chafee, among available staff, either by State or by program area (see Appendix D for example). RO program staff are responsible for providing program guidance and direction to the State Chafee program. They maintain an on-going relationship with the State Chafee program staff m through regular conference calls, face-to-face meetings and various electronic media (e-mail, listservs). Several examples of these activities are contained in the evidence section under 2.5. ACF Regional Offices are also responsible for the review and approval of the State's Annual Progress and Service Reports (APSR). Also, annual expenditure reports are submitted to ACF regional offices for review and approval.

Evidence: (1) FY 2004 Chafee Allocation Table; (2) Completed CFS-101; (3) Chafee Awards Table; (4) Completed SF-269 for State of Oklahoma.

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: Program performance is publicized in the following ways: CFSR Reports; Child Welfare Outcomes Report; AFCARS data. AFCARS data is submitted semi-annually from States to ACF. States are automatically sent data quality and compliance reports to provide them with feedback on their submission. Data collected during on-site reviews are input into databases by ACF staff for review and analysis.

Evidence: The CFSR Final Reports, Child Welfare Outcomes Report and AFCARS data reports are available on the Children's Bureau website. www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: Long term measures are under development.

Evidence:  

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: Annual measures are under development.

Evidence:  

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation:  

Evidence:  

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: No comparable programs exist. There are several significant differences between Chafee and the Transitional Living Program (TLP) administered under Part B of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program in terms of program eligibility and administration. The Chafee Program only serves eligible youth who are the responsibility of the State public child welfare agency and/or were formerly in foster care. While a transitional living program participant may have been in foster care; at the time they enter the TLP, they are homeless (defined as being 16 years old and not having a safe, alternative living arrangement.) A homeless youth who has never been in the public child welfare system is not eligible to receive Chafee services.

Evidence: Not Applicable.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: There have been no evaluations of sufficient scope, quality, and independence conducted, nor is there planning documentation in place that describes a program evaluation of sufficient scope to be conducted in the near future.

Evidence: Please see evidence provided in response to question 2.6.