Nevada Title IV-E Foster Care Eligibility Review

Nevada Title IV-E
Foster Care Eligibility Review
For the period
October 1, 2004 to March 31, 2005

Introduction

During August 1 to 4, 2005, staff from Administration for Children and Families' (ACF) and Nevada Department of Child and Family Services conducted a review of title IV-E foster care eligibility in Carson City. The purposes of the review were (1) to determine Nevada's compliance with the child and provider eligibility requirements as outlined in 45 CFR 1356.71 and Section 472 of the Social Security Act, and (2) to validate the basis of Nevada's financial claims to ensure that appropriate payments were made on behalf of eligible children and to eligible homes and institutions.

Scope of the Review

The Nevada title IV-E foster care review encompassed a sample of all of the title IV-E foster care cases that received a maintenance payment during the period October 1, 2004 to March 31, 2005. A computerized statistical sample of 80 cases was drawn from the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) data transmitted by the State agency to ACF for the period under review. The child's case file was reviewed for the determination of title IV-E eligibility and the provider's file was reviewed to ensure that the foster home or child care institution in which the child was placed was licensed or approved.

Of the 80 cases reviewed, 2 cases were determined to be in error for either part or all of the review period for reasons that are identified in the Case Record Summary section of this report. Since the number of error cases was fewer than five, ACF has determined Nevada to be in substantial compliance./p>

Case Record Summary

The following details the error cases and reasons for the error, erroneous payments, and appropriate citations:

Sample number 32: Reasonable efforts determination was not made within 60 days of placement (45 CFR 1356.21(b)).

Sample number 57: Reasonable efforts determination was not made with respect to the removal from the legal father (45 CFR 1356.21(b)).

The erroneous payments associated with the two error cases were calculated as follows. All payments claimed on behalf of the child and related administrative costs for the entire period of the error were included.

Error Cases Within the Period Under Review:

Sample #	FFY 2004	FFY 2005	Total
32
MAP - Total		$591.69	$591.69
FMAP Rate		55.9%	59.5%
MAP - Federal Share		$330.75	$330.75
Admin Cost - Federal Share	$4,261.00	$2,208.00	$6,470.00
Total Federal Share	$4,261.00	$2,538.75	$6,800.75

Sample #	FFY 2002	FFY 2003	FFY 2004	FFY 2005	Total
57
MAP - Total	$1,731.04	$5,911.29	$5,403.86	$3,550.14	$16,596.33
FMAP Rate	50%	52.39%	54.93%	55.9%
MAP - Federal Share	$865.52	$3,096.92	$2,968.34	$1,984.53	$8,915.31
Admin Cost - Federal Share				$3,975.00	$3,975.00
Total Federal Share	$865.52	$3,096.92	$2,968.34	$5,959.53	$12,890.31

Total Disallowance Amounts - Federal Share

	FFY 2002	FFY 2003	FFY 2004	FFY 2005	Total
Error Cases
MAP -Federal Share	$865.52	$3,096.92	$2,968.34	$2,315.28	$9,246.06
Admin - Federal Share			$4,261.00	$6,183.00	$10,444.00
Total Federal Share	$865.52	$3,096.92	$7,229.34	$8,498.28	$19,690.06

FFP = Federal Financial Participation
FFY = Federal Fiscal Year
FMAP = Federal Medical Assistance Percentage
MAP = Maintenance Assistance Payment

Areas in Need of Improvement

The Court Reports and Orders of the Court reviewed from Clark County were confusing. The template used in many of the cases did not have the correct name of the biological or natural parents, misstated the step-parents or biological parents name or identified the child's name as the parent.

Additionally, the Court Orders from this same jurisdiction were often contradictory. For example: the first sentence would indicate that "Continuation of the reasonable efforts to reunify the family required by NRS 432B.393 (1) is consistent with the permanency plan" and the next sentence would indicate that "Pursuant to NRS 432B.393 (2) the Division of Child and Family Services, an agency that provides child protective services, is not required to make the reasonable efforts required by NRS 432B.393 (1)." These cases would have been in error except for the existence of another sentence that indicated "It is hereby ordered… [T]hat reasonable efforts made by the Division of Child and Family Services to return the child to his home are deemed to be reasonable efforts." For example in one of the error cases, the court order indicated reunification was contrary to the child's welfare; however, the case file indicated that at that time, the child had been home with the mother for three months.

The State is reminded that appropriate reasonable efforts to safely maintain the family unit applies to fathers as well as mothers.

In some cases, children were placed in foster homes whose age range on the license was not consistent with the age of the children. For example, a 14-month-old child was placed with a provider whose license age range indicated 2 to 5 years. In some instances, a wavier was sought to place the child in the home; however, in many instances it was not.

Strengths and Model Practices

It is evident the State has integrated the key purposes of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (AFSA). Young children who came to the attention of the agency after the enactment of AFSA have, for the most part, moved to safe and stable permanent placements quickly. However, many of the foster youth in the sample cases came to the attention of the agency as infants or toddlers before AFSA and, unfortunately, continue in foster care.

Court orders and reports from Washoe County consistently included reasonable efforts, contrary to the best interests, and permanency findings. The model court, operating under the practice guidance provided by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, has significantly influenced the uniformity in the court reports and orders and the timely movement of children into permanent homes.

The State has developed a checklist for use by eligibility workers that assists them in ensuring the required records are in the case file. This practice, when used consistently, results in the essential documentation available for review. The eligibility staff have a solid understanding of the eligibility criteria and use their knowledge to accurately determine the child's eligibility for IV-E foster care.

However, staff are comparing the child's income to 185 percent of the foster care rate (rather than 185 percent of the AFDC need standard from 1996) when redetermining eligibility. This policy was withdrawn on September 24, 2001 (see http://www.acf.hhs.gov/j2ee/programs/cb/laws_policies/laws/cwpm/withdrawn.jsp). The State should compare the child's income against the 1996 AFDC standard to redetermine eligibility.