Skip Navigation
 
ACF
          
ACF Home   |   Services   |   Working with ACF   |   Policy/Planning   |   About ACF   |   ACF News   |   HHS Home

  Questions?  |  Privacy  |  Site Index  |  Contact Us  |  Download Reader™  |  Print      


Children's Bureau Safety, Permanency, Well-being  Advanced
 Search

Home > Child Welfare Monitoring > Results of the 2001 and 2002 Child and Family Services Reviews > General Findings From the Federal Child and Family Services Review > State-Level Data Analyses

General Findings From the Federal Child and Family Services Review

I. State-Level Data Analyses

The State-level data analyses were designed to address the following questions:

The following sections provide information relevant to each of these questions.

How did States perform on the CFSR outcomes and indicators?

States were assessed with respect to whether they achieved substantial conformity with each of the seven outcomes. To receive a rating of "substantial conformity" for any outcome, at least 90 percent of the applicable cases reviewed must have been rated as having "substantially achieved" that outcome. In addition, for a State to be considered in substantial conformity with Safety Outcome 1 and Permanency Outcome 1, it was necessary for the State also to meet the national standards for specified outcome measures. The following are the outcome measures for which CFSR national standards were established:

Table I-1 presents the findings with respect to how States performed on the outcomes and indicators. The table provides the number and percent of States (including FY 2001 States) achieving substantial conformity with the 7 outcome measures, the number and percent receiving a rating of "Strength" on the 23 indicators, and the number and percent meeting the national standard for specific measures during the "data year" that the CFSR took place.

Table I-1: Number (%) of States Achieving Substantial Conformity with the 7 Outcome Measures, Number (%) Receiving a Rating of "Strength" on the 23 Indicators, and the Number (%) Meeting National Standards
Outcomes and Indicators Number (%) Achieving Substantial Conformity Number (%)
Receiving a
Rating of
"Strength"		 Number (%)
Meeting National Standards*
Safety Outcome 1-Children are first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect 6 (11.5) blank cell blank cell
      Item 1: Timeliness of investigations blank cell 21 (40.4) blank cell
      Item 2: Repeat maltreatment blank cell 17 (32.7) 17 (32.7)
Safety Outcome 2 - Children are safely maintained in their homes when possible 6 (11.5) blank cell blank cell
      Item 3: Services to prevent removal blank cell 21 (40.4) blank cell
      Item 4: Risk of harm blank cell 17 (32.7) blank cell
Permanency Outcome 1- Children have permanency and stability in their living situations No blank cell blank cell
      Item 5: Foster care re-entry blank cell 26 (50.0) 26 (50.0)
      Item 6: Stability of foster care placements blank cell 5 (9.6) 14 (26.9)
      Item 7: Permanency goal for child blank cell 5 (9.6) blank cell
      Item 8: Reunification, guardianship and placement with relatives (for FY 02-04). Independent living services (for FY 2001) blank cell 12 (23.1) 19 (36.5)
      Item 9: Adoption blank cell 6 (11.5) 15 (28.8)
      Item 10: Other planned living arrangement blank cell 17 (32.7) blank cell
Permanency Outcome 2 - The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved 7 (13.5) blank cell blank cell
      Item 11: Proximity of placement blank cell 49 (94.2) blank cell
      Item 12: Placement with siblings blank cell 36 (69.2) blank cell
      Item 13: Visiting with parents and siblings in foster care blank cell 16 (30.8) blank cell
      Item 14: Preserving connections blank cell 21 (40.4) blank cell
      Item 15: Relative placement blank cell 21 (40.4) blank cell
      Item 16: Relationship of child in care with parents blank cell 21 (40.4) blank cell
Well Being Outcome 1 - Families have enhanced capacity to provide for children's needs 0 blank cell blank cell
      Item 17: Needs/services of child, parents, and foster parents blank cell 1 (1.9) blank cell
      Item 18: Child/family involvement in case planning blank cell 5 (9.6) blank cell
      Item 19: Worker visits with child blank cell 13 (25.0) blank cell
      Item 20: Worker visits with parents blank cell 7 (13.5) blank cell
Well Being Outcome 2 - Children receive services to meet their educational needs 16 (30.8) blank cell blank cell
      Item 21: Educational needs of child blank cell 16 (30.8) blank cell
Well Being Outcome 3 - Children receive services to meet their physical and mental health needs are met 1 (1.9) blank cell blank cell
      Item 22: Physical health of child blank cell 20 (38.5) blank cell
      Item 23: Mental health of child blank cell 4 (7.7) blank cell

* Meeting the national standard for maltreatment in foster care was part of the assessment of substantial conformity with Safety Outcome 1. However, there was no specific item corresponding to maltreatment in foster care because the incidence is very low and it was determined that cases selected for the sample would rarely involve maltreatment in foster care. back

As shown in the table, only a small percentage of States achieved substantial conformity with any of the seven outcomes, and no State achieved substantial conformity with Permanency Outcome 1 or Well Being Outcome 1. Also shown in table I-1, the items (indicators) that were most likely to be rated as a Strength across States were those that pertained to Permanency Outcome 2—i.e., The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved. The items that were least likely to be rated as a Strength pertained to assessing and meeting service needs (item 17), meeting children’s mental health needs (item 23), stability of the foster care placement (item 6), permanency goal for child (item 7), and child and family involvement in case planning (item 18).

Although only a few States achieved substantial conformity with the outcomes, it is important to note that there was an extensive range across States in the percentage of cases rated as substantially achieved. Many States performed very close to the level required for substantial conformity while many other States performed at a much lower level. Table I-2 provides the medians and ranges for the percentage of cases rated as having substantially achieved a CFSR outcome (this analysis includes all States).

Table I-2: Median and Range for the Percentage of Cases Across States Rated as Having Substantially Achieved a CFSR Outcome (FY 2001- FY 2004 CFSR States)
Outcomes Median Percentage of Cases Rated as Substantially Achieved Across States Range of Percentage of Cases Rated as Substantially Achieved Across States
Safety Outcome 1:
Children are first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect		 85.8 62.0-100
Safety Outcome 2:
Children are safely maintained in their homes when possible and appropriate		 80.8 48.0-93.5
Permanency Outcome 1:
Children have permanency and stability in their living situations		 50.9 7.1-92.0
Permanency Outcome 2:
The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved		 77.3 37.9-94.3
Well Being Outcome 1:
Families have enhanced capacity to provide for children's needs		 60.0 18.0-86.0
Well Being Outcome 2 :
Children receive services to meet their educational needs 		83.0 64.7-100
Well Being Outcome 3 :
Children receive services to meet their physical and mental health needs 		69.9 51.2-92.1

As shown in the table, the median performance for Safety Outcomes 1 and 2 and for Well Being Outcome 2 was less than 10 percentage points lower than the required 90 percent. In addition, the variation in performance (i.e., the difference from the lowest to the highest State) on these outcomes across States ranged from 35.3 percent for Well Being Outcome 2 to 45.5 percent for Safety Outcome 2. In contrast, the median performance for Permanency Outcome 1 and Well Being Outcome 1 was considerably lower than the 90 percent required for substantial conformity. Similarly, variation in performance across States on these outcomes was extensive, ranging from a 68 percent difference between the lowest and highest State for Well-Being Outcome 1 to an 85 percent difference for Permanency Outcome 1.

It also is important to note that some States met the criteria for substantial conformity with regard to 90 percent of cases having substantially achieved a particular outcome but were determined to be "not in substantial conformity" with the outcome because they did not meet the national standards for the measures associated with that outcome. For Safety Outcome 1 and Permanency Outcome 1, it was necessary for a State to meet both the national standards for the outcome measures and the case review criteria to achieve substantial conformity with the outcome.

What are the challenges that States share with regard to performance on the outcomes and indicators?

During the implementation of the CFSR process, it became apparent that many States experience similar challenges in their efforts to ensure the safety, permanency, and well being of children who come into contact with the child welfare system. To identify these challenges, a content analysis was conducted of the CFSR Final Reports for the 35 States participating in a CFSR from FY 2002 to FY 2004. States participating in a CFSR in FY 2001 were not included in this analysis because the Final Reports for that year did not use the same format with regard to content requirements as reports in subsequent years. The content analysis focused on identifying challenges that were common across the 35 States for specific indicators. A challenge was considered a "common challenge" if it was relevant to approximately one-third of the 35 participating States (or 12 States).

Common challenges pertaining to safety indicators
Table I-3 presents the common challenges identified for the four safety indicators. As shown in the table, one common challenge pertains to conducting risk and safety assessments that are sufficiently comprehensive to capture underlying family problems that might contribute to child maltreatment. Other common challenges pertain to providing sufficient services to children and parents when children remain in their own homes, monitoring participation in services, and determining on an ongoing basis whether the family situation has altered enough to reduce risk of harm to the child.

Table I-3: Common Challenges Identified with Respect to CFSR Safety Indicators and Number of States for which Concerns were Relevant - FY 2002-2004 CFSR States
Safety Indicators Common Challenges # (%) of States
N = 35
Item 1: Timeliness of investigations
  • Reports that are not designated “high priority” or “emergency” are not being routinely investigated in accordance with established timeframes.
    		•  12 (34)
    Item 2: Repeat Maltreatment
  • Maltreatment allegations on families with open child welfare cases are not being reported as new allegations and therefore there is no formal assessment of the validity of the allegation.
    		• 16 (46)
    Item 3: Services to families to protect children in their homes and prevent removal
  • Agency risk and safety assessments often are not sufficiently comprehensive to capture underlying family issues that may contribute to maltreatment, such as substance abuse, mental illness, and domestic violence.
    		• 22 (63)
  • The agency is not consistent in providing services to ensure children’s safety while they remain in their own homes (either prior to or after reunification).
    		• 18 (51)
    Item 4: Risk of harm to child
  • The agency is not consistent in providing sufficient services to address risk of harm to children, particularly in the in-home services cases.
    		•  22 (63)
  • The agency does not consistently monitor families to assess service participation and change in risk factors.
    		• 20 (57)

    Also shown in table I-3, the CFSR found that in 16 (46%) of the 35 States, maltreatment allegations received on a family that is already being served by the child welfare system are not consistently reported as new allegations. Often, if the allegation is made to a central intake system, it is referred to the caseworker who is currently handling the case as an "information" referral rather than being screened for a possible investigation. In other situations, the caseworker may receive an allegation from an outside reporter and decide to address the report directly with the family rather than going through a formal investigation or assessment process. In a few States, this practice is supported by State policy. However, in most States, this practice was noted to be a violation of State policy. This finding creates concerns regarding the accuracy of the State’s data pertaining to maltreatment recurrence, since these allegations would not be included in the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System.

    Common challenges relevant to permanency indicators
    The common challenges found for the permanency indicators are presented in table I-4. Items 10, 11, 12, and 16 are not included in the table either because there were insufficient common concerns or the relevant information was captured in other items. As shown in the table, a key challenge for many States is having a sufficient number and type of placement options to ensure that a child’s out-of-home placement is based on appropriateness rather than availability. Many States also are experiencing challenges in implementing concurrent planning on a consistent basis.

    Table I-4: Common Challenges Identified with Respect to CFSR Permanency Indicators and Number of States for which Concerns were Relevant (FY 2002-2004 CFSR States)
    Permanency Indicators Common Challenges # (%) of States
    N = 35
    Item 5: Re-entry
  • The agency does not have sufficient and/or adequate post-reunification services.
    		• 13 (37)
    Item 6: Stability of foster care placements
  • Emergency shelters frequently are used for initial placements and as "temporary" placements after a disruption occurs, even for young children.
    		• 18 (51)
  • There is a scarcity of appropriate placement options for children with developmental disabilities or with severe behavior problems.
    		• 19 (54)
  • The agency does not consistently provide services to foster parents to prevent placement disruptions.
    		• 21 (60)
  • There is little matching of placements. Placements tend to be based on availability rather than on appropriateness.
    		• 21 (60)
    Item 7: Permanency goal for child
  • A case goal of long-term foster care often is established without thorough consideration of the options of adoption or guardianship.
    		• 15 (43)
  • Concurrent planning efforts are not being implemented on a consistent basis when appropriate.
    		• 26 (74)
  • The goal of reunification often is maintained for too long a period of time before reconsideration.
    		• 24 (69)
  • The agency is not filing for termination of parental rights in a timely manner and reasons for not filing are not provided in the case files.
    		• 12 (34)
    Item 8: Reunification, guardianship and permanent placement with relatives
  • The agency is not consistent in its efforts to provide the services to parents or ensure parents’ access to the services necessary for reunification.
    		• 18 (51)
    Item 9: Adoption
  • The agency is not consistent with regard to conducting adoption home studies or completing adoption-related paperwork in a timely manner.
    		• 17 (49)
  • The appeals process for TPR decisions is extremely lengthy.
    		• 12 (34)
    Item 13: Visiting with parents and siblings
  • The agency is not consistent in its efforts to ensure sufficient visitation among siblings in foster care.
    		• 18 (51)
    Item 14: Preserving connections
  • The agency is not consistent in its efforts to ensure that children's connections to extended family are being preserved while children are in foster care.
    		• 19 (54)
    Item 15: Relative placement
  • The agency is not consistent with regard to seeking paternal relatives as potential placement resources for children entering foster care.
    		•  19 (54)

    Common challenges relevant to child well-being indicators
    The common challenges identified for States with regard to the seven child well-being indicators are presented in table I-5.

    Table I-5: Common Challenges Identified with Respect to Specific Child Well Being Indicators and Number of States for which Challenges were Relevant - FY 2002-2004 CFSR States
    Well Being 1 Indicators Common Challenges # (%) of States
    N = 35
    Item 17: Needs and services of child, parents, foster parents
  • The agency is not consistent in providing appropriate services to meet the identified needs of children and parents.
    		• 31 (89)
  • The agency is not consistent in conducting adequate assessments to determine the needs of children, parents, and/or foster parents.
    		• 30 (86)
  • The agency is not consistent in providing services to support foster parents or relative caretakers.
    		• 20 (57)
    Item 18: Child and family involvement in case planning
  • Fathers are not sufficiently involved in case planning.
    		• 35 (100)
  • Children (age appropriate) are not sufficiently involved in case planning.
    		• 35 (100)
  • Mothers are not sufficiently involved in case planning.
    		• 35 (100)
    Item 19: Worker visits with child
  • The frequency of face-to-face contacts between workers and children is not consistently sufficient to ensure children’s safety and well being.
    		• 27 (77)
  • When establishing face-to-face contact with children, workers are not consistently focusing on issues pertinent to case planning and achieving goals.
    		• 14 (40)
    Item 20: Worker visits with parents
  • The frequency of face-to-face contacts between workers and parents is not consistently sufficient to ensure children's safety and promote attainment of case goals.
    		• 34 (97)
  • The agency does not make concerted efforts to establish contact with fathers, even when fathers are involved in their children’s lives.
    		• 13 (37)
  • When establishing face-to-face contacts with parents, workers are not consistently focusing on issues pertaining to case planning and achieving case goals.
    		• 14 (40)

    Well Being 2 & 3 Indicators Common Challenges # (%) of States

    Item 21:Educational needs of the child

  • Many children in foster care experienced multiple school changes as a result of placement changes.
    		• 20 (57)
  • The agency is not consistent in providing services to meet children’s needs with respect to identified education-related problems.
    		• 18 (51)
    Item 22: Physical health of the child
  • The number of dentists/doctors in the State willing to accept Medicaid is not sufficient to meet the need.
    		• 27 (77)
  • The agency is not consistent in providing children with preventive health and/or dental services.
    		• 14 (40)
  • The agency is not consistent in conducting adequate, timely health assessments.
    		• 13 (37)
    Item 23: Mental health of the child
  • There is a lack of mental health services for children.
    		• 25 (71)
  • The agency is not consistent in conducting mental health assessments.
    		• 24 (69)

    As shown in the table, many States are encountering challenges in their efforts to provide services that are sufficient to meet the identified needs of children and their parents, involve parents and children in the case planning process, and establish sufficient face-to-face contact between agency caseworkers and the children and parents in their caseloads. Often the ability to address these challenges is hindered by the large caseloads carried by child welfare caseworkers.

    How did States perform on the systemic factors and indicators?

    As noted previously, the CFSR assesses State performance on 7 systemic factors and 21 indicators. States are rated on a scale from 1 to 4 for each systemic factor. The criteria for rating each factor are specified in the CFSR Procedures Manual, which is available on the Children’s Bureau’s website. States are determined to be "in substantial conformity" with the factor if they receive a rating of 3 or 4. They are determined to be "not in substantial conformity" if they receive a rating of 1 or 2. Each of the 21 indicators (items) incorporated in the factors is rated as a "Strength" or an "Area Needing Improvement."

    Table I-6 presents the findings with respect to State performance on the systemic factors and indicators. As shown in the table, most States were in substantial conformity with the systemic factors of Statewide Information System; Agency Responsiveness to the Community; and Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment and Retention. However, within the latter systemic factor, only 38 percent of the States received a rating of Strength for the indicator pertaining to recruiting foster and adoptive parents that reflect children’s racial and ethnic diversity. The indicators that were determined to be a Strength for almost all States pertained to having the necessary standards in place for foster family and child care institutions and conducting the necessary background checks.

    Only a few States were found to be in substantial conformity with the systemic factor of Case Review System, with 6 of the 52 States receiving a rating of Strength for the indicator of case plan development and joint planning with parents. For the most part, States were determined to need improvement in their efforts to involve parents in the case planning process on a consistent basis. However, the majority of States were found to have implemented a 6-month case review process that operates in a consistent and timely manner.

    Less than one-half of the States achieved substantial conformity with the systemic factor of Service Array. Within this factor, only 9 States received a rating of Strength for the indicator pertaining to the accessibility of services in all jurisdictions. However, more than one-half of the States were found to be effective in individualizing services to meet the unique needs of children and families.

    Table I-6: Number and Percent of the 52 "States" Achieving Substantial Conformity for the 7 Systemic Factors and Number and Percent Receiving a Rating of "Strength" for the 22 Indicators (FY 2001 – 2004 CFSR States)
    Systemic Factors Number (%) Achieving Substantial Conformity Number (%)
    Rated as
    "Strength"
    IV. Statewide Information System 45 (87) blank cell
    Item 24: System can identify the status, demographic characteristics, location and goals of children in foster care blank cell 45 (87)
    V. Case Review System 13 (25) blank cell
    Item 25: Process for developing a case plan and for joint case planning with parents blank cell 6 (12)
    Item 26: Process for 6-month case reviews blank cell 42 (81)
    Item 27: Process for 12-month permanency hearings blank cell 26 (50)
    Item 28: Process for seeking TPR in accordance with ASFA blank cell 22 (42)
    Item 29: Process for notifying caregivers of reviews and hearings and for opportunity for them to be heard blank cell 26 (50)
    VI. Quality Assurance System 35 (67) blank cell
    Item 30: Standards to ensure quality services and ensure children’s safety and health blank cell 44 (85)
    Item 31: Identifiable QA system that evaluates the quality of services and improvements blank cell 31 (60)
    VII. Training 34 (65) blank cell
    Item 32: Provision of initial staff training blank cell 34 (65)
    Item 33: Provision of ongoing staff training that addresses the necessary skills and knowledge. blank cell 27 (52)
    Item 34: Provision of training for caregivers and adoptive parents that addresses the necessary skills and knowledge blank cell 38 (73)
    VIII. Service Array 23 (44) blank cell
    Item 35: Availability of services blank cell 25 (48)
    Item 36: Accessibility of services in all jurisdictions blank cell 9 (17)
    Item 37: Ability to individualize services to meet unique needs blank cell 30 (58)
    IX. Agency Responsiveness to the Community 49 (94) blank cell
    Item 38: Engages in ongoing consultation with critical stakeholders in developing the CFSP blank cell 46 (88)
    Item 39: Develops annual progress reports in consultation with stakeholders blank cell 40 (77)
    Item 40: Coordinates services with other Federal programs blank cell 45 (87)
    X. Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment and Retention 43 (83) blank cell
    Item 41: Standards for foster family and child care institutions blank cell 51 (98)
    Item 42: Standards are applied equally to all foster family and child care institutions blank cell 43 (83)
    Item 43: Conducts necessary criminal background checks blank cell 50 (96)
    Item 44: Diligent recruitment of foster and adoptive families that reflect children’s racial and ethnic diversity blank cell 21 (40)
    Item 45: Uses cross-jurisdictional resources to find placements blank cell 47 (90)

    What are the challenges to State performance on the systemic factors and indicators?

    To understand the common challenges that States experience with respect to their systemic factors, a content analysis was conducted of the CFSR Final Reports for the 35 States participating in a CFSR from FY 2002 to FY 2004. A "common challenge" was one that was relevant to approximately one-third of the 35 participating States (or 12 States).

    Table I-7 presents the common challenges relevant to State performance on the systemic factors. As shown in the table, many States experience similar challenges with regard to the systemic factors. The most common challenge pertains to involving the family, particularly the father and older children, in developing the case plan. This concern was identified in the onsite review of all States participating in CFSR from FY 2002 to FY 2005. Another common challenge pertains to providing foster parents with the opportunity to be heard in court hearings and reviews involving the children in their care. Stakeholders interviewed during the onsite reviews noted that (1) some judges are unclear on how to permit foster caretakers an opportunity to be heard in reviews and hearings pertaining to children in their care, and how to treat their input; (2) many foster parents are intimidated by court hearings or are hesitant to speak in front of biological parents; (3) court hearings may require the foster parent to be present for many hours and the agency usually does not provide child care; and (4) some caseworkers and legal staff actively discourage foster parents from attending.

    Most of the 35 States participating in a CFSR in FY 2002-2004 were determined to have insufficient mental health assessment and treatment services to meet the needs of children in the child welfare system. Many States also lacked other key services for children, particularly specialized foster care for children with behavioral or emotional problems, medically fragile children, and adolescents. States also were found to have insufficient services for parents, particularly substance abuse assessment and treatment services and mental health services. Finally, a key challenge in many States is that there are not enough doctors and dentists who are willing to accept the State’s Medicaid reimbursement level. A critical concern identified by a large number of States pertained to the lack of dentists willing to accept the State’s level of Medicaid reimbursement. Consequently, children in the child welfare system often do not get the services they need.

    Table I-7: Common Challenges Identified with Respect to the Systemic Factor Indicators (FY 2002-2004 CFSR States)
    Systemic Factors Common Challenges # (%) of States
    N = 35
    IV. Statewide Information System blank cell blank cell
    Item 24: System can identify the status, demographic characteristics, location and goals of children in foster care
  • Agency workers are not entering information on a timely basis, which raises concerns about accessibility of accurate information at any given time.
    		• 15 (43)
    V. Case Review System blank cell blank cell
    Item 25: Process for developing a case plan and for joint case planning with parents
  • Parents, particularly fathers, and/or children, are not routinely involved in the development of the case plan.
    		• 34 (97)
  • Case plans are boilerplate and are not addressing the individualized needs of families and children.
    		• 11 (31)
    Item 26: Process for 6-month case reviews
  • Case reviews are not sufficiently comprehensive to be effective in moving children toward permanency.
    		• 11 (31)
    Item 27: Process for 12-month permanency hearings
  • Permanency hearings are not held in a timely manner on a consistent basis, due primarily to a practice of granting continuances and/or to overburdened court dockets.
    		• 19 (54)
    Item 28: Process for seeking TPR in accordance with ASFA
  • The agency and/or court are inconsistent with regard to seeking TPR in accordance with the provisions of ASFA.
    		• 27 (77)
  • Many judges are reluctant to terminate parental rights either because adequate services have not been provided to parents or because an adoptive family has not been identified.
    		• 19 (54)
  • There are delays in attaining TPR because of crowded court dockets and/or a lengthy appeals process.
    		• 21 (60)
    Item 29: Process for notifying caregivers of reviews and hearings and for opportunity for them to be heard
  • Foster parents are not consistently informed about upcoming hearings and/or case reviews.
    		• 26 (74)
  • Foster parents are not always given the opportunity to be heard in court hearings.
    		• 31 (89)
    VI. Quality Assurance System blank cell blank cell
    Item 31: Identifiable QA system
  • There is no statewide quality assurance system in place.
    		• 12 (34)
    VII. Training blank cell blank cell
    Item 32: Provision of initial staff training
  •   The initial training provided to new workers does not adequately prepare them for the job.     		17 (49)
  • New caseworkers may receive caseloads before participating in or completing training.
    •      		 18 (51)
    Item 33: Provision of ongoing staff training
  • Agency staff participation in ongoing training is limited due to heavy caseloads or lack of funds to pay for additional training.
    •      		 20 (57)
  • There is insufficient training regarding cultural competency and the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).
    •      		 11 (31)
    VIII. Service Array blank cell blank cell
    Item 35: Availability of services
  • Mental health assessment and treatment services are not sufficient to meet children’s needs.
    •      		 31 (89)
  • There are an insufficient number of doctors and dentists (particularly dentists) willing to accept Medicaid.
    •      		 22 (63)
  • Other key services for parents are lacking (e.g., substance abuse assessment and treatment, child care, respite care, transportation, domestic violence services, home-based services, housing, and post-reunification services).
    •      		 30 (86)
  • Other key services for children are lacking (e.g., specialized foster care for specific populations and independent living services).
    •      		 33 (94)
    Item 36: Accessibility of services across all jurisdictions
  • There are fewer services in rural areas than in urban areas and transportation to access services is limited.
    •      		 25 (71)
  • There are waiting lists for services in many areas of the State, particularly substance abuse treatment services and family preservation services.
    •      		 24 (69)
    Item 37: Ability to individualize services to meet unique needs
  • There is a lack of culturally appropriate services to meet the needs of diverse populations.
    •      		 18 (51)
    IX. Agency Responsiveness to the Community blank cell blank cell
    Item 38: Engages in ongoing consultation with stakeholders in developing the CFSP
  •   There is a need for greater collaboration and cooperation between the agency and external stakeholders (e.g., the Courts, Mental Health, Tribes, School Systems).
    		•  15 (43)
    X. Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment and Retention blank cell blank cell
    Item 44: Diligent recruitment of foster and adoptive families that reflect children’s racial and ethnic diversity
  •   There is a shortage of foster homes, particularly homes for (1) adolescents, (2) juvenile sexual offenders, (3) children with special needs, and (4) large sibling groups.
    		•  14 (40)
  • There is a need for more culturally diverse homes (e.g., Native American, African American, Hispanic).
    •      		 22 (63)
    Item 45: Uses cross-jurisdictional resources to find placements
  •   ICPC is a slow process and the agency is hesitant to rely on Interstate placements (e.g. placements with relatives)
    		•  15 (43)

    What is the relationship between performance on systemic factors and performance on outcomes and indicators?

    Analyses were conducted to examine the potential relationships between State performance on the systemic factors and State performance on outcomes and indicators. Because of the changes in the CFSR assessment instruments after FY 2001, States participating in a CFSR in FY 2001 are not included in these analyses. All possible inter-relationships were examined for those systemic factors for which there was sufficient variation in State performance to establish comparison groups. The systemic factor of Case Review System was not included because there were only two FY 2002 – 2004 CFSR States that were determined to be in substantial conformity with this factor. In contrast, the systemic factors of Statewide Information System, Agency Responsiveness to the Community, and Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment and Retention were not included in the analyses because almost all of the FY 2002-2004 CFSR States achieved substantial conformity with these factors.

    The analyses resulted in the significant findings presented below. The level of significance established for this analysis was a probability (p) equal to or less than .01 that the observed difference could have happened by chance. In actuality, many of the probability levels exceeded .001.

    The following results were found with respect to State performance on the systemic factor of Service Array.

    These findings suggest that having sufficient services throughout the State and being able to individualize services to meet the unique needs of children and families is related to achieving outcomes pertaining to enhancing a family’s capacity to provide for the needs of their children and ensuring the permanency and stability of the living situations for children in foster care.

    The following results were found with respect to performance on the systemic factor of Quality Assurance System.

    These findings suggest that States that have established a Statewide Quality Assurance System to continually assess various aspects of child welfare agency performance and child and family outcomes are more likely than other States to be able to enhance a family’s capacity to provide for the needs of their children. These States also may be somewhat more likely than other States to protect children known to the child welfare system from abuse and neglect and to ensure that the children’s physical and mental health needs are being met.

    The following results were found with respect to States performance on specific indicators pertaining to the systemic factor of Case Review System that are assumed to be directly related to permanency. This includes the 6-month reviews (item 26), the 12-month permanency hearings (item 27), and procedures to seek termination of parental rights (TPR) in accordance with the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) (item 28).

    The implementation of frequent case reviews (at least every 6 months) was found to be significantly associated with ongoing efforts to enhance the family’s capacity to provide for their children’s needs (Well-Being Outcome 1). Frequent case reviews also were found to be significantly associated with efforts to achieve adoptions in a timely manner. However, frequent case reviews were not found to be associated with efforts to achieve reunification, guardianship, or permanent placement with relatives in a timely manner. The specific significant findings were the following:

    The implementation of 12-month permanency hearings on a consistent basis (item 27) was not related to performance on the child outcomes, but was found to be significantly associated with efforts to achieve adoption in a timely manner. The specific finding was the following:

    Seeking TPR on a consistent basis in accordance with the provisions of ASFA (item 28) was found to be significantly associated with the attainment of permanency for children in a timely manner. It is interesting to note that performance on this indicator was not only significantly associated with efforts to achieve adoptions in a timely manner but also with efforts to achieve reunifications, guardianship, and permanent placement with relatives in a timely manner. Specific significant findings were the following:

    Does State performance vary as a function of the characteristics of the children included in the case review sample?

    Because of the extensive variation across States with regard to the characteristics (i.e., age, race/ethnicity, gender, and reason for opening of a child welfare case) of the children in the State’s foster care case sample, analyses were conducted to determine whether overall State performance on the outcomes and indicators varied as a function of differences in these characteristics. Most of the analyses include only foster care cases (for FY 2001 – 2004 CFSR States) because those cases involved a specific target child whose characteristics could be identified. Ratings for the in-home cases were based on all children in the family and therefore there was no target child to specify with respect to age, race/ethnicity, or gender. However, the analyses with respect to primary reason for case opening included all cases in the State’s sample.

    Variations with regard to children’s age
    The States’ foster care samples differed considerably with respect to the ages of the children both at entry into foster care and at the start of the period under review (the time period selected for each State on which outcome and indicator ratings are based). For example, the percentage of children in the State foster care case sample who were age 13 or older at the start of the period under review ranged from 9.7 to 70.0. The percentage of children in the State foster care sample who were younger than age 6 at the start of the period under review ranged from 3.4 to 56.0.

    Analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between a State’s foster care sample with respect to age and a State’s performance on the permanency outcomes and indicators. A probability level equal to or less than .01 was established for “significance.” No significant relationship was found between the percentage of adolescents (age 13 and older) in a State’s case sample and that State’s performance on the CFSR outcomes. However, a significant relationship was found between the percentage of children in a State’s foster care sample who were younger than age 6 at the time of entry into foster care and the State’s performance on Safety Outcome 2. States with higher percentages (relative to other States) of children in the sample who were younger than age 6 at the time of entry into foster care tended to have a lower percentage of cases (relative to other States) rated as having substantially achieved Safety Outcome 2 (Spearman’s rho = -.44, p = .001).

    Variations with regard to the race/ethnicity of the children
    Correlational analyses were conducted to assess whether a State’s performance on the CFSR outcomes varied as a function of the percentage of cases in the State’s foster care sample in which the child was White. The percentage of the case sample in each State that included children who are White ranged from 0 to 93.5. However, no relationship was found between the percentage of White children in the State’s foster care sample and the State’s ratings for the outcomes.

    Variations with regard to gender
    An analysis was conducted to assess whether States’ performance on the permanency outcomes varied as a function of gender. The samples ranged from 32 percent female to 64 percent female. However, no relationship was found between the percent of cases in a State sample in which the children are female and the State’s rating for any of the outcomes.

    Variations with regard to reason for case opening
    A key issue raised during the CFSR implementation concerned State variation with respect to child welfare cases being opened because of child behavior rather than because of child abuse or neglect. In some States, cases are opened in the child welfare system as a result of the child’s behavior (i.e., child in need of supervision, child is delinquent, or child has substance abuse problem), while in other States the child welfare system does not handle these types of cases, or handles these types of cases only rarely. The percentage of cases that were opened as a result of child behavior ranged considerably across States from 0 cases to 48 percent of cases.

    Several stakeholders suggested that this variation would have critical implications for State performance on the outcomes and indicators. However, the analyses conducted to assess the relationship between the percentage of cases in a State that were opened due to child behavior and a State’s performance on the CFSR outcomes resulted in non-significant findings for all outcomes. In addition, the correlations (Spearman’s rho) were quite small, with several of them approaching zero.

    These findings suggest that the variation in the characteristics of the children in a State’s foster care sample did not appear to have a significant impact on outcome ratings. The one exception was that States with a low percentage of children in the sample who entered foster care when they were younger than age 6 tended to have higher ratings for Safety Outcome 1 than States with a high percentage of children in the sample who entered foster care when they were younger than age 6.