[Federal Register: July 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 135)]

[Proposed Rules]               

[Page 40345-40382]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr14jy06-23]                         

[[Page 40345]]

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

Part VII

Department of Health and Human Services

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

Administration for Children and Families

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

45 CFR Part 1356

Chafee National Youth in Transition Database; Proposed Rule

[[Page 40346]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families

45 CFR Part 1356

RIN 0970-AC21

Chafee National Youth in Transition Database

AGENCY: Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), 

Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health 

and Human Services (DHHS).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is 

proposing to add regulations at 45 CFR part 1356 to require States to 

collect and report data to ACF on youth who are receiving independent 

living services and the outcomes of certain youth who are in foster 

care or who age out of foster care. This proposed rule implements the 

data collection requirements of the Foster Care Independence Act of 

1999 (Public Law 106-169) as incorporated into the Social Security Act 

at section 477.

DATES: In order to be considered, we must receive written comments on 

this notice of proposed rulemaking on or before September 12, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding 

this proposed rule to Kathleen McHugh, Director, Division of Policy, 

Children's Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, 

Administration for Children and Families, 1250 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

8th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. You may also transmit comments via e-

mail to CBcomments@acf.hhs.gov or electronically via the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.acf.hhs.gov. We urge you to submit comments 

electronically to ensure that we receive them in a timely manner. To 

download an electronic version of the rule, you should access http://www.regulations.gov/.

 Comments will be available for public inspection 

Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the above address by 

contacting Miranda Lynch at (202) 205-8138.

    Comments that concern information collection requirements must be 

sent to the Office of Management and Budget at the address listed in 

the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this preamble. A copy of these 

comments also may be sent to the Department representative listed 

above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen McHugh, Director of Policy, 

Children's Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, 202/

401-5789 or by e-mail at kmchugh@acf.hhs.gov. Do not e-mail comments on 

the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to this address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The preamble to this notice of proposed 

rulemaking is organized as follows:

I. Background

    A. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program Legislative History

    B. Statutory Requirement for a Data Collection System

II. Consultation Process

    A. Development of Outcomes

    B. Identification of Youth Characteristics and Services

    C. Data Reporting Methods and Procedures

    D. Comments on Alternative or Future Approaches

III. Overview of Proposed National Youth in Transition Database 

(NYTD)

    A. Summary of the NYTD

    B. The NYTD as a Separate Collection and Reporting Activity

IV. Section-by-Section Discussion of NPRM

V. Charts and Tables

    A. Chart 1: Outcomes and Relevant Data Elements

    B. Table 1: Example of State Sample Sizes

    C. Chart 2: Overview of Proposed NYTD

VI. Impact Analysis

I. Background

A. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program Legislative History

    Each year thousands of young people are discharged from State 

foster care systems because they reach the age at which they are no 

longer eligible for out-of-home placement services. During the early 

1980s, research and anecdotal evidence indicated that many young people 

who emancipated from foster care experienced numerous difficulties in 

their attempts to achieve self-sufficiency. Rather than making a 

successful transition to living on their own, a significant percentage 

of these youth experienced homelessness, unemployment, victimization, 

and dependence on various types of public assistance.

    In response to this problem, President Reagan signed into law the 

Title IV-E Independent Living Initiative (Public Law 99-272) in 1986. 

The law provided States with funding to make available independent 

living services to youth in foster care between the ages of 16 and 21. 

Although Public Law 99-272 increased the availability of independent 

living services for some youth in foster care, many child welfare 

researchers, practitioners, youth advocates, and policy makers at the 

Federal and State levels believed that more was necessary for youth to 

make a successful transition from foster care to self-sufficiency. To 

address these concerns, President Clinton signed the Foster Care 

Independence Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106-169) into law on December 14, 

1999, which established the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence 

Program (CFCIP) at section 477 of the Social Security Act (the Act). 

Compared to Public Law 99-272, the Foster Care Independence Act 

provides States with greater funding and flexibility to carry out 

programs to assist youth in making the transition from foster care to 

self-sufficiency. The legislation provides States with funding to 

identify and provide independent living services to youth who are 

likely to remain in foster care until at least age 18--thus removing 

the minimum age requirements for the receipt of independent living 

services. Public Law 106-169 also requires States to provide assistance 

and services to youth who age out of foster care, until age 21, and 

allows States to use part of their funding to provide room and board 

assistance to these youth.

    President Bush later signed the Promoting Safe and Stable Families 

Amendments of 2001 (Pub. L. 107-133) into law on January 17, 2002, 

which provides States with funding specifically for education and 

training vouchers for youth who are eligible for CFCIP services. 

Although the budget for the education and training vouchers is 

authorized and appropriated separately from the general CFCIP grants 

for independent living services, the education and training vouchers 

are integrated into the overall CFCIP program under section 477 of the 

Act.

B. Statutory Requirement for a Data Collection System

    The Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 requires ACF to develop a 

data collection system, in consultation with various stakeholders, to 

perform two functions: (1) track the independent living services States 

provide to youth; and, (2) develop outcome measures that may be used to 

assess State performance in operating their independent living 

programs. With regard to services, the Act requires us to identify data 

elements to track the number and characteristics of children receiving 

services under section 477 of the Act and the type and quantity of 

services States provide. With regard to outcomes, section 477(f)(1) of 

the Act requires that we develop outcome measures, including measures 

of educational attainment, receipt of a high school diploma, 

employment, avoidance of dependency, homelessness, non-marital 

childbirth,

[[Page 40347]]

incarceration, and high-risk behaviors, and the data elements to track 

States' performance on the outcome measures.

    The law also requires that ACF impose a penalty of between one and 

five percent of the State's annual allotment on any State that fails to 

comply with the reporting requirements. ACF must base a State's penalty 

amount on the degree of noncompliance (section 477(e)(2) and (3) of the 

Act).

II. Consultation Process

    To meet the statutory mandate, we consulted with a variety of 

stakeholders over several years and gathered useful information, helped 

frame this proposed rule for a data system which we are calling the 

National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD). ACF's consultation on the 

proposed NYTD had the following objectives: (1) To identify a range or 

variety of outcomes that demonstrate that youth are making a successful 

transition from foster care to living on their own; (2) to identify 

youth characteristics and the independent living services provided to 

youth; and (3) to identify data reporting methods and procedures. In 

addition, we invited several States to conduct a pilot test of draft 

data definitions and collection procedures suggested by the 

consultation groups.

A. Development of Outcomes

    The outcomes consultation process included national discussion 

groups on generally expected outcomes for youth leaving foster care and 

involved such participants as child welfare agency administrators and 

independent living coordinators at the State, Tribal, and local levels; 

public and private agency youth service providers; technical assistance 

providers; child welfare advocates; group home staff and 

administrators; and current and former foster youth and foster parents. 

The discussion groups took place in a variety of venues, mostly led by 

ACF, our contractors and resource centers, as well as the National 

Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators. We also sought 

information from a variety of stakeholders on specific outcomes and 

measures that could become a part of the NYTD.

B. Identification of Youth Characteristics and Services

    Independent of our outcomes consultation, we consulted widely to 

identify the characteristics of youth necessary to provide a clear 

picture of who is receiving independent living services from States, 

and the type and quantity of services they receive. We held conference 

calls with independent living coordinators and information technology 

managers from several States to determine the types of data related to 

independent living services and characteristics of youth that States 

currently collect. We also requested information on what data State 

staff considered necessary to describe accurately the youth served and 

the services received, and the data that could most easily be obtained 

or reported by States.

    In addition, we formed a data work group to analyze the results of 

a pilot test of the draft proposed data elements. The data work group 

consisted of child welfare directors, independent living coordinators, 

and information systems managers from seven States and one Tribe. 

Representatives of the American Public Human Services Association 

(APHSA) and three of the Children's Bureau's National Resource Centers 

for child welfare also participated in this data work group.

    The pilot test, which was conducted in August 2001, served as a 

field test of the draft data elements, definitions, and procedures and 

provided valuable information for assessment of the data collection 

burden on the States. In each of the seven pilot States, caseworkers 

collected data about several older youth, identified any unclear 

definitions, and described any difficulties encountered while 

collecting data. Each pilot State also was asked to report the amount 

of effort required to collect the information. We used these responses 

to assess the burden for workers, and to learn if the capacity to 

report data varied significantly across agencies or States.

C. Data Reporting Methods and Procedures

    As a final step we consulted with various stakeholders on how to 

develop reporting methods and procedures for the proposed NYTD. We 

interviewed more than 25 system developers, managers, and users of the 

Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS), the 

National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS), and the Runaway 

and Homeless Youth Management Information System (RHYMIS). This 

consultation focused on the reporting population, and how and when data 

should be collected at the State level and reported to ACF. These 

comments were important considerations in our proposals for reporting 

population, reporting frequency, and data content.

D. Comments on Alternative or Future Approaches

    As with all proposed rules, we are seeking to extend our 

consultation by requesting specific comments on what is proposed 

herein. However, throughout the preamble we have indicated some areas 

where we are interested in receiving comments on approaches that we 

have not proposed officially. We want to highlight those areas here to 

ensure that we receive sufficient comment on these issues:

     Conducting outcome data collection activities on young 

people ages 17, 19 and 21 years old (sections 1356.82 and 1356.83)

     Exploring how States can use Extensible Mark-Up Language 

(XML) to transmit data files to the NYTD (section 1356.83(h));

     Providing States with incentives to meet file submission 

and data standards in the form of a prospective penalty reduction for 

meeting certain data standards;

     Increasing the data standards for the State to obtain 

outcome information on youth over time (section 1356.85(b)(3)); and,

     Using `cross-file checks' as a factor of compliance in the 

NYTD (section 1356.85(c)).

III. Overview of the Proposed NYTD

A. Summary of the NYTD

    Please refer to the end of the preamble for a Chart 2 on the 

proposed NYTD that accompanies this section.

    As discussed in the section-by-section analysis later in the 

preamble, we are proposing that States report to NYTD four types of 

information about youth: their services, characteristics, outcomes, and 

basic demographics. In terms of services, we are proposing that States 

identify the type of independent living services or financial 

assistance that the State provides to youth. The State also will 

identify the characteristics of each youth receiving independent living 

services, such as their education level and tribal membership.

    In terms of outcomes, we are proposing that States gather and 

report information on youth who are or were in foster care that we can 

use to measure the collective outcomes of these youth and potentially 

assess the State's performance in this area. In particular, we are 

proposing that States survey young people for outcomes information who 

are or were previously in foster care, regardless of the independent 

living services they are receiving or received. States will collect 

information on these youth at three specific intervals: on or about the 

youth's 17th

[[Page 40348]]

birthday while the youth is in foster care; two years later on or about 

the youth's 19th birthday; and again on or about the youth's 21st 

birthday. States must report on 19- and 21-year-olds who participated 

in data collection at age 17 while in foster care, even if they are no 

longer in the State's foster care system or receiving independent 

living services at ages 19 and 21. States will collect outcome 

information on a new cohort of youth (17-year-olds in foster care) 

every three years.

    We are proposing that the State survey youth regarding six outcomes 

that came out of our consultation and are consistent with the law's 

mandate. Those six outcomes focus on the youth's financial self-

sufficiency, experience with homelessness, educational attainment, 

positive connections with adults, high-risk behavior, and access to 

health insurance. States will gather information on young people such 

as: whether the youth is employed; whether the youth is receiving 

public and/or other types of assistance; a youth's educational 

achievement levels; whether a youth has been incarcerated; and a 

youth's marital and parenting status. We will not use the data to 

assess the progress of individual youth; rather, we propose to use the 

information to assess the collective outcomes of youth and potentially 

evaluate State performance with regard to those outcomes.

    Finally, we also are proposing that States identify basic 

demographic information, such as sex and race of each youth in the 

reporting population.

    States will report all four types of information (services, 

characteristics, outcomes, and basic demographics) to the NYTD semi-

annually, on a Federal fiscal year basis. ACF will evaluate a State's 

data file against file submission and data compliance standards 

designed to ensure that we have quality data on our target reporting 

populations. States that fail to achieve any of the compliance 

standards for a reporting period will be given an opportunity to submit 

corrected data to us. If a State's corrected data does not comply with 

the data standards, the State will be subject to a penalty of between 

one and five percent of the State's annual CFCIP funding, depending on 

the level of noncompliance.

    Implementation of NYTD will be dependent on the issuance of a final 

rule. We anticipate giving States approximately one year from the 

publication of the final rule before we will require them to collect 

and report data. States may use their CFCIP funds to develop and 

support any changes to their information systems to collect and report 

information to NYTD. States with a Statewide Automated Child Welfare 

Information System (SACWIS) may claim appropriate costs under title IV-

E, if the changes to their SACWIS to meet NYTD requirements are 

consistent with an approved advanced planning document (APD) and cost 

allocation plan.

    Finally, we would like to note that we are not proposing 

performance standards for States in this NPRM. Rather we are proposing 

outcome measures and the data elements that will track those outcomes. 

While we have not decided definitively to develop standards, we believe 

that we can only develop standards once States begin to report data to 

the NYTD, thus giving us a basis for establishing standards.

B. The NYTD as a Separate Data Collection and Reporting Activity

    With this NPRM we are proposing a new Federal database of 

information on youth who are receiving independent living services and 

the outcomes of older youth who are in foster care and those that leave 

foster care. Although we considered the requests of some consultation 

participants to fold the data requirements for the CFCIP into one of 

ACF's existing child welfare national databases, we decided against 

doing so because: (1) The proposed NYTD reporting population is 

significantly different than the reporting populations of other 

databases; (2) we can link a youth's foster care experience with their 

independent living information between data systems without combining 

databases; (3) combining databases does not reduce the cost or burden 

on States or the Federal government; and (4) the different authorizing 

statutes and penalty structures do not lend themselves to combining the 

databases.

    States currently send data to two central, child welfare databases 

that are maintained by the Children's Bureau: the National Child Abuse 

and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) and the Adoption and Foster Care 

Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS). States report information 

voluntarily to NCANDS about reports of child abuse and neglect and the 

child protective services agency response to these allegations (see 

sections 103(c) and 106(d) of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment 

Act, as amended). A vast majority of children whom States report to 

NCANDS never enter foster care, or return home from foster care long 

before they are likely to age out of the foster care system. Because of 

the voluntary nature of NCANDS and the broader scope of the reporting 

population, we do not believe it is an appropriate mechanism to capture 

information on youth receiving independent living services or their 

outcomes.

    States are required by law and regulation to submit data to AFCARS 

on all children in foster care or adopted with the involvement of the 

State child welfare agency (see section 479 of the Act and 45 CFR 

1355.40). Nearly all youth who will receive independent living services 

are or once were in a State's foster care system (with the exception of 

some youth who may be served through an Indian tribe or privately 

operated foster care program), so the AFCARS population more closely 

tracks that of the proposed NYTD than does the NCANDS population. 

However, the population of older youth ages 19 and 21 on whom we are 

seeking independent living outcome information are not often reported 

in AFCARS, because States are required to report on only children in 

foster care who are typically youth under 18. Further, while States do 

provide ACF with information about these youths' foster care 

experiences and demographic information as part of their AFCARS 

submissions, AFCARS currently does not collect any information on 

independent living services or outcomes specific to these youth.

    Despite the disparate reporting populations, we considered whether 

adding an independent living component to AFCARS would prove beneficial 

to States and ACF. One purported benefit of a combined submission is 

that States would combine information on a youth's foster care 

experience, services and outcomes into a single report. However, we can 

achieve this goal with the separate database we propose here. This is 

because we are proposing that States identify youth reported to NYTD in 

the same way they do for AFCARS, so that we can associate information 

between the two databases. We expect, therefore, to lay the groundwork 

for analysis of a broader picture of the experiences that youth have in 

and after leaving foster care.

    Another potential benefit of a combined submission pointed out 

during consultation is that States would not have to repeat some of the 

basic demographic information for youth who are or were previously in 

their foster care system. Some believed that avoiding this kind of 

duplication would reduce the cost for States of this new data 

collection effort. However, although some of the proposed NYTD elements 

at first glance may appear to be identical to AFCARS elements, they are

[[Page 40349]]

in fact defined differently so that we can achieve the law's purpose of 

understanding a youth's services and independent living outcomes versus 

their foster care experience. Therefore, only three demographic 

elements (race, sex and date of birth) are duplicates. Since we 

understand that States store this demographic information in their 

information systems, the only duplicated effort is in the State 

compiling it into another report to ACF.

    Moreover, combining the reporting files does not substantially 

lower the amount of effort a State will expend to change its practices 

to gather the information we are proposing they collect. For example, 

requiring the State to send an additional file with information 

specific to independent living to AFCARS will not decrease the State's 

burden in changing its information systems to collect services 

information, training and requiring caseworkers or service providers to 

record information on youth services, and implementing a strategy to 

collect outcome information from older youth. Similarly, we do not 

believe that combining the databases saves the Federal government any 

costs to store or analyze the data, or conduct technical assistance and 

oversight activities.

    Finally, the authorizing statutes for AFCARS and the proposed NYTD 

are very different, requiring different approaches to compliance and 

penalties. Section 474(f) of the Act mandates that we penalize States a 

portion of their title IV-E administrative funds spent on foster care 

for not complying with AFCARS requirements, and requires us to continue 

to penalize a State for the period of the noncompliance. Section 477 of 

the Act requires us to penalize States that do not comply with the data 

collection effort in the amount of one and five percent of their annual 

Chafee funds, depending on the extent of noncompliance. Therefore, to 

meet these separate requirements and penalty schemes, AFCARS 

information would have to remain distinguishable from the independent 

living information to an extent that renders combining the two 

databases meaningless.

    We believe that keeping the information collected separate from 

AFCARS will help us highlight the experiences of youth transitioning 

into independent living and will not disrupt State and Federal efforts 

to improve the quality of AFCARS data. Furthermore, many State managers 

of the Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System, those 

individuals who would be tasked with developing a system that adheres 

to NYTD and AFCARS requirements in the State, preferred to send a 

separate data submission to ACF.

IV. Section-by-Section Discussion of NPRM

    We propose to add new sections 1356.80 to 1356.86 as follows:

Section 1356.80 Scope of the National Youth in Transition Database

    Under proposed section 1356.80, any State, the District of 

Columbia, or Territory that administers a Chafee Foster Care 

Independence Program (CFCIP) under section 477 of the Social Security 

Act must comply with the requirements for data collection and reporting 

as described in this proposed rule. Currently, all States, the District 

of Columbia and Puerto Rico operate CFCIP programs.

Section 1356.81 Reporting Population

    The NYTD reporting population is comprised of three groups of 

youth: the served, baseline and follow-up populations. They are defined 

further below.

    In paragraph (a), we identify the served population as those youth 

who have received any independent living services paid for or provided 

by the CFCIP agency during the reporting period. The CFCIP agency is 

the same agency as the title IV-B/IV-E agency in the State.

    We have chosen to include in the served population youth who 

receive services that the CFCIP agency makes available, rather than 

just those that are paid for with CFCIP funds specifically. Also 

included in this definition are youth who may obtain an independent 

living service from a source other than the CFCIP agency directly, if 

that service was paid for by the CFCIP agency. For example, the served 

population includes tribal youth who receive services through a tribal 

child welfare agency under a contract or agreement with the State CFCIP 

agency to provide independent living services. We realize that this 

definition is more expansive than that suggested by the statute (see 

section 477(f)(1)(B) of the Act). However, we believe that capturing 

information about all independent living services offered by the 

State's CFCIP agency gives a more complete picture of how each State 

supports youth transitioning into independent living. Moreover, we 

learned through consultations that while States may keep track of 

independent living services that are provided by the agency, many do 

not have systems in place to track a service back to a particular 

Federal funding source.

    We considered proposing that the served population include only 

those youth who are in the State's foster care system, or who have 

previously been in foster care, and are currently receiving independent 

living services from that same State. While most youth who receive 

independent living services from a State have been in foster care in 

that State, some have not. We originally believed that the advantage of 

including only youth who had been in the State's foster care system is 

that the State already would have a case record on these youth that 

included demographic and perhaps, service information. Upon further 

review, however, we grew concerned that we would exclude information 

about the independent living services of youth who were not in this 

limited population. In particular, this definition would not include an 

Indian tribal youth who was never in a State's foster care system, but 

who was receiving independent living services provided by the State's 

CFCIP agency through a contract or agreement with his or her Tribe. 

Since section 477(b)(3)(G) of the Act requires States to serve Indian 

children on the same basis as other youth in the State, we believe it 

is important to include them in the served population. Additionally, a 

limited definition of the served population would exclude youth who may 

move to another State after their tenure in foster care. Therefore, we 

kept the definition broad to better reflect the characteristics and 

number of youth receiving independent living services.

    We also considered requiring States to collect and report services 

information on any youth who is currently in a State's foster care 

system, regardless of whether he or she receives independent living 

services. In other words, States would report information that told us 

which youth are receiving services and what those services are as well 

as which youth are not receiving any services. We considered this 

option originally because it would give us information about the 

characteristics of those youth who were in foster care but were not 

receiving independent living services. Ultimately, we rejected this 

approach because the statute's mandates regarding service information 

are that States provide the number and characteristics of children 

receiving services only (section 477(f)(1)(B)(i) of the Act). As we 

refined the definition of the served population, we came to believe 

that requiring States to report services information on each youth in 

foster care went well beyond the statutory requirements and would pose 

an unnecessary burden on States.

[[Page 40350]]

    We also considered establishing a minimum age of 14 for the served 

population. This option was particularly applicable when we considered 

having a served population that included all youth currently in the 

State's foster care system, regardless of whether the youth received 

independent living services. Without a minimum age, this broad 

definition would have encompassed all youth who were in foster care, 

including very young children. Therefore, establishing this minimum 

would help keep State's data collection burden down. Once we revised 

the definition of the served population to include only those youth who 

receive independent living services, a minimum age was not necessary. 

We also did not see a justification to regulate beyond the requirements 

of the statute, which does not include a minimum age for receipt of 

CFCIP services.

    In paragraph (b), we identify the baseline population as all 17-

year-old youth in foster care during a Federal fiscal year for the 

purpose of collecting outcome information. We are referring to these 

youth as the baseline population because we intend to look at cohorts 

of older youth over time, beginning at the point that a cohort turns 

age 17 while in foster care. As such, the 17-year-olds represent the 

starting point or ``baseline'' of our information on youth's 

independent living outcomes and experiences. When we collect additional 

information on these youth as they age (at 19 and 21), we refer to them 

as the follow-up population, which we will describe further below. We 

are requiring that States collect outcome information on the baseline 

population, along with the follow-up population in response to the 

statutory requirement that we develop data elements that are needed to 

track State performance on youth outcomes. The statute's provisions on 

outcomes are quite broad, leaving the decisions on how and on which 

youth we collect outcomes information up to ACF in consultation with 

stakeholders. After our consultation, we believed that surveying the 

same youth over time would best meet our needs of understanding trends 

in youth outcomes and potentially assessing the effect that a State's 

independent living services have on those youth outcomes.

    We settled on proposing 17-year-olds in foster care for whom we 

would initially collect outcome information as the baseline population 

after considering a number of other proposals. We considered defining 

the initial outcome collection or baseline population as all youth who 

were discharged from foster care at age 16 or older. The primary reason 

for considering 16-year-olds or older youth at the point of discharge 

as the baseline population was so we could have information on how 

prepared youth are for independent living at the time they leave foster 

care. However, participants in the consultation process noted several 

difficulties with using the point of discharge. First, States 

emancipate youth at varying ages, ranging from 18 to 23 depending on 

State policy and the circumstances of the youth. Consequently, using 

the point of discharge for youth age 16 and older as a basis for 

defining our baseline population would result in a group of youth who 

ranged in age from 16 to 23 across the States. We determined that 

because some of the outcomes, such as educational attainment, are 

strongly influenced by age and developmental status, it was important 

to establish consistency by defining a baseline population that 

included youth of the same age. An additional difficulty with defining 

the baseline population in terms of the point of discharge is that 

``discharge'' is defined differently across States and it would be 

difficult to develop a single definition that would accommodate this 

variation. Also, some youth leave their placements before formal 

discharge, sometimes because they run away or are detained on 

delinquency charges, and thus are not available for discharge 

interviews. For these reasons, we decided to define the baseline 

population, in part, on a fixed age rather than a fluid measure such as 

the youth's exit from foster care.

    We also considered a baseline population that would be fixed at the 

youth's 17th birthday but required that the youth have been in foster 

care for a specific length of time, such as six months or 12 months. We 

thought that establishing a minimum time in foster care would ensure 

that youth were in foster care long enough to receive independent 

living services. However, we decided not to require a minimum length of 

time in foster care because that approach overly complicated the data 

collection without a measurable benefit or clear basis of the 

appropriate minimum length of time.

    Ultimately, we chose to look at the outcomes of all 17-year-old 

youth in foster care. We chose 17 as the age for our baseline 

population because it was close to the age when most youth leave foster 

care for independent living (between ages 17 and 19). We also chose to 

look at all 17-year-olds in foster care, as opposed to youth who 

actually had received independent living services. We are able to look 

at all 17-year-olds because the statute's provisions regarding outcome 

information do not limit us to those youth who are receiving 

independent living services. Moreover, we believe it is important to 

capture information on both youth who receive services and those who do 

not in determining youth outcomes and assessing State performance.

    In paragraph (c), we identify the follow-up population as young 

people who turn age 19 or 21 in a fiscal year and who participated in 

the State's data collection as part of the baseline population (i.e., 

at age 17). A youth is considered to have participated as part of the 

baseline population if the State collected and reported a valid 

response (i.e., a response other than ``declined'' and ``not 

applicable'') to any of the outcome-related elements (described later 

in 45 CFR 1356.83(g)(38) through (g)(60)). The follow-up population is 

not limited to youth who are still in foster care, or who are receiving 

independent living services in the State at those later ages.

    In establishing a follow-up population in order to look at 

outcomes, we first wanted to ensure that the follow-up population would 

include at least some young people who are no longer in foster care. 

Including young people who have been discharged from foster care is 

important because we must look at some outcomes required by the law, 

such as homelessness, that cannot be assessed until after youth have 

been discharged. We learned through the consultation process that 

stakeholders are interested in whether youth who remain in foster care 

fare better than their counterparts who have left foster care. We 

considered restricting the follow-up population for outcome information 

to youth who had been discharged from foster care and who were 

continuing to receive independent living services. Based on information 

from participants in the consultation process, however, we determined 

that this restriction was not appropriate because it was too limited to 

assess adequately the performance of the States in operating 

independent living programs.

    We then considered what would be reasonable points at which to 

evaluate how youth were progressing on the outcome measures that were 

most critical to a youth's successful transition to independent living, 

and also feasible for States to follow.

    We chose age 21 as the upper boundary for outcomes collection 

primarily because the Chafee law requires that States provide 

independent living services up to that age. Even though we also are 

capturing information on youth who may not necessarily benefit from 

Federal Chafee

[[Page 40351]]

funds, we expect that the Chafee funding will guide many of the 

services that States provide. Also, although age 18 is considered the 

age of majority in most States, many stakeholders pointed out that 

mainstream society often does not expect youth to be fully self-

sufficient until age 21 or later. We thought, therefore, that looking 

at youth at age 21 was a reasonable point to focus on final outcomes 

for our purposes, although we acknowledge that reaching adulthood is a 

process rather than an event that we expect to occur by a specific age. 

We considered an even later age such as age 23, since the education and 

training vouchers authorized under section 477 of the Act allow a State 

to continue to provide vouchers to that age in certain circumstances. 

However, we believe that for those young people who are not receiving 

vouchers, it is even more likely that at age 23, they will decline to 

participate in data collection than youth at age 19 or 21 who are not 

receiving services. Furthermore, with the passage of time the State 

agency will have lost contact with the youth after the youth's 

emancipation or last receipt of independent living services.

    After determining this upper boundary, we considered whether we 

needed another point in time to assess youth for outcomes. We believe 

that having an interim age for follow-up would allow States to preserve 

the sample by keeping in contact with youth who have aged out of foster 

care. More importantly, looking at outcomes at an interim age can give 

us further insight into youth's developmental pathways. In looking at 

youth outcomes at a variety of ages, we can better observe how youth 

are making the transition to adulthood and self-sufficiency. We chose 

age 19 in particular because it was halfway between the initial 

outcomes collection and the upper boundary, but also because it is an 

age when there are still some youth who are in foster care (there are 

over 10,000 youth age 19 and older according to AFCARS) or receiving 

independent living services from the State.

Section 1356.82 Data Collection Requirements

    In this section, we detail the proposed data collection 

requirements. As used here, data collection refers to the State's 

process for obtaining information that meets the data requirements for 

each youth in the reporting population.

    In paragraph (a)(1), we propose that a State collect information 

for the applicable data elements on each youth for each reporting 

period in which the youth receives independent living services. In 

other words, we are requiring that States collect detailed, client-

level data for as long as the youth receives independent living 

services.

    We chose to propose that States collect client-level data on 

services, rather than aggregate data because of the utility of client-

level data. Client-level data supports more sophisticated analysis of 

the services provided to youth and the characteristics of the youth who 

receive them. For example, with the client-level data proposed here we 

can analyze youth receiving employment services by age, gender and 

location. Aggregate- or program-level data provides only general totals 

of services and characteristics and descriptions of the States overall 

independent living program. While aggregate data often is less 

burdensome for States to collect, we do not believe that aggregate data 

will adequately assist us in meeting the law's objectives to develop 

outcome measures.

    Unlike data collection for a youth in the State's baseline or 

follow-up population, which is conducted at specific times according to 

a youth's age, we propose that the State's data collection for a youth 

in the served population will continue for as long as the youth 

receives services. We are mindful that each State must coordinate with 

service providers in order to track and collect information about youth 

receiving independent living services accurately. During consultation 

we heard from State participants that they had anticipated tracking 

independent living services on an ongoing basis in response to the law 

and their own State needs, and that this approach would not pose a 

significant additional burden.

    In paragraph (a)(2), we propose that the State collect outcomes 

information on the baseline population (17-year-olds in foster care) by 

surveying the youth. Again, we chose case-level data rather than 

aggregate data because case-level data better lends itself to analysis. 

We will require States to collect information on a new baseline 

population every three years. We chose this schedule, rather than 

annually in order to avoid imposing an unnecessary burden on States. 

Participants in the consultation process pointed out that youth 

outcomes generally do not change substantially from year to year, and 

collecting outcome data every three years should be sufficient to 

document trends and address the legislative requirements. We propose 

that States begin to collect outcomes data on the baseline population 

in the first fiscal year of implementation of the NYTD system in 

paragraph (a)(2)(i). As stated in paragraph (a)(2)(ii), States will 

then collect outcomes on a new baseline population every three years 

thereafter.

    We also are proposing that the State collect outcome information 

within 45 days following the youth's 17th birthday, but not before that 

birthday. We allow 45 days to collect the data, rather than requiring 

data collection on each youth's birthday, to reflect real-life tracking 

and scheduling constraints. We also want to impose this time frame to 

ensure that the youth are as close as possible to the same age--i.e., 

all have recently attained their 17th birthdays--to make them 

comparable on that characteristic. This is particularly important in 

understanding certain outcomes, such as the youth's highest educational 

certification level received which is age-sensitive. Finally, we want 

to make sure that States obtain outcome information on the greatest 

number of 17-year-olds in foster care possible, rather than leaving it 

until later in the year when the youth may leave foster care 

voluntarily or otherwise be engaged in a number of activities in 

preparation for discharge.

    We want to note that by giving States 45 days to collect 

information on 17-year-olds, we realize that States may not collect 

information on youth whose birthdays fall at the end of any given 

fiscal year (i.e., in September) at the same rates as youth with other 

birth dates. We acknowledge that this is not an ideal situation, but we 

believe that giving States a sufficient window of opportunity to 

collect information on youth is preferable to ensure that all 17-year-

old youth are captured.