Detailed Information on the
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Grants Assessment

Using the Child and Family Service Reviews (CFSRs) to work with states to improve their child welfare systems with a goal of reducing repeat maltreatment to 7 percent.

Working with grantees and other agency partners to support and improve child welfare program evaluation.

Using revised measures to monitor and improve performance and efficiency.

Using the Child and Family Service Reviews (CFSRs) to work with States to improve their child welfare systems with a goal of reducing repeat maltreatment to 7 percent. Milestone: Provide training to Administration for Children and Families (ACF) central and regional staff on the CFSR process and CFSR data in preparation for the second round of CFSRs.

Implementing a newly developed performance measure for Child Protective Services (CPS) to respond more quickly to reported cases of child abuse and neglect.

Using revised measures to monitor and improve performance and efficiency. Milestone: Discuss reporting of response time and provide technical assistance to States through National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) project to improve completeness and consistency of reporting on the efficiency measure relating to response time.

Working with grantees and other agency partners to support and improve child welfare program evaluation. Milestone: Hold meeting of Federal Inter-agency Workgroup on Child Abuse and Neglect with focus on agencies' evaluation efforts.

Measure: Decrease the percentage of children with substantiated reports of maltreatment that have a repeated substantiated report of maltreatment within six months.

Explanation:Reduce the rate of children with substantiated report of repeat maltreatment within six months

Measure: Nine states or jurisdictions will be in substantial conformity on Safety Outcome Measure 1: "Children are first and foremost protected from abuse and neglect" by the end of FY 2010. To be in substantial conformity with this measure, states must achieve desired outcomes in 95 percent of reviewed cases as well as meet national standards for rates of maltreatment recurrence and the absence of abuse and/or neglect in foster care.

Explanation:Safety Outcome 1 requires that children are protected from abuse and neglect. The long-term goal (state improvement in child welfare outcomes) involves states (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) demonstrating continuous improvement in their child welfare programs. The Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs) assess the performance of state child welfare programs on 7 outcomes and 7 systemic factors.

Measure: Improve states' average response time between maltreatment report and investigation, based on the median of states' reported average response time in hours from screened-in reports to the initiation of the investigation.

Explanation:This annual outcome/efficiency measure is based on the median of all states' average "response time," defined as the hours between the log-in call alleging maltreatment and the initial contact with the alleged victim or other person, where appropriate. This outcome/efficiency measure reflects the timeliness of Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA)-supported activities to initiate an investigation into whether children reported to have experienced neglect or abuse.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The CAPTA (Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act) State Grant Program has a clear focus and a well-defined mission. Its focus, which is articulated in the statute, is children who have experienced or who are at risk of abuse and/or neglect. Its mission is to assist States in improving their child protective services (CPS) systems. The CAPTA State Grant program accomplishes its purpose through a flexible State grant which supplements State and local funds provided for CPS. As a condition of receiving these funds States must meet eligibility requirements which serve as national minimum standards for CPS. They are permitted to use the Federal funds for any of a broad range of child protection activities.

Evidence: Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5101 et seq; 42 U.S.C. 5116 et seq.), as amended, Sec. 106: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/index.htm

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

Explanation: Child abuse and neglect continues to have an impact on a large number of children and families in this country. As cited in Child Maltreatment 2002, during 2002 an average of 2,400 children each day were found to be victims of abuse and neglect. An estimated 2.6 million referrals of abuse or neglect concerning nearly 4.5 million children were received by child protective services (CPS) agencies. More than two-thirds of those referrals were accepted for investigation and treatment. An average of three children died every day as a result of abuse or neglect in 2002. Perhaps the best hard evidence of the need for continued improvement of CPS is provided in the reports of the Child and Family Services Reviews. During these reviews a statewide assessment and an on-site review of the entire child welfare system, including CPS, are undertaken. At the end of the first cycle of reviews, no State has been found to be in substantial conformity on all of the seven outcomes and seven systemic factors that have been reviewed.

Evidence: C. Henry Kempe et al., 'The Battered-Child Syndrome,' The Journal of the American Medical Association 181, 1(July 7, 1962): 17-24. Child Maltreatment 200: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb National Study of Child Protective Services Systems and Reform Efforts: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb Child Welfare League of America: http://www.cwla.org/programs/standards Council of Accreditation: http://www.coanet.org National Center for Youth Law: http://www.youthlaw.org Reports from the Child and Family Services Reviews: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/childwelfarereviews

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

Explanation: The CAPTA State Grant program is designed to work with and supplement State and local funds provided to support the CPS system mandated under State law. State CPS agencies have statutory authority and responsibility to investigate reports of child abuse and neglect and remove children who are not safe from their homes. This authority does not exist in the private sector. The program is not duplicative of any other Federal program. CPS exists at the 'front end' of the child welfare system, and functions to receive and investigate reports of child abuse and neglect. Several other Federal programs are designed to support State and local efforts at various points further along the continuum of care for children and their families.

Evidence: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/index.htm

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

Explanation: Key components of the CAPTA State Grant program design ' eligibility requirements/standards and State flexibility ' promote effectiveness and efficiency in the program. There is no strong evidence that another approach would work better in achieving the program's goals. In order the receive CAPTA State Grant funding, State must provide an assurance that it has in effect and is enforcing a State law, or has in effect and is operating a Statewide program, relating to child abuse and neglect, that includes twenty- four specific provisions ranging from a basic reporting system to a system for responding to reports of medical neglect. In periodic amendments to CAPTA, these requirements are updated and expanded to reflect developments in the child welfare field. This program design serves as an incentive to States to develop their CPS systems to meet basic standards on which there is consensus in the child welfare field.

Evidence: Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/index.htm

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

Explanation: The CAPTA State Grant program is well-targeted to assist States in improving their child protective services (CPS) systems. The statute at section 106(b)-(d) clearly lays out the eligibility requirements that will qualify a State to receive a CAPTA State Grant. A Program Instruction issued by the Children's Bureau provides direction for the submission of the CAPTA State Plan every fifth year, and for the intervening years a Program Instruction is issued with instructions for the submission of an Annual Progress and Services Report (APSR). Each year funds are awarded directly to the State social service agency that administers the CPS system.

Evidence: Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5101 et seq; 42 U.S.C. 5116 et seq.), as amended, Sec. 106(b)-(d): www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/index.htm Program Instructions ACYF-CB-PI-04-01, ACYF-CB-PI-03-05: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/policies

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

Explanation: The Children's Bureau measures improvement in the CPS systems nationwide through the safety measures on three mechanisms: the Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSR), the annual reports on the national set of child welfare outcomes, and the GPRA annual performance goals. Data to support these mechanisms come from the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) and the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS). The performance measures in all three mechanisms are basically the same, and results on the safety measures specifically reflect CPS system performance. CAPTA has also created a new long-term measure that tracks CPS's median response time maltreatment reports to investigations. It is also developing a new measure subject to OMB approval that will track the recidivism rate of child abusers.

Evidence: Child and Family Services Reviews: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/childwelfarereviews; Child Welfare Outcomes Annual Report: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cwo.htm; National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS)

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

Explanation: The CFSR assesses the performance of State child welfare programs (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) on seven outcomes and seven systemic factors. The proposed long-term child welfare outcome target will focus on the seven outcomes (described in 2.1). The following is the target that measures improvement in the States CPS systems:' By 2008, the Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) process will have resulted in 90% of the jurisdictions assessed (47 out of 52) demonstrating continuous improvement on Safety Outcome 1 (Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect) by remaining penalty free. When States are determined not to be in conformity with a particular outcome, they are provided an opportunity to improve their performance. If they fail to improve, a financial penalty is taken. For CPS response times, HHS will urge States to provide timely and accurate data. It will also work closely with States to ensure a continuous reduction in the median number of hours between maltreatment reports and investigations.

Evidence: Child and Family Service Reviews: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/childwelfarereviews

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

Explanation: ACF has created an annual performance measure for the CAPTA program that tracks the rate of repeat maltreatment. It will also reduce the response time of CPS by 5% each year. It will keep track of response time in both hours and days. It will define its targets in terms of hours provided it receives more responses from States; otherwise it will use days for this measure based on the 40+ States currently submitting Child Files. HHS will urge all States to record their response times in hours so that this becomes the standard.

Evidence: NCANDSSee Child and Family Services Reviews URL:www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/childwelfarereviews

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

Explanation: ACF has developed an annual performance measure related to repeat maltreatment, with baselines and ambitious targets. A reduction of 5% in the median response time of CPS is also ambitious based on past trend data. Its baseline will ideally be the 2002 hours data; otherwise it will use the 2003 Child Files data that records the number of days.

Evidence: The current CY2002 measure of maltreatment recurrence at 9% will require a substantial reduction in the number of maltreatment recurrence cases to achieve the national target of a 7% maltreatment recurrence rate. A 5% annual reduction in CPS response time would be a substantial improvement over current performance.

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

Explanation: Under the CAPTA State Grant Program all partners commit to and work towards the annual and long term goals of the program, as a grant requirement as well as a reporting requirement. The Federal Project Officers, Regional Office staff and the State agency program managers (State Liaison Officers) are also required to work to ensure that all grantees are aware of the program goals and work to support them. In addition, all States support the long-term goal of the program by submitting to the Child & Family Service Reviews (CFSRs) and report data on outcomes annually. States also commit to and work toward performance goals by developing Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs) when improvements are required due to substandard performance (defined as performance levels below the national standards identified in 2.4). States are to cooperate with HHS by providing accurate CPS response times. HHS will also work with States on standardizing report categories from high to low priority so that response times can be better analyzed.

Evidence: Final CFSR Reports: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwrp/staterpt/index.htm; Program Improvement Plans (PIPS): www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwrp/pip/index.htm; Child Maltreatment 2002: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm02/index.htm NCANDS

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

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

Evidence: Past studies include the National Study of Child Protective Services Systems and Reform Efforts, but the findings presented in this study do not evaluate CAPTA effectiveness. In addition, they do not address outcomes: the number of public agencies and staff devoted to child protective services, for instance, is not an indicator of program performance; and 'extensive collaboration with law enforcement agencies' is neither sufficiently precise nor does it chart any change in collaboration levels. The Emerging Practices in the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect study is not a representative sample of CAPTA services. In the selected projects, it is unclear where CAPTA was used and what it helped to achieve. Finally, the citizen review panels required by Section 106c of CAPTA are not suitable as evaluations, as they do not provide 'the most rigorous evidence of a program's effectiveness that is appropriate and feasible.'

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

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

Evidence: Congressional Justification for FY 2005 Budget Draft outline for HHS FY 2006 Performance Budget

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

Explanation: The Children's Bureau uses data collected at the Federal, state, local and program level on CAPTA State Grant programs to plan strategically for program changes and improvements. Information is available from State submissions of the CAPTA State Plan and the Annual Program and Services Reports, technical assistance provider reports, and Federal Project Officer and Regional Office staff reviews of plans and annual reports. Changes to the CAPTA State Grant program are made through instructions sent to the States in the annual Program Instruction (PI), through the agency's legislative proposals, and through continuous improvement activities of the Children's Bureau technical assistance providers. This year the Children's Bureau analyzed the data on State performance related to the safety outcomes as reported in the annual National Child Welfare Outcomes report. The fact that we haven't met our annual targets was the basis for a legislative proposal to increase funding for the CAPTA State Grant program in FY 2005 as described in 2.7.

Evidence: Congressional Justification for FY 2005 Budget (See Question 2.7.) Child Welfare Outcomes 2000: Annual Report

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

Explanation: CAPTA State Grant Program performance data is collected and reported in a number of ways. The Children's Bureau conducts the Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSR) to assess state's ability to meet performance targets in the areas of safety, permanence and well-being. In the CFSRs the Children's Bureau looks at State level data specifically on repeat maltreatment, managing risk of harm, services to protect kids in their own homes when possible, assessment and service delivery. States determined not to be in substantial conformity with a CFSR review enter into a detailed program improvement plan. . States are required to submit a five year CAPTA State Plan, including required assurances, that specifies the program areas selected for improvement, an outline of activities, and a description of the services and training to be provided under the CAPTA State Grant. In addition, on an annual basis States are required to report on their expenditures and program activities as part of the Annual Program and Services Report (APSR) required of all Title IV-B and E programs.

Evidence: CFSRs Child Welfare Outcomes 2000: Annual Report Child Maltreatment 2002 ACYF-CB-PI-04-01 (See Question 1.5.) ACYF-CB-PI-03-05 (See Question 1.5.)

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

Explanation: The Implementation Division Director and Federal Project Officer (FPO) have been identified as responsible for oversight of the CAPTA State Grant Program through ACF Regional Offices, in accordance with ACF's Statement of Organization and Functions. In addition, the ACF Regional Offices provide input and monitoring guidance directly to the grantees and the FPO. Performance standards are defined in employees' annual performance plans. States are held accountable through monitoring, joint planning with the Regional Offices, Regional Offices' reviews of the Annual Program and Services Reports, and the Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSR).

Evidence: Staff EPMS plans specify relevant objectives, including the scheduling of and participation in on-site reviews; performance is rated accordingly.

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

Explanation: In the Terms and Conditions issued with each award, the States are instructed to submit an Annual Financial Status Report, Standard Form 269A (SF-269A), at the end of each fiscal year of the five-year expenditure period. The SF 269A requests that total outlays be reported, so the math and match requirements are the main items monitored. The Office of Information Systems has implemented an electronic reporting system which is being used for several ACF programs and should be operational in FY 2005 for the remaining programs. This will also assist in monitoring the accuracy of SF-269's. Grantees must also submit Annual Progress and Services Reports (APSRs), as required under 45 CFR 1357.16, by June 30th of each year. These reports must provide information on accomplishments and progress made in the previous fiscal year under the CAPTA State Grant and provide updates on program areas selected for improvement and other activities for the next fiscal year.

Evidence: FY 2004 Terms and Conditions Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, section 106(a) (See Question 1.1.) Financial Status Reports (SF-269) for Arkansas, California, and Louisiana ACF Transmittal Notices for FY 2004

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

Explanation: Because the purpose of the program is to protect the lives of children who are the subject of reports of abuse and/or neglect, the establishment of a national efficiency goal raises the danger of perverse pressures that could endanger the lives of abused and neglected children. To the extent possible, competitive sourcing is used in our administration of the program. (Note: This question should receive at most an NA even though there is an efficiency measure in 2.3. The measure in 2.3 was only just developed -- there were no efficiency procedures in place at the time CAPTA was PARTed.

Evidence: Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, section 106: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/index.htm

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Through the CFSR, the Children's Bureau assesses the efficacy of a State's collaborative efforts with other public and private agencies that serve the same general population. At the Federal level, ACF collaborates with various agencies in developing policies that cut across more than one Federal program. Through its statutory purposes for the program and eligibility requirements, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act promotes CPS collaboration and coordination with related programs.

Evidence: Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, sections 106 (a) and (b): www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/index.htm Information Memorandum ACYF-CB-IM-03-04 and Program Instruction ACYF-CB-PI-03-08: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/policies

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Financial management practices presently in place for the CAPTA State Grant program include reviews of the annual financial status report (SF 269) by an Office of Grants Management Specialist, and regional and central office assessment and monitoring of grantee funding requests and budget change requests. The Program Instruction for the Child and Family Services Plan, which includes the CAPTA State Plan, provides specific and detailed instructions for financial management and accountability for funds. The annual meeting for CAPTA State Grant program representatives (SLOs) sponsored by the Children's Bureau regularly includes a session with Grants Management staff on financial management and accountability for the program.

Evidence: Ernst and Young's FY 2003 audit was clear of material weaknesses.

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

Explanation: The Children's Bureau works on a continuous basis to improve its management of the CAPTA State Grant program, as well as to encourage the States to administer their programs in the most effective and efficient manner possible. Staff work closely with staff in the Regional Offices who are able to conduct site visits of State programs, and who thus have a first-hand understanding of the programs. Contractors are in the process of finalizing data bases that will allow for the collection and aggregation of data resulting from the Child and Family Service Reviews. This data will be input following the completion of each review and will provide vital information on the individual and collective strengths and weaknesses of States. Once information the on-site reviews is entered into a data base, reports can be developed to be used intermittently and cumulatively. The Children's Bureau uses the Employee Performance Management System (EPMS) to evaluate how well staff does in supporting the goals of the Bureau, ACF, HHS, and the CAPTA State Grant program.

Evidence:  

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

Explanation: States are required to submit a five year CAPTA State Plan, including required assurances, that specifies the program areas selected for improvement, an outline of activities, and a description of the services and training to be provided under the CAPTA State Grant. In addition, on an annual basis States are required to report on their expenditures and program activities as part of the Annual Program and Services Report (APSR) required of all Title IV-B and E programs. The Children's Bureau issues Program Instructions outlining the requirements for these submissions. These requirements provide the basis for joint planning between the State agencies and the staff of the ACF Regional Offices, on development of the CAPTA State Plan and its ongoing implementation. Because of their ability to travel to States and meet with grantees, the Regional Office staff take the lead in providing oversight on the CAPTA State Grant program.

Evidence: ACYF-CB-PI-04-01 (See Question 1.5.)ACYF-CB-PI-03-05 (See Question 1.5.)CFSR

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

Explanation: CAPTA State Grant Program grantee performance data is collected and reported in a number of ways. The Annual Program and Services Reports from each State provide individual grantee information. Other reports provide aggregate data resulting from the implementation of CPS programs in the States. These reports of aggregate data include the CFSR State and summary reports, the Child Welfare Outcomes Report and the report of the data from the voluntary National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) the annual Child Maltreatment report. The availability of these reports and these data is made known through both electronic (web and listserve) means as well as through dissemination of hard copy reports to selected target audiences and by request of the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information.

Evidence: Annual Program and Services Reports; CFSR State Reports and Summary Report; the annual Child Welfare Outcomes Report; the annual Child Maltreatment Report. All of these reports are available to the public. The first by request through a FOIA and the remaining reports through the Children's Bureau web site, www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb, and from the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information.

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

Explanation: The Children's Bureau has just completed Child and Family Service Reviews for all States this past March (2004). The first program improvement plans (PIPs) have recently been completed but have not been evaluated. The Children's Bureau is still in the process of establishing the 'baseline' for evaluating whether adequate progress is being achieved for the CAPTA State Grant program's long-term performance goal of safety and can not yet report on annual progress toward the long-term target.

Evidence: GPRA Long-term Strategic Goal: By FY 2008, the Child and Family Service Review (CFSR) process will have resulted in the States demonstrating continuous improvement by having 90 percent (328) of the individual outcomes that they are expected to achieve (364 total) remaining penalty free.

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

Explanation: The percentage of children with substantiated reports of maltreatment that have a repeated substantiated report of maltreatment with in 6 months has ranged between 8% and 9% for the years CY98 through CY02. As indicated earlier in this document, of the 42 states reporting useable data for the CY02 calculation, only 20 of the 42 states were under the 7% national target of maltreatment recurrence. With 4 of the 6 largest states reporting recurrence rates well over the 7% target, this measure has not yet met the annual performance goal.

Evidence: GPRA Annual Performance Plan (See Question 2.1.) Child Maltreatment 2002

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

Explanation: The goal of the CAPTA State Grant program is improving the States' child protective services (CPS) systems. The program itself provides an incentive for improvement to the States because in order to qualify for funding States must meet the minimum standards for CPS that are listed as eligibility requirements. However, because the purpose of the program is to protect the lives of children who have been reported as abuse and/or neglected, the establishment of a national efficiency goal raises the danger of perverse pressures that could endanger the lives of abused and neglected children.

Evidence: Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, section 106(b): www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/index.htm

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

Explanation: There are no other comparable programs that exist to stimulate and support improvement of the State CPS systems.

Evidence:  

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

Explanation: As noted in response to 2.6 above, there have been no evaluations of sufficient scope, quality, and independence conducted, nor is there planning documentation in place that describes a program evaluation (of sufficient scope, quality, and independence) to be conducted in the near future.

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