FR 2024-28072

Overview

Title

Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System

Agencies

ELI5 AI

The government wants to learn more about American Indian and Alaska Native kids in foster care, so they are asking states to collect extra information about these children to help them get better care. States have until 2028 to start doing this.

Summary AI

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has issued a final rule revising the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS). This rule mandates that state Title IV-E agencies collect and report more detailed data related to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) for children in foster care. The aim is to better understand the experiences and outcomes for American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) children and to improve culturally responsive care. States are given a three-year timeframe to implement these changes, which will take effect on October 1, 2028.

Abstract

This rule finalizes revisions to the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) regulations proposed on February 23, 2024. This final rule requires state title IV-E agencies to collect and report to ACF additional data related to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) for children in the AFCARS Out-of-Home Care Reporting Population.

Type: Rule
Citation: 89 FR 96569
Document #: 2024-28072
Date:
Volume: 89
Pages: 96569-96590

AnalysisAI

Summary of the Document

The document describes a new rule from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services related to changes in the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS). This new rule requires that state Title IV-E agencies report additional data about American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) children related to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The purpose is to gain a deeper understanding of the experiences of these children in foster care and to ensure that the care they receive respects their cultural identities. The rule will take effect on October 1, 2028, giving states three years to adopt the necessary data collection practices.

Significant Issues and Concerns

One concern raised is the rule’s complexity, which may cause confusion for the general public. The document uses technical terms and references without clear definitions, which might not be accessible to everyone. Also, the lack of additional funding for implementing these requirements could create financial strain on state agencies, potentially affecting other services. Commenters expressed concern about the practicability of collecting historical data accurately and reliably.

Furthermore, the method used to identify which children need to be counted under ICWA could lead to inaccuracies. The rule uses the race category of AI/AN as a proxy for determining applicability, which may not capture all children eligible for ICWA protections.

Impact on the Public

Broadly, this rule may improve the nation's understanding of AI/AN children's needs in the foster care system, potentially leading to better outcomes for this vulnerable group. However, there is a risk that if state agencies are overburdened or underfunded to implement these requirements, some data might be incomplete or inaccurate. This could affect reports that inform policy and resource allocation, impacting the public's trust in such systems.

Impact on Stakeholders

For AI/AN communities, the rule could create a positive impact by highlighting the challenges and needs specific to AI/AN children, which could lead to more culturally appropriate care. Tribes and organizations advocating for tribal children's rights generally welcome the increased focus on this issue.

On the other hand, state welfare agencies may face significant administrative burdens without clear federal funding or guidance, leading to potential inefficiencies. They also face the pressure of adjusting within three years, a timeline some may find challenging considering current system constraints.

Overall, while well-intentioned, the implementation of this rule requires thoughtful planning, additional resources, and cooperation among federal, state, and tribal stakeholders to achieve its intended goals effectively.

Financial Assessment

The document outlines several financial considerations related to the final rule on the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) and its revisions. These revisions pertain to reporting data under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).

Financial Impact and Costs

The document explains that large-scale regulations, defined under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), might have an effect on the economy of $100 million or more annually. However, it specifies that the current rule does not categorize as such, indicating that its financial impact remains below this threshold.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act mentions a spending threshold of approximately $183 million for the year 2024 in constant 1995 dollars, adjusted for inflation. The document states that the cost imposed by this rule does not surpass this threshold, suggesting the changes will not cause a significant financial burden on state, local, or tribal governments.

The Federal Government anticipates spending approximately $2,486,304 annually for the federal portion of the overall information collection costs associated with these rules. This is important to note as the financial responsibility is partially shared with state title IV-E agencies, which will receive federal reimbursement.

Cost Breakdown and Estimates

The commentary includes examples of estimated costs provided by commenters during the development process. For instance, one state's anticipated costs for system modifications are approximately $491,556.30, including one-time costs of $419,400.52 and continuing costs of $15,504.08 annually for adjustments. Another estimate included staff training costs at $56,651.70.

Additional estimates from commenters include costs related to technical staff time and system development. For instance, costs related to implementing changes in the Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System (CCWIS) are estimated at $201,751, with other noted expenses for staff development, testing, implementation, and training totaling $13,351.

Relation to Identified Issues

Issues arise from financial considerations highlighted in the document. The newly mandated data collection elements may pose high administrative costs on state agencies. Some states expressed concern about the fiscal impact and resource demands due to the lack of additional federal funding specifically for implementing ICWA-related changes. They argue this could further burden existing state resources, implying a potential challenge in sustaining the required updates without risking funding inefficiencies.

Furthermore, the document discusses labor rates for various positions tasked with implementing these changes. The rounded average wage—considering overseeing costs—amounts to $96 per hour, substantiating financial assumptions for staff-related expenses involved in the system modifications.

In conclusion, while the document acknowledges federal contributions toward covering these expenses, it underscores the state's significant role in implementing changes without excessive reliance on federal support, reflecting concerns about states’ financial readiness and resource adequacy to meet new reporting requirements.

Issues

  • • The document is highly detailed and complex, which may make it difficult for the general public or non-experts to understand.

  • • Technical terms like 'ICWA', 'FFP', 'AI/AN', and 'CCWIS' are used without prior explanation or definition for lay readers.

  • • There is a significant emphasis on the burden and costs of implementation without specifying the exact plan for funding these additional state agency burdens, which may imply potential wasteful spending if not properly managed.

  • • The document mentions no additional funding made available specifically for ICWA implementation, which could place a burden on state resources.

  • • Some commenters mention concerns regarding the practicality of gathering data from historical records, implying potential challenges in implementation and data reliability.

  • • The reliance on the race category AI/AN as a proxy for determining applicability of ICWA may not be the most accurate or effective method, raising concerns about data accuracy.

  • • Uncertainty or ambiguity around specific requirements for States to report certain data elements, such as the lack of clear definitions for 'culturally appropriate services' or 'active efforts'.

  • • The document outlines a significant number of new data elements to be collected, which may impose a high administrative burden on state agencies.

  • • There is an inconsistency in the document's statements about enforcement and penalties related to noncompliance, which can create confusion.

  • • The timeline for implementation might be too aggressive given states' current challenges with data systems, as indicated by the feedback from the states regarding earlier implementations.

Statistics

Size

Pages: 22
Words: 29,795
Sentences: 810
Entities: 1,916

Language

Nouns: 9,682
Verbs: 2,865
Adjectives: 1,898
Adverbs: 484
Numbers: 1,039

Complexity

Average Token Length:
4.71
Average Sentence Length:
36.78
Token Entropy:
5.97
Readability (ARI):
22.93

Reading Time

about 118 minutes