The Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) is a federally mandated data collection system intended to provide case specific information on all children covered by the protections of Title IV-B/E of the Social Security Act (Section 427). Under the Final 1993 AFCARS’ rule, states are required to collect and submit data on all children who are under the responsiblity of the title IV-B/IV-E agency for placement, care, or supervision. Units of Response: Children in Foster Care Type of Data: Administrative Tribal Data: Unavailable Periodicity: Semiannual Demographic Indicators: Disability;Geographic Areas;Sex SORN: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/14/2016-29366/adoption-and-foster-care-analysis-and-reporting-system Data Use Agreement: https://www.ndacan.acf.hhs.gov/datasets/order_forms/termsofuseagreement.pdf Data Use Agreement Location: https://www.ndacan.acf.hhs.gov/datasets/order_forms/termsofuseagreement.pdf Granularity: Individual Spatial: United States Geocoding: FIPS Code

States report information from two reporting populations: (1) The Served Population which is information on all youth receiving at least one independent living services paid or provided by the Chafee Program agency, and (2) Youth completing the NYTD Survey. States survey youth regarding six outcomes: financial self-sufficiency, experience with homelessness, educational attainment, positive connections with adults, high-risk behaviors, and access to health insurance. States collect outcomes information by conducting a survey of youth in foster care on or around their 17th birthday, also referred to as the baseline population. States will track these youth as they age and conduct a new outcome survey on or around the youth's 19th birthday; and again on or around the youth's 21st birthday, also referred to as the follow-up population. States will collect outcomes information on these older youth at ages 19 or 21 regardless of their foster care status or whether they are still receiving independent living services from the State. Depending on the size of the State's foster care youth population, some States may conduct a random sample of the baseline population of the 17-year-olds that participate in the outcomes survey so that they can follow a smaller group of youth as they age. All States will collect and report outcome information on a new baseline population cohort every three years. Units of Response: Current and former youth in foster care Type of Data: Administrative Tribal Data: No Periodicity: Annual Demographic Indicators: Ethnicity;Race;Sex SORN: Not Applicable Data Use Agreement: https://www.ndacan.acf.hhs.gov/datasets/request-dataset.cfm Data Use Agreement Location: https://www.ndacan.acf.hhs.gov/datasets/order_forms/termsofuseagreement.pdf Granularity: Individual Spatial: United States Geocoding: FIPS Code

Reduce the foster care entry rate from 6.3 per 1,000 in 2013 to 4.9 per 1,000 by 2019 by increasing the number of children who remain safely in their own homes.

This survey provides nationally representative estimates on the characteristics, living arrangements, and service accessibility of noninstitutionalized children who were living apart from their parents (in foster care, grandparent care or other nonparental care) and who were aged 0 to 16 years in 2011-2012. Data on the well-being of the children and of their caregivers are also available. The children’s nonparental care status was identified in a previous SLAITS survey, the 2011-2012 National Survey of Children’s Health. Units of Response: Caregiver Type of Data: Survey Tribal Data: No Periodicity: One-time Demographic Indicators: Disability;Ethnicity;Household Income;Household Size;Housing Status;Race;Sex SORN: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/09/19/2022-20139/privacy-act-of-1974-system-of-records Data Use Agreement: No Data Use Agreement Location: Unavailable Granularity: Household Spatial: United States Geocoding: Unavailable

Content

The purpose of this data set is to provide information on the total number of admissions, discharges, and children in foster care, the type of care, and total Child Protective Services (CPS) reports indicated during period.

Context

This is a dataset hosted by the State of New York. The state has an open data platform found here and they update their information according the amount of data that is brought in. Explore New York State using Kaggle and all of the data sources available through the State of New York organization page!

• Update Frequency: This dataset is updated annually.

Acknowledgements

This dataset is maintained using Socrata's API and Kaggle's API. Socrata has assisted countless organizations with hosting their open data and has been an integral part of the process of bringing more data to the public.

Cover photo by Aaron Huber on Unsplash
Unsplash Images are distributed under a unique Unsplash License.

States report information from two reporting populations: (1) The Served Population which is information on all youth receiving at least one independent living services paid or provided by the Chafee Program agency, and (2) Youth completing the NYTD Survey. States survey youth regarding six outcomes: financial self-sufficiency, experience with homelessness, educational attainment, positive connections with adults, high-risk behaviors, and access to health insurance. States collect outcomes information by conducting a survey of youth in foster care on or around their 17th birthday, also referred to as the baseline population. States will track these youth as they age and conduct a new outcome survey on or around the youth's 19th birthday; and again on or around the youth's 21st birthday, also referred to as the follow-up population. States will collect outcomes information on these older youth at ages 19 or 21 regardless of their foster care status or whether they are still receiving independent living services from the State. Depending on the size of the State's foster care youth population, some States may conduct a random sample of the baseline population of the 17-year-olds that participate in the outcomes survey so that they can follow a smaller group of youth as they age. All States will collect and report outcome information on a new baseline population cohort every three years.

Units of Response: Current and former youth in foster care

Type of Data: Survey

Tribal Data: No

Periodicity: Annual

Demographic Indicators: Ethnicity;Race;Sex

SORN: Not Applicable

Data Use Agreement: https://www.ndacan.acf.hhs.gov/datasets/request-dataset.cfm

Data Use Agreement Location: https://www.ndacan.acf.hhs.gov/datasets/order_forms/termsofuseagreement.pdf

Granularity: Individual

Spatial: United States

Geocoding: State

Users can view maps and tables related to child welfare policies in the United States. Background The State Child Welfare Policy Database contains a variety of information related to child welfare policies in each state. Data topics are grouped under three categories: child welfare financing; kinship care policies; older youth in foster care. Child welfare financing provides data on topics such as total expenditures, TANF, Title IV, and medicaid. Kinship care policies includes information on locating kin, guardianship policies, foster care and private kin arrangement s. Older youth in foster care includes information on foster care age limits, placements for older youth, and state-funded independent living transition services. User FunctionalityUsers can search by topic or by state. Data is presented in either a table (for state specific information) or by map (for data topic information). Data is available on a state level. Data tables are available for download in Excel format. Data Notes The data source is clearly labeled, and a link to the data source or to the state's welfare website is provided.

This counts placement types, not unique children in substitute care. Children will be duplicated by moving from foster care to other substitute care or by relative to non-relative placements. For example, a child who spent a portion of the year with a relative, but the rest with a non-relative would be counted twice. Children in DFPS custody are those for whom a court has appointed DFPS legal responsibility through temporary or permanent managing conservatorship or other court ordered legal basis. These children may be residing in substitute care or may be living with a parent, referred to as a return and monitor. DFPS legal responsibility terminates when a court orders DFPS custody ended or a youth turns 18, whichever comes first. Substitute care - all children who are living in a DFPS out of home placement. It does not include children in DFPS custody who are living with a parent on a return and monitor. Unless otherwise noted, it does include youth over 18 who are in extended foster care but are not in DFPS custody. Kinship care- a subset of substitute care that includes all children in DFPS custody who are living with a legal or blood relative or other individual who has a significant relationship with the child or the child's family known as "fictive kin." Foster care - a subset of substitute care that includes all children living in a placement that has been verified to provide 24-hour residential care for a child, in accordance with Chapter 42 of the Human Resources Code and related regulations. These placements include foster homes, including kinship care where the caregiver has been verified, general residential operations (GRO), emergency shelters, residential treatment centers (RTC), and juvenile facilities. Paid foster care - a subset of foster care where DFPS is making foster care payments. Visit dfps.state.tx.us for information on substitute care placements and all DFPS programs.

Location, telephone and parking information for all DCF offices and facilities as of 7/1/2014. This file does not include any of our licensed foster homes or congregate care facilities, or other contracted services provider locations.

Since 1960, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has provided estimates of expenditures on children from birth through age 17. This technical report presents the most recent estimates for married- couple and single-parent families using data from the 2011-15 Consumer Expenditure Survey (all data presented in 2015 dollars). Data and methods used in calculating annual child-rearing expenses are described. Estimates are provided for married-couple and single-parent families with two children for major components of the budget by age of child, family income, and region of residence. For the overall United States, annual child-rearing expense estimates ranged between $12,350 and $13,900 for a child in a two-child, married-couple family in the middle-income group. Adjustment factors for households with less than or greater than two children are also provided. Expenses vary considerably by household income level, region, and composition, emphasizing that a single estimate may not be applicable to all families. Results of this study may be of use in developing State child support and foster care guidelines, as well as public health and family-centered educational programs. i

Increase the percentage of children who reunify with their family within 12 months of first entry into foster care from 58.7% in 2013 to 69.90% by 2019

This dataset was compiled by the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (ICJIA) at the request of the Governor’s Children’s Cabinet. This data contains the population of youth ages 13-26 in each county, the total population of each county, and the number and rate of index crimes reported, with domestic violence offenses and rates reported separately for every year between 2006 and 2015.

For the purpose of this analysis the crime data was gathered from the Illinois State Police Annual report Crime in Illinois. This publication is produced by the Illinois State Police every year using the UCR data that is submitted to them by individual jurisdictions throughout the state. The accuracy of this data presented is dependent on the local jurisdictions reporting their index crime and domestic violence offenses to ISP, so it can be included in the annual report.

Therefore, if there is large decrease in number of index crimes reported in the dataset it is likely that one or more jurisdictions did not report data for that year to ISP. If there is a large increase from year to year within a county it is likely that a jurisdiction within the county, who previously had not reported crime data, did report crime data for that year. If there is no reported crime in a certain year that means no jurisdictions, or a small jurisdiction with no crime from that county reported data to the Illinois State Police. The annual Crime in Illinois reports can be found on the ISP website www.isp.state.il.us.

A direct link to that annual reports is: http://www.isp.state.il.us/crime/ucrhome.cfm#anlrpts.

The Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority did not record the data that is expressed in the dataset. ICJIA simply used the ISP reports to compile that yearly crime data into one chart that could be provided to the Illinois Governor’s Children’s Cabinet. This data set has be critically examined to be accurate according to the annual Crime in Illinois Reports. If there are issues with the data set provided please contact the Illinois State Police or the individual jurisdictions within a specific county.

**Index offenses do not include every crime event that occurs. Prior to 2014 there were 8 index crimes reported by the Illinois State Police in their annual reports, Criminal Homicide, Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Battery/Aggravated Assault, Burglary, Theft, Motor Vehicle Theft, and Arson. In 2014 there were two new offenses added to the list of index crimes these were Human Trafficking – Commercial Sex Acts and Human Trafficking – Involuntary Servitude. These are the index crimes that are recorded in the chart provided.

**“Domestic offenses are defined as offenses committed between family or household members. Family or household members include spouses; former spouses; parents; children; foster parents; foster children; legal guardians and their wards; stepchildren; other persons related by blood (aunt, uncle, cousin) or by present or previous marriage (in-laws); persons who share, or formerly shared, a common dwelling; persons who have, or allegedly have, a child in common; persons who share, or allegedly share, a blood relationship through a child; persons who have, or have had, a dating or engagement relationship; and persons with disabilities, their personal care assistants, or care givers outside the context of an employee of a public or private care facility. Every offense that occurs, when a domestic relationship exists between the victim and offender, must be reported (Illinois State Police).”

**“Offenses reported are not limited to domestic battery and violations of orders of protection; offenses most commonly associated with domestic violence (Illinois State Police).”

The crime rate was compiled using the total population, and the index crime. The Index crime whether all crime or Domestic Violence crime was divided by the total population then multiplied by 10,000, hence crime rate per 10,000.

The sources of data are the Illinois Uniform Crime Reporting Program and the U.S. Census Bureau.

The source of the description is the Illinois State Police and their Reporting guidelines and forms.

Cornell University conducted research on how state governments can improve job services to help youth and young adults who are involved in the justice system and/or foster care system achieve employment. This research looks to include youth, family, and professional perspectives on how state vocational rehabilitation agencies can more successfully outreach to youth who have been involved in foster care or juvenile justice. Vocational rehabilitation agencies are government agencies and community service providers who help people with disabilities overcome barriers to working and earning an income. The goal of this research is to provide guidance to professionals in these agencies and others so they can better reach youth who are involved in foster care or juvenile justice. This data set was part of a mixed methods research study, where Phase 1 was qualitative focus group interviews with two participant groups: (1) service provider professionals working within youth-serving agencies that serve justice and/or foster involved youth with disabilities; and (2) individuals who have experienced one or both of those systems and their families. During Phase 2 of the study, core themes identified through qualitative data analysis in Phase 1 were converted into survey items for a follow up survey with the same participant populations (including some who took part in the focus groups and some new participants). The target sample size was n = 400, evenly split between the different participant groups. Tab 1 of the uploaded file is the service provider professional responses, Tab 2 is the individuals with lived experience responses. Of note here is that this data set was used to confirm themes from Phase 1 qualitative research, as such, there were no attempts at making generalizable inferences and the data is not appropriate for such purposes. Rather, the follow-up survey was intended to increase the transferability of qualitative findings and increase confidence in making practitioner-oriented recommendations in a final toolkit deliverable for the project. This research was funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living, National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR), Grant #90IFRE0048. This publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the NIDILRR or the Department of Health and Human Services, nor does mention of tradenames, commercial products or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Healthy Families New York (HFNY), which was based on the Healthy Families America (HFA) model, was established as a strengths-based, intensive home visitation program with the explicit goals of promoting positive parenting skills and parent-child interaction; preventing child abuse and neglect; supporting optimal prenatal care, and child health and development; and improving parent's self-sufficiency.In 2000, a randomized controlled trial was initiated at three sites with the HFNY home visiting program. Families eligible for HFNY at each site were randomly assigned to either an intervention group that was offered HFNY services or to a control group that was given information on and referral to appropriate services other than home visiting. Baseline interviews were conducted with 1,173 of the eligible women (intervention, n=579; control, n=594), and follow up interviews at Years 1, 2, and 3. In addition to data gathered during the follow up interviews, information regarding study participants' involvement in reports of child maltreatment was also extracted and coded from Child Protection Services records.For the current study, mothers in both the intervention and control groups were re-interviewed at the time of the target child's seventh birthday. Interviews (Dataset 1: Mother Interview Data, n=942) included information about parenting, the child, earnings, and household composition. Interviewers also completed face-to-face assessments (Dataset 2: Target Child Interview Data) with 800 of the children who were born and reached the age of 7 at the time of interview. The target child interviews assessed children's receptive vocabulary skills, emotional health, self-regulatory abilities, and problem behaviors. The research team also extracted or obtained administrative data pertaining to Child Protective Service reports, foster care placements, federal and state supported benefits, and programs services and costs (Datasets 3-8).

Context

The Austin Animal Center is the largest no-kill animal shelter in the United States that provides care and shelter to over 18,000 animals each year. As part of the AAC's efforts to help and care for animals in need, the organization makes available its accumulated data and statistics as part of the city of Austin's Open Data Initiative.

Content

The data contains intakes and outcomes of animals entering the Austin Animal Center from the beginning of October 2013 to the present day. The datasets are also freely available on the Socrata Open Data Access API and are updated daily.

The following are links to the datasets hosted on Socrata's Open Data:

• Austin Animal Center Intakes
• Austin Animal Center Outcomes

The data contained in this dataset is the outcomes and intakes data as noted above, as well as a combined dataset. The merging of the outcomes and intakes data was done on a unique key that is a combination of the given Animal ID and the intake number. Several of the animals in the dataset have been taken into the shelter multiple times, which creates duplicate Animal IDs that causes problems when merging the two datasets.

Copied from the description of the Shelter Outcomes dataset, here are some definitions of the outcome types:

• Adoption
  • the animal was adopted to a home
• Barn Adoption
  • the animal was adopted to live in a barn
• Offsite Missing
  • the animal went missing for unknown reasons at an offsite partner location
• In-Foster Missing
  • the animal is missing after being placed in a foster home
• In-Kennel Missing
  • the animal is missing after being transferred to a kennel facility
• Possible Theft
  • Although not confirmed, the animal went missing as a result of theft from the facility
• Barn Transfer
  • The animal was transferred to a facility for adoption into a barn environment
• SNR
  • SNR refers to the city of Austin's Shelter-Neuter-Release program. I believe the outcome is representative of the animal being released.

Acknowledgements

The data presented here is only possible through the hard work and dedication of the Austin Animal Center in saving and caring for animal lives.

Inspiration

Following from the first dataset I posted to Kaggle, Austin Animal Shelter Outcomes, which was initially filtered for just cats as part of an analysis I was performing, I wanted to post the complete outcome and complementing intake datasets. My hope is the great users of Kaggle will find this data interesting and want to explore shelter animal statistics further and perhaps get more involved in the animal welfare community. The analysis of this data and other shelter animal provided datasets helps uncover useful insights that have the potential to save lives directly.

This study addressed the question of whether alternative correctional programs were more effective than traditional training schools in reducing recidivism among juvenile offenders. Alternative programs were defined as halfway homes, group homes, foster homes, ranches, camping programs, and specialized vocational programs, while training schools were defined as secure, restrictive custody programs in institutional settings. The goal of this study was to assess the impact of alternative program placements versus training school for a 12-year period on 266 juvenile delinquents remanded to youth facilities in a southwestern state in 1983. Subjects chosen for the study were 298 youth who had been committed by a county court to a statewide juvenile corrections program between January 1, 1983, and July 1, 1983. The sample was representative of the youth commission's population of juvenile offenders in terms of age, race, and sex. All were first time commitments, and the original commitment offense for a majority of the youth was a nonviolent property crime, such as burglary or theft. From this original sample, 32 juveniles were eliminated from the study because they were not adequately exposed to either an institutional or alternative program. The final sample consisted of 266 juvenile offenders, of which 164 were placed in institutions and 102 were placed in alternative programs. Youth were not randomly assigned to programs. Juveniles with particular characteristics were automatically assigned to certain types of programs. All violent offenders were placed in institutions. The study was designed to include a lengthy follow-up period, a focus on subject by program interaction effects, and the use of survival analysis to examine the timing of recidivism as well as its incidence. Recidivism was defined as the first arrest or parole revocation that took place within the follow-up period. The follow-up period was approximately 12 years, from the parole assignment until September 1, 1995. Data were collected primarily from the administrative records of the state youth commission. The commission also obtained additional follow-up data from the state Department of Public Safety and the state Department of Corrections. Additionally, family background data were collected from each youth's parole officer in response to a survey conducted specifically for this study in September 1994. Demographic variables include commitment age, race, and sex. Psychosocial variables include family environment and IQ. Other independent variables include program placement status, delinquency risk scales, and program adjustment measures. The dependent variable is recidivism, measured as both a discrete variable indicating whether an arrest occurred and time until first arrest offense after parole.

The purpose of the study was to examine criminal behavior and criminal justice system involvement among youth making the transition from out-of-home care to independent adulthood. The study collected data from two sources: (1) survey data from the Midwest Study of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth (Midwest Study), and (2) official arrest data. The Midwest Study was a longitudinal panel study that was part of a collaborative effort of the state public child welfare agencies in Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin, Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago, and the University of Washington. The participating states funded and/or operated the full range of services supported by the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program. The Midwest Study survey data were collected directly from the youth in the sample every two years over three waves, between May 2002 and January 2007. A total of 732 respondents participated in at least one of the in-person interviews over the three waves. This data collection includes some variables that were directly measured from the original Midwest Study survey instrument and other variables that were computed or derived from variables in the original data for purposes of the current study. To supplement the survey data, the research team accessed official arrest data from each state for this study. Researchers obtained data on all criminal arrests that occurred between the respondents' Wave 1 interview and August 31, 2007, a date by which all of the study participants were at least 21 years old. The study contains a total of 85 variables including indicator variables, demographic and background variables, delinquency and crime variables, out-of-home care experiences variables, and social bonds variables.

Introduction

California Health and Human Services (CalHHS) single and multi-program participation counts with demographics by year and geography, both the Annual (cumulative) and July (point in time) files. The data dictionary for each file is loaded as a resource within the CSV preview page.

Background

The CalHHS Program Data and Dashboard contain participation data related to seven California Health & Human Services agency programs: CalWORKs, CalFresh, In-Home Supportive Services, Foster Care, Medi-Cal (California Medicaid), Women, Infants, & Children, and Developmental Services. Users are able to view these data at the county level or by legislative district level (U.S. Congress, State Assembly, State Senate). Statistics on persons served, persons per case, average grant amount, and basic demographics are presented in both tabular spreadsheets and customizable visualizations by program. In addition to presenting statistics for each program separately, the dashboard also provides data on the number of individuals participating in more than one program at the same time in a given district or county.

Methodology

The Children's Data Network has prepared a methodology document for the process involved in creating this data. If you would like to review the methodology used, please click the link below to visit the CalHHS Records Reconciliation Methodology. https://data.chhs.ca.gov/pages/calhhs-program-counts-methodology