There's been a technical problem, but it may have been temporary. Please try your request again, and if the problem persists, contact Dan Phillips (danzap@illinois.edu) for assistance.
A CFSR badge indicates a measure from the Child and Family Services Reviews.
Several years after the CFRC began monitoring the Department’s performance on child safety and permanence in the B.H. monitoring report, the Children’s Bureau implemented a review process to monitor state child welfare programs' conformity with the requirements in titles IV-B (Child and Family Services) and IV-E (Federal Payments for Foster Care and Adoption Assistance) of the Social Security Act. These reviews, known as the Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSR), are used to assess performance on seven outcomes and seven systemic factors. There have been three rounds of CFSR to date: Round 1 (2001–2004), Round 2 (2007–2010), and Round 3 (2015–2018). As part of the CFSR process, the Children’s Bureau has developed statewide data indicators to determinen if states are in substantial conformity with certain child welfare outcomes based on national standards. Statewide data indicators are aggregate measures that are calculated using administrative data available from the state’s submissions to the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS), the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS), or an approved alternate source of safety- related data. The statewide data indicators have changed in each round of the CFSR. This year, the Department asked the CFRC if we could include the Round 3 CFSR statewide data indicators in the B.H. monitoring report.
As part of our ongoing monitoring responsibility under the B.H. consent decree, the Children and Family Research Center (CFRC) has developed a set of child welfare outcome indicators that measure child safety, child and family well-being, and permanence of family relations. The annual B.H. Monitoring Report compiles performance data for the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), compares this year’s performance data with past years’, and includes breakdowns by region and by child age, race, and gender.
For this metric, Race, Age and Gender refer to the first caregiver listed on the family report.
Only 5 charts at a time, please!
Only 10 trends at a time, please!
You must have at least 1 trend selected!
You must have at least 2 years selected!
Your year selections must be sequential!
This most recent year does not reflect a complete year of data.
Of all children who attained permanence during the year, the percentage that maintained permanence at two years
Change Measure Download Master CSV
Data extracted on March 31, 2024.
| Clay County | Maintained Permanence after Two Years | |||||||||||
| Reunification | Adoption | Guardianship | Total Permanences | |||||||||
| Total | Stable | % | Total | Stable | % | Total | Stable | % | Total | Stable | % | |
| 2015 | 3 | 2 | 66.7% | 0 | - | - | 1 | 1 | 100.0% | 4 | 3 | 75.0% |
| 2016 | 1 | 1 | 100.0% | 0 | - | - | 2 | 2 | 100.0% | 3 | 3 | 100.0% |
| 2017 | 4 | 4 | 100.0% | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | - | 4 | 4 | 100.0% |
| 2018 | 2 | 2 | 100.0% | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | - | 2 | 2 | 100.0% |
| 2019 | 5 | 5 | 100.0% | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | - | 5 | 5 | 100.0% |
| 2020 | 2 | 2 | 100.0% | 0 | - | - | 2 | 2 | 100.0% | 4 | 4 | 100.0% |
| 2021 | 8 | 6 | 75.0% | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | - | 8 | 6 | 75.0% |
| 2022* | 2 | 2 | 100.0% | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | - | 2 | 2 | 100.0% |