FirstAlerts

HHS Withdraws 2008 Proposed Foster Care Data Reporting Rule

An official document shows the Department of Health and Human Services has withdrawn a 2008 proposed rule regarding foster care data collection.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 20, 2026, 9:25 a.m. ET
According to an official document published on August 12, 2026, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Children and Families Administration have withdrawn a originally published on January 11, 2008. The 2008 would have amended Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) regulations at 45 CFR 1355.40 and the appendices to Part 1355 to modify requirements for states to collect and report data to ACF on children in out-of-home care and in subsidized adoption or guardianship arrangements with the state. Official document reference also withdraws the provision of the 2008 that implemented AFCARS penalty requirements of the Adoption Promotion Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-145).

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 120 Aug 2026, 13:25current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.