Post-site visit analysis: Based on the information from the State’s draft requirements document (SCR:7815) and the selection logic listed in the mapping form, the State needs to ensure that the county being reported for this element reflects the county that has primary jurisdiction and responsibility for the child and the case. It should not be based on the county in which the child resides during his/her placement or the county that may be providing “courtesy supervision.”

Requirements document SCR: 7815: Items #4 and 5: The State is making modifications to the database entity storing information regarding a “placement episode” to add a new data element to identify the county responsible for the child at the time the episode began. This county will be identified by the system based on the county of the primary worker.

The State sores the person record number in base 62 that has been encrypted using the ACF encryption algorithm and submits it to ACF.

ACF noted that the same ID number appears in different submissions and may have different demographic information. State speculation: This may be due to the client merge functionality (i.e., merging the records when a client has been entered twice).

Post-site visit analysis: Based on the State and ACF’s analyses this element needs to be further investigated and corrections made. The record number reported for this element should remain the child’s identification number regardless of where he/she is living in the State or which county has primary responsibility. If a child exits foster care in one county and later re-enters foster care in another county he/she should still have the same State system-generated number. Additionally, numbers should not be re-used or used for multiple children.

Screen: Hearing Notebook (ID Tab)
Program code: Paragraphs 2150 and 2155.

The Frequency Utility has 8,865 (6.97%) of the cases with dates prior to 2003 and 25,515 (20%) with no dates reported. Some of these are because the child has been in care for less than 6 months.Data Compliance Report: 20,899 (19.81%) of the records failed due to an internal consistency check.

The State does six-month periodic reviews and a 12-month permanency hearing. Some counties may do a dispositional hearing at the 18th month and some counties conduct administrative reviews.

If the option “hearing date set” is selected, then the “hearing date” field is mandatory.

If no dates are found this field is left blank.

The “SOC158” screen has date fields for either a “6-Month Review Hearing” or “PP Hearing.” The program code selects the latest of these two dates. If a date is not found the field is left blank.

The program code does not have a parameter limiting the extraction of a recent periodic review to the current removal episode. This may partially explain the older review dates in the frequency report.

Case workers can enter the hearing date in advance of the hearing. If the hearing doesn’t occur, the system allows them to document that the hearing was continued to a subsequent day. It is possible that when the data are extracted for AFCARS the code will select a hearing date before the end of the period, which will be for a hearing that never happened.

Screen: Client Services (Client Notebook, ID tab)
Program Code: Paragraph 3000

Frequency Report: 2,470 (2%) of the records indicate a year prior to 1984 and as far back as 1928.

Estimated date of birth is done by taking the system date and calculating it based on the estimated age entered.

Screen: Client Services (Client Notebook, ID tab)
Program Code: Paragraph 3000

Frequency Report: 19 (.01%) of the records are missing a gender.

This is a mandatory field. However, there were missing data in 19 records. The State needs to explore how missing data are occurring.

Screen: Client Services (Client Notebook, ID tab)
Program code: Paragraphs 2075, 3000, and 8000 and SCAFCETH

Frequency report: For the AFCARS value “unable to determine,” 809 (.64%) of the records indicate “does not apply.” 7,046 (6%) of the records indicate two or more races.

The screen has two fields, both labeled “ethnicity.” One field is for the primary race/ethnicity and the other is for all secondary races.

The State also collects primary and secondary language.

There is not an option on the screen of “unable to determine” for the workers to select.

This is not a required field.

The State uses “Hispanic’ as a race. Forms used by workers do not distinguish races from ethnicities and includes Hispanic as a race.

The State needs to make clear that “Hispanic” is not a race. The State should consider modifying the labels on the screens and forms, and providing enhanced worker training.

Workers must also ask individuals that identify themselves as “Hispanic” or other Latino origin, to identify with a race(s). If the individual refuses to identify a race, the worker should enter “unable to determine.” The State may want to add a “refused” option so that the State can track this response.

The program code is initialized to “no” and then changes values based on the evaluation of stored data. This field must be initialized to blanks.

The State has additional ethnicities on the selection list that are not mapped to AFCARS. The State will review and map all values to the appropriate AFCARS values.

Missing data is mapped to “unable to determine.” Missing data must be mapped to blanks. If an individual identifies him or herself with only one race, it is acceptable to map the remaining, unmarked races to “No.” If the client declines to provide the information, “unable to determine” is the correct AFCARS response.

For the optional footnotes, the State should ensure that they are applicable to the current reporting period.

Screen: Client Services (Client Notebook, ID tab)
Program code: Paragraph 3000; SCAFCFD, paragraph 4060; and SCAFCETH

Frequency report: Yes = 50,325 (40%); No = 37,549 (30%); Unable to determine = 39,262 (31%); Not reported = 67 (.05%)

This is not a required field.

In addition to being listed on the primary and secondary option lists, there is a separate field on the screen to collect this information. It contains the responses “yes,” “no,” and “unable to determine.” This field is pre-filled to “unable to determine.”

The program code checks both the list box and the radio buttons for this element. If there is a contradiction between the two, the program code maps to “Yes.” A program edit or pop-up box on the entry screen should be added to alert workers/staff to the inconsistent data entry. The worker should be prompted to correct the error at the time of data entry.

If the case worker selects “Hispanic” in the primary ethnicity box, and no secondary “ethnicity” (race) selected, FC element #8 must be mapped to blanks.

If Hispanic is the primary race and another race is selected as a secondary race, the secondary race should be mapped in #8.

The State should remove the radio button default on the screen from “unable to determine” and map to blanks for this element.

The State needs to make clear that “Hispanic” is not a race. The State should consider modifying the labels on the screens and on its forms and to provide enhanced worker training.

Since the State has a field for answering whether an individual is Hispanic/Latino or not, it should consider removing “Hispanic” from the option lists.

Case file review findings: 17 (32%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. The majority of the error cases were reported to AFCARS as “unable to determine” but the reviewers found the information.

Screen: Client Services - Referral, Health Notebook, Diagnosed Condition tab
Program Code: Paragraphs 2050, 2300, 3100, 3110, 3120, 3130, and 3140

Frequencies report: Yes = 45, 610 (36%); No = 78734 (62%); Not yet determined 2,859 (2%)

The screen contains a “Condition” box that has fields for “category” and for the “health problem.” The type of health problem that is listed depends on the selected category type.

The State’s policy is that within 30 days of entering foster care a child is to have “well-child” exams.

This element is derived from specifically entered medical data. The screen does not contain a field for the worker to complete whether the child has been clinically diagnosed. The State must add this field with the options of “yes,” “no,” and “not yet determined.”

The program code evaluates if the child has been in care for less than 30 days. If so, then it sets element #10 to “not yet determined.” Otherwise, if the child has been in care for more than 30 days and no disabilities are found, then it defaults element #10 to “no.”

Requirements Document: #73 – 77, 80: The State is adding “yes” or “no” indicators to the “diagnosed condition” tab on the “health notebook” screen. If the case worker enters information on the “medications,” “medical tests,” “referral,” or “hospitalization” tabs, the associated indicator for the diagnosed condition shall automatically indicate “yes.” The caseworker will also be able to note the absence of medications, hospitalizations, medical test and medical referrals without having to document the absence of the specific pages. The “Well Child Exam” field is being modified to allow the user to identify the absence of a diagnosed condition via option buttons for “yes” or “no” for the added text of “does the client have any health conditions diagnosed by a certified medical professional?” The worker must enter certain service types first. If the worker selects “yes” a message appears to remind the worker to enter the child’s health information in the “health notebook.”

Case file review findings: 8 (13%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. In the majority of the error case the AFCARS indicated “no” and the reviewers indicated “yes.” One error case was marked as “yes” in AFCARS but the reviewer found no diagnosed disabilities that would be applicable for this element.

Program Code: SCAFCFC: paragraph 3100, 3110, 3120, 3130, and 3140

The program code is initialized to “does not apply.” If a condition is not found, the response remains “does not apply.”

There are medical health conditions mapped to AFCARS that should not be included for these elements. The State should only be mapping those conditions that are chronic and debilitating. The table of California’s mapping of these conditions is included at the end of this section. It lists the codes that the State should or should not map to AFCARS.

Program code: Paragraph 3110

The State’s values for conditions in the “05”category are mapped to this element.

Program code: Paragraph 3120

The State’s values for conditions in the “04”category are mapped to this element.

Program code: Paragraph 3130

The State’s values for conditions in the “02”category are mapped to this element.

Case file review findings: 12 (20%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. In general the errors were due to conditions being mapped to the wrong category.

Program code: Paragraph 3140

The State’s values for conditions in the “01” and “06 - 10” categories are mapped to this element.

Case file review findings: 12 (20%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. In general the errors were due to conditions being mapped to the wrong category.

Screen: Client Services (Client Notebook, Demographics tab)
Program code: SCAFCFC, paragraph 2200

Frequency report: Yes = 457 (.36%); No = 48,745 (38%); Unable to determine = 78,001 (61%)

The screen contains the options “yes,” “no,” and “unable to determine.” The screen defaults to “unable to determine.” The screen default must be removed.

This is not a required field.

The program code maps missing data to “unable to determine.” Map missing data to blank.

The State needs to ensure that workers answer this question for all types of adoptions, whether they are private or public, or within State or not.

Case file review: 28 (52%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. The AFCARS data indicated “unable to determine,” but the reviewers were able to determine if the child had been previously adopted or not.

Screen: Client Services (Client Notebook, Demographics tab) field for age at adoption.
Program Code: SCAFCFC, Paragraph 2200
Frequency report: Not applicable = 126,870 (99.74%); Unable to determine = 0

If element #16 is “no,” “unable to determine” or blank, then element #17 is set to “not applicable.”

The State must modify the program code to:

• map responses of “no” in element #16 to “not applicable” in element #17; and
• map responses of “unable to determine” in element #16 to “unable to determine” in element #17.

The program code maps missing data in the age field to blank. Missing data must be mapped to blank.

Screen: Client Services: Placement Notebook, Child removal Tab.
Program Code: Paragraph 2350.

Frequency report: There are 24 records with dates of first removal prior to 1983. The State suspects these are related to data conversion.

This is a mandatory field.

There is a field to record the “removal time.”

The program code selects the oldest (minimum) removal date.

Case file review findings: 22 (37%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. In several of the error cases, the date of first removal found by the reviewer was earlier than the date reported in AFCARS. In some instances, the difference was several years.

Screen: Client Services – Placement Notebook, End Placement/Episode Tab.
Program Code: paragraph 2350.

Case file review findings: 12 (21%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. In many of the error cases, the number of removals found by the reviewers was fewer than the number reported in AFCARS.

Screen: Client Services – Placement Notebook, End Placement/Episode Tab.
Program Code: paragraph 2350; SCAFCFD paragraph 4035

This date must be the date the State no longer has responsibility for care, placement, or supervision from a previous removal episode.

This date is recalculated if it is the same or greater than the date in element #21, so that there is not an overlap in episodes. This code should be removed because the application should be preventing this from happening on the front end. The State should also review the case file documents. There were several instances where the date of discharge from a prior removal episode was earlier than the date of latest removal. Oftentimes, there was not an actual discharge from foster care.

Case file review findings: 17 (29%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. In many of the error cases there was not a date of prior discharge because the child had only one removal episode.

Screen: Client Services: Placement Notebook (Removal Info tab)
Program Code: paragraph 2400

Frequency report: 31,305 (25%) have a year of 2003.

Case file review findings: 20 (35%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. Many of the errors were due to the errors in how many removals the child actually had experienced.

Screen: Client Services, Placement Notebook, Identification and Approval Tab and End Placement/Episode tab (This tab also contains information on placement episode termination.)
Program Code: Paragraph 2400

Frequency report: There are 47 (.04%) records indicating missing data.

The date of placement is a mandatory field.

The “end placement/episode” tab contains a field for the placement end date and the placement change reason.

The State indicated that there may be situations in Los Angeles where a child is in a temporary shelter and the caseworker has not updated the electronic case file in a timely manner to indicate if the child has been placed or sent home. If the child has been in out of home care for more than 24 hours the child is to be reported in AFCARS. The State must ensure that LA is entering these cases regardless of a “temporary shelter placement.”

For “trial home visit” and “runaway” the date and placement location changes, but the number of placements should not change. (See Child Welfare Policy Manual (CWPM) 1.2B.7 AFCARS, Data Elements and Definitions, Foster Care Specific Elements, Placements, Question #23.) The workers should be trained to enter it as a placement change, not a placement end.

Case file review findings: 15 (25%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS.

Screen, page 11: Client Services – Placement Notebook, End Placement/Episode Tab.
Program Code: Paragraph 2400

Frequency report: There are 43 (.03%) records indicating zero placements.

The State reports “emergency shelters” as placements.

Children placed under “Temporary Custody” (which can last up to 48 hours) should be included in the reporting population and the placement setting must be counted.

The State counts each placement record except for when a home’s status changes. The State does not exclude any placement move (such as trial home visits and respite care). The State will need to modify the program code to exclude in the placement count the temporary placements noted in CWPM: Section 1.2B.7 AFCARS, Data Elements and Definitions, Foster Care Specific Elements, Placements, Questions #1, 8 - 11, 17 - 19, and 21 - 24.) These include “trial home visits,” “respites” “acute psychiatric hospitalizations,” etc.

Requirements document SCR: 7815: Items #32 and 33: The placement count will be displayed on the “ID” tab of the “placement notebook.” This will be a read-only field. Also, the “SOC 158A” document will be changed.

Case file review findings: 26 (47%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. In the majority of the error cases the number of placements was greater than what was reported in AFCARS.

Screen: Client Services, Placement Notebook, Identification and Approval tab. Field: Legal Authority for placements.
Program Code: Paragraph 2450

Frequency report: Voluntary = 1,720 (1%); Court Ordered = 116,477 (92%); Not yet determined = 9,006 (7%)

This is a mandatory field on the screen.

The drop down list contains the option “out-of-State ICPC” and it is mapped to “court ordered.” The State staff indicated that this value is used for children that are placed in California from another State. The program code must be modified and this value should not be mapped nor should these records be extracted.

Currently CWS/CMS does not maintain a history of placement authorizations. The program code extracts the most recent “legal authorization for placement type” code. If a child initially enters under a “voluntary placement agreement” and then the State obtains a “court order” to continue responsibility for care, placement, or supervision, this element must continue to be reported as “voluntary” (45 CFR 1355 Appendix A, Section II, Paragraph IV.A). The State does have a change request to add this functionality.

Screen: Client Services: Placement Notebook, Removal Information Tab
Program code: Paragraphs 2500 (primary) and 2510 (secondary).

There is a field for a primary reason (drop-down list) and another field for secondary reasons.

The primary reason for removal is a mandatory field. Primary reasons are the ones that are legally required. The State has established a hierarchy of the reasons for removal.

The probation staff indicated they can choose any (all) of the AFCARS reasons for removal. The most commonly listed reason on the SOC158 is “Law Violation” or “Status Offense” (this is mapped to “child’s behavior problem”). The staff should be trained to include other contributory reasons that lead to the child being “removed” and placed in care. Verify with the State that all circumstances associated with removal for the juvenile justice population can be entered into CWS/CMS.

The reasons for removal must reflect the actions or conditions associated with the child at the time of the removal.

The code table and the selection list on the input screen includes the options “disrupted adoptive placement,” “conversion,” and “safely surrendered baby” for the primary reasons. These are not mapped to AFCARS.

Case file review findings: In the majority of the cases found in error, the reviewers indicated the condition was present at the time of the removal, but was not included in the AFCARS report.

In the foster care detail program code (SCAFCFD), if “yes” is found on the SOC158 screen for element #29, the program code maps “not applicable” to elements #29 – 32. This may explain the high error rate in the case file review.

Case file review findings: 30 (50%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS.

According to State statute, “death of a parent” or “incarcerated parent” cannot be a primary basis for removal. The State indicated in instances where a child entered care due to the death of both parents or incarceration of a parent the following: “These code table values were intended to generally reflect California's W & I code statutes regarding the reasons a child would be removed from home and come into the jurisdiction of the court which relate to the necessity to provide for the welfare of the child or the safety and protection of the public. In particular, death of a parent and abandonment are specific possible types of situations reflected in Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) 300(g). As such, the proper coding would be "Care Taker Absence/Incapacity."

The AFCARS definition for “caretaker inability to cope due to illness or other reasons” is: “Physical or emotional illness or disabling condition adversely affecting the caretaker’s ability to care for the child.” If a child’s circumstance for removal was due to the death of a parent(s), the State must report it as “death of parent” and not “caretaker inability to cope due to illness or other reasons.”

Case file review findings: 8 (13%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS.

See finding for element #35. If a child’s reason for removal is the incarceration of a parent, the State must report it for this element and not as “caretaker inability to cope due to illness or other reasons.”

Case file review findings: 6(10%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS.

The State should only map circumstances that relate to the definition of this element. The definition of this element is: “Physical or emotional illness or disabling condition adversely affecting the caretaker’s ability to care for the child.”

The State does not consider “abandonment” as a primary reason for a child’s removal from home.

The State does not map “safely surrendered baby” to “abandonment.” The State indicated that the “‘Safely Surrendered Baby’ program is described in Health and Safety Code 1255. The reference in State statute for children that fall into this category is WIC 300(g), “Care Taker Absence/Incapacity.”

The State must map “safely surrendered baby” to “abandonment” for AFCARS purposes and not include “caretaker inability to cope due to illness or other reasons” as a circumstance associated with removal.

Screen: Resource Management, Placement Home Notebook, Identification tab. Client Services, Placement Notebook, Identification and Approval Tab have fields for “placement home,” “facility type” “primary substitute care provider” and the “care providers’ relationship to child.”
Program code: Paragraphs 2600 and 2610.

Frequency report: Pre-adopt home = 8,307 (7%); foster family home/relative = 37,917 (30%); foster family home/non-relative = 44,869 (35%); group home = 19,747 (16%); institution = 3,266 (3%); supervised independent living = 0; runaway = 5,614 (4%); trial home visit = 6,892 (5%); not reported = 591 (.46%)

The screen “Placement Home Notebook, Identification tab,” documents the type of placement setting. This is a mandatory field.

The “end placement/episode” tab on the “placement notebook” contains a field for the placement end date and the placement change reason.

“Non-foster care” is mapped to “institution” in the program code. The State indicated these are hospitals, runaway shelters, temporary stays in a detention facility, etc. They are not a family home setting.

“Tribe specified home” is mapped to “relative home.” A “tribe specified placement” means that the tribe can specify the placement, which they consider a “relative.” The State needs to ensure that if the child is placed in a group home or some other non-foster home setting that the placement accurate reflects the child’s current living arrangement.

The frequency distribution lists zero children in “supervised independent living.” The State indicated this seems unlikely.

The program code derives the response for “supervised independent living” by checking if the current placement ending date occurs prior to the end of the report period, if there is a placement change reason of “age of majority” or “emancipation,” and if there is a service of “independent living.” If so, the program code will map “supervised independent living” for this element.

It appears what a State calls an “adoptive home” AFCARS defines as a pre-adoptive home. The State will evaluate this issue to ensure that they are using “pre-adoptive” home consistent with ACF definitions. The AFCARS definition of “pre-adopt home” is: A home in which the family intends to adopt the child. The family may or may not be receiving a foster care payment or an adoption subsidy on behalf of the child (45 CFR 1355 Appendix A, Section II, Paragraph V.A).

The mapping form indicates that if “the application status for a home study” is “approved, available or approved with placement” and if the approved or denied date is before the end of the report period, then the placement setting is mapped to “pre-adoptive home.” The State needs to provide an explanation to ACF for why the State would use a “denied date” for a pre-adoptive setting.

The State reports facilities based on how they are licensed, not on the size of the facility. AFCARS defines a “group home” as 7-12 beds and an “institution” as more than 12 beds. The State needs to review the size of the placement facilities and modify the program code according to AFCARS definitions.

The State incorrectly reports “fictive kin” as “relative foster care.” The State is making a change and the title for relative foster home will become more general and behind the scenes (not noticeable to the user). The State will be able to determine if they are related or not related and then will map them correctly in the extraction program code.

ACF needs to verify with the State if the screen selection list has the option for “trial home visit” as a “placement setting.” The State must include children that are returned home while under the State’s placement, care or supervision. (See the General Requirements findings for foster care.) For these children, the “current placement setting” must reflect “trial home visit.”

Post-site visit analysis: Requirements Document, SCR #7815: Item #30: A reminder is being added to notify the case workers that a placement has been closed for over 90 days for the reason of “child returned home for trial home visit” and the placement episode is open. The State also indicated to ACF that if the trial home visit goes beyond 90 days the State will still include the record because these changes will not affect the selection logic used to identify the records for reporting.

Requirements Document, SCR #7815: Item #88: A reminder is being added to alert the worker when a “placement episode” is still open and the worker tries to select “family maintenance” as a service. A “placement episode” must be closed first.

Screen: Resource Management; Placement Home Notebook, ID Tab - Documents address of provider.

Post-site visit analysis: Requirements Document, SCR #7815: Item #23: The State is making the zip code field on the screen a mandatory field on both the “ID” and “substitute care provider” tabs.

Screen: Case Plan Notebook (Case Plan Participants Tab)
Program code: Paragraphs 2560 and 2550. Paragraphs 4000 and 4100 check for independent living services.

Frequency report: Reunify = 59,829 (47%); Live with other relative = 8,252 (7%); Adoption = 6,294 (5%); Long-term foster care = 9,716 (8%); Emancipation = 0; Guardianship = 5,516 (4%); Case plan goal not yet established = 37,596 (30%)

The State’s current policy is that case plans must be completed within 30 days. There is proposed State legislation to change it to 60 days.

This is a mandatory field.

The State has a goal of “long-term foster care with relative” and it is mapped to “live with relative.” There is no other goal for “live with relative.”

The Frequency Report lists zero records with a goal of “emancipation.” This is partially due to State policy because they generally do not stress an emancipation plan, even for older children. The program code does not include mapping for “emancipation.” For children that have a goal of “long-term foster care, non-relative,” the program code checks if the child also has a planned service activity with the service type of “Independent Living.” If one is found, it maps this element to “emancipation.”

The program code is initialized to “case plan goal not yet determined.” The States value “not yet established” may be used for children that are in foster care less than 30 days in accordance with the State’s current policy. After 30 days, “not yet established” should be mapped to blank. If State policy changes to 60 days, then this finding would reflect the 60 day time frame.

Case file review findings: 28 (48%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. In general the findings of the case file review indicate that the case plan goals may not be updated in a timely manner.

Screen: Client Services, Placement Notebook, Removal Information Tab Program code: Program code: Paragraphs 2050, 2650, 3000

Frequency report: Married couple = 5,080 (4%); Unmarried couple = 3,195 (3%); Single female = 44,198; Single male = 3,767 (3%); Unable to determine = 70,963 (56%)

The first caretaker field is mandatory.

The “Removal Information” tab of the “Placement Notebook” requires documentation of the caretaker(s) from whom the child was removed. There is a field on the screen for “removed from” and there are fields for the first and second caretaker relationship to the child. The system then checks the “Client Notebook.”

The extract program code checks for a “client” or a “collateral individual.”

This information is not displayed on the AFCARS Navigation Tool.
The detail program code maps spaces to “Unable to determine.” Spaces must be mapped to blank.

The detail program code maps a count of zero caretakers to “unable to determine.” If the data is missing, this element should be mapped to blanks. The State needs to have an option for workers to select when a child is abandoned and the parents are not known. This option would be the only appropriate use of “unable to determine.”

When there is only one caretaker, the program code evaluates the gender only and maps to “single male” or “single female” accordingly. If a gender is not found, then the program code is appropriately mapped to spaces.

The Frequency Report indicates there are a large number of “unable to determine.” The State suspects this might be a training issue in that workers are not going back and updating this field. The State indicated that the workers should have this information because it is very unlikely that the case would be considered by the court without this information.

Interim Release 5.2.7 Document: This document indicates that on June 24, 2004 the AFCARS tool would be corrected by adding “Family Structure.” The AFCARS tool will show multiple caregivers and display each caregiver’s marital status. Also, “unable to determine” will be displayed if the “caretaker removed from” field is blank on the “placement notebook” screen. This should show blank on the AFCARS tool.

Case file review findings: 32 (57%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. In the majority of the cases marked in error the response in AFCARS was “unable to determine.” In many instances the reviewers were able to determine the family structure of the individuals from which the child was removed.

Screen: Client Services (Client Notebook, ID tab) Mother’s birthdate comes from her Client Notebook (see screen page 2) Is this adoption only?
Program code: Paragraph 2650

The Frequency Report lists some very old and very young caretakers. The State acknowledges that these are errors.

Case file review findings: 30 (53%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. In the majority of the cases marked in error, the response in AFCARS was blank. In many instances the reviewers were able to determine the dates of birth of individuals from whom the child was removed.

The Frequency Report lists some very old and very young caretakers. The State acknowledges that these are errors.

Case file review findings: 10 (18%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS.

Screen: Client Services, Family Information Notebook, Parental Rights tab.
Program code: Paragraphs 3200 and 3300

Based on the case file review findings the rating for this element was changed. The State needs to ensure that this information is entered for the foster care file as well as the adoption file.

The State confirmed that the code will look for a death date if a TPR date is not found. If there are several mothers (adoptive and birth), the adoptive mother is preferred. If there are two mothers, it will identify the most recent.

Case file review findings: 10 (16%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. In all of the error cases the AFCARS field was blank and the reviewer found TPR dates.

Screen: Client Services: Family Information Notebook, Parental Rights tab.
Program code: Paragraphs 3200 and 3300

There is a hierarchy (adoptive, presumed, birth) that is searched and the most recent TPR date is selected.

Based on the case file review findings the rating for this element was changed. The State needs to ensure that this information is entered for the foster care file as well as the adoption file.

Case file review findings: 9 (15%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. In all of the error cases, the AFCARS field was blank and the reviewer found TPR dates.

Screen: Resource Management; Placement Home Notebook, Substitute Care Provider tab.
Program code: Paragraphs 2050 and 3400 and SCAFCFD

Frequency report: Not applicable = 36,110 (28%); Married couple = 21,217 (17%); Unmarried couple = 1,602 (1%); Single female = 47,501 (37%); Single male = 10,805 (9%); Not reported = 9,968 (8%)

The field for marital status is not a mandatory field. Also, this information is not included on the “AFCARS Navigation Tool” screen. The State was to implement a correction on June 24, 2004 that will add this field to the AFCARS tool.

The number of records in element #41 that reflect a family home setting is greater than the number of records indicating a marital status in this element. The records with missing data (not reported) represent the difference.

There are several errors in the program code (SCAFCFD). There are two typographical errors. Instead of listing element #49 it maps information for an “unmarried couple” to element #44 and if no marital status is found for either foster parent the program code maps “5” (unable to determine) to #44. “Unable to determine” is not a valid value for element #49 and missing data should be mapped to spaces. This section of the program code needs to be re-written to extract the marital status of the foster parents and not reference the “caretakers.”

When there is only one foster caretaker, the program code evaluates the gender only and maps to “single male” or “single female” accordingly. If a gender is not found, the program code is appropriately mapped to spaces.

Case file review: 12 (20%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. In most of the error cases, the AFCARS field was blank and the reviewer found the information.

Screen: Resource Management; Placement Home Notebook, Substitute Care Provider tab.
Program code: Paragraphs 2050 and 3400

The Frequency Utility lists some very old and very young caretakers. The State acknowledges that these are errors.

This is not a mandatory field.

Case file review: 20 (35%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. The date of birth information was missing in AFCARS and the children were in family foster home settings.

Screen: Resource Management; Placement Home Notebook, Substitute Care Provider tab.
Program code: Paragraphs 2050 and 3400

The Frequency Utility lists some very old and very young caretakers. The State acknowledges that these are errors.

This is not a mandatory field.

Case file review: 10 (18%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. The error records generally indicated that the child was in a family foster home and either the data reported in AFCARS or found by the reviewer indicated the foster family structure was either a “married” or “unmarried couple.”

Screen: Resource Management; Placement Home Notebook, Substitute Care Provider tab.
Program code: Paragraphs 2050, 2075, 3400, and 8000

Frequency report: Unable to determine = 44,550 (35%); two or more races = 352 (.28%)This is not a mandatory field.

There is not an option on the screen of “unable to determine” for the workers to select.

The State uses “Hispanic” as a race. Forms used by workers do not distinguish races from ethnicities and includes Hispanic as a race. The State needs to make clear that “Hispanic” is not a race. The State should consider modifying the labels on the screens and forms. It should also provide enhanced worker training.

Workers must also ask individuals that identify themselves as “Hispanic” or other Latino origin, to identify with a race(s). If the individual refuses to identify a race, the worker should enter “unable to determine.” The State may want to add a “refused” option so that the State can track this response.

The program code is initialized to “No” and then changes values based on the evaluation of stored data. This field must be initialized to blanks.

The State has additional ethnicities on the selection list that are not mapped to AFCARS. The State will review and map all values to the appropriate AFCARS values.

Missing data is mapped to “unable to determine.” Missing data must be mapped to blanks. If individuals identify themselves with only one race, it is acceptable to map the remaining, unmarked races to “No.” If the client declines to provide the information, “unable to determine” is the correct AFCARS response. The State may want to add a “refused” option so that the State can track this response.

Case file review finding: 18 (33%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. The race information was missing in AFCARS even though the children were in family foster home settings.

Screen: Resource Management; Placement Home Notebook, Substitute Care Provider tab.
Program code: Paragraphs 2050, 2075, 3400, and SCAFCFD paragraph 4060

Frequency report: Yes = 16,444 (13%); No = 26,459 (21%); Unable to determine = 47,804 (38%)

This is not a mandatory field.

There is a separate field on the screen to collect this information. It contains the responses “yes,” “no,” and “undetermined.”

If the case worker selects “Hispanic” in the ethnicity box, element #52 must be mapped to blanks.

The State should remove the radio button default on the screen from “unable to determine” to blanks for this element.

The State needs to make clear that “Hispanic” is not a race. The State should consider modifying the labels on the screens and on its forms and to provide enhanced worker training.

Since the State has a field for answering whether an individual is Hispanic/Latino or not, it should consider removing “Hispanic” from the option lists.

Case file review finding: 20 (36%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. The Hispanic information was missing in AFCARS and the children were in family foster home settings.

Screen: Resource Management; Placement Home Notebook, Substitute Care Provider tab.
Program code: Paragraphs 2050, 2075, 3400, and 8000

Frequency report: Unable to determine = 10,223 (8%); Two or more races = 130 (.10%)

This is not a mandatory field.

There is not an option of “unable to determine” on the screen for the workers to select.

The State uses “Hispanic’ as a race. Forms used by workers do not distinguish races from ethnicities and include Hispanic as a race. The State needs to make clear that “Hispanic” is not a race. The State should consider modifying the labels on the screens and forms. It should also provide enhanced worker training.

Workers must also ask individuals that identify themselves as “Hispanic” or other Latino origin, to identify with a race(s). If the individual refuses to identify a race, the worker should enter “unable to determine.” The State may want to add a “refused” option so that the State can track this response.

The program code is initialized to “No” and then changes values based on the evaluation of stored data. This field must be initialized to blanks.

The State has additional ethnicities on the selection list that are not mapped to AFCARS. The State will review and map all values to the appropriate AFCARS values.

Missing data is mapped to “unable to determine.” Missing data must be mapped to blanks. If an individual identifies themselves with only one race, it is acceptable to map the remaining, unmarked races to “No.” If the client declines to provide the information, “unable to determine” is the correct AFCARS response.

Case file review finding: 18 (33%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. The race information was missing in AFCARS even though the children were in family foster home settings.

Screen: Resource Management; Placement Home Notebook, Substitute Care Provider tab.
Program code: Paragraphs 2050, 2075, 3400, and SCAFCFD paragraph 4060

Frequency report: Yes = 8,081 (6%); No = 12,166 (10%); Unable to determine = 11,887 (9%)

This is not a mandatory field.

There is a separate field on the screen to collect this information. It contains the responses “yes,” “no,” and “undetermined.”

If the case worker selects “Hispanic” in the ethnicity box, element #52 must be mapped to blanks.

The State should remove the radio button default on the screen from “unable to determine” to blanks for this element.

Since the State has a field for answering whether an individual is Hispanic/Latino or not, it should consider removing “Hispanic” from the option lists.

Case file review finding: 20 (36%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. The Hispanic information was missing in AFCARS and the children were in family foster home settings.

Screen: Client Services, Placement Notebook, End Placement/Episode Tab.
Program code: LN 010327

Frequency report (n = 127,203): 1900 = 5; 1983 = 1; 1985 = 2; 1989 = 1; 1993 = 1; 1994 = 2; 1995 = 5; 1996 = 3; 1997 = 23; 1998 = 139; 1999 = 254; 2000 = 407; 2001 = 1,126; 2002 = 3,009; 2003 = 24,766; Reported = 29,756; Not reported = 97,447; Invalid date = 12 (21001231)

The screen documents the placement change reason and date along with the placement episode termination date and reason for the placement episode.

The State needs to ensure that children that remain in the agency’s responsibility for care, placement, or supervision and are placed in their own home are not entered into the system as being “discharged.” In these instances, this field must be blank.

There is an inconsistency in the reported numbers for elements #56 - 58. The difference between the numbers for not reported in element #56 is more than the number of “not applicable” reported for element #58.

There are several very old dates reported for this element. The number of dates reported for this element does not match the number of records reported for element #57.

The State extracts the values “5428/5507, child abducted” as a discharge reason. A date of discharge must not be extracted for the State codes “5428/5507, child abducted.”

Case file review findings: 7 (12%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. There were three records indicating a discharge in AFCARS, but the case was still open. Two cases were actually closed, but reported as open in AFCARS. In one instance, the reviewer indicated the child discharged from the agency’s care and placement responsibility in 2000. One record correctly reported the date of discharge, however, it was after the end of the report period.

This element is failing the 60 day timeliness standard on the data compliance utility. The State confirmed that this is a system-generated date.

Frequency report (n = 127,203): 2003 = 28,197; Reported = 28,227; Not reported = 98,976; Invalid date = 30 (21001231)

There is an inconsistency in the reported numbers for elements #56 - 58. There are more invalid dates reported for element #57 than for element #56.

Screen: Client Services, Placement Notebook, End Placement/Episode Tab.
Program code: SCAFCFD - LN 001670; SCAFCFX - Paragraph 2050

Frequency report: Not applicable = 97,279 (76%); Reunify = 17,257 (14%); Living with other relatives = 0; Adoption = 5,495 (4%); Emancipation = 3,020 (2%); Guardianship = 1,535 (1%); Transfer to another agency = 1,268 (1%); Runaway = 1,195 (1%); Death of child = 63 (.05%); Not reported = 91 (.07%); Reported = 127,112

The screen documents the placement change reason and date along with the placement episode termination date and reason for the placement episode.

There is no mapping for “living with other relative.” The State indicated that it never discharges a child to relatives. Instead, a legal guardianship would be established for that relative and then the child’s discharge reason is “guardianship.” The State may want to include a footnote indicating how many “guardianships” are with relatives.

The State codes “5428/5507, child abducted” are mapped to “runaway.” “Child abducted” should not be listed as a discharge reason as this does not reflect State practice. If it is selected, it should be mapped to “not applicable” for this element and no date of discharge should be reported for element #56.

ACF did not receive the codes for discharge reason prior to the site visit. During the post-site visit analysis the codes were analyzed. The following reflects this analysis.

• The State provided information during the post-site visit analysis to indicate that “5429/5508, child in medical facility (dependency suspended/dismissed)” is used in “those few circumstances where a child might remain in a medical facility, but the agency no longer has care or placement responsibility.” This value is correctly mapped to “transfer to another agency.”



• The State maps “5431/5512, child refused services” and “5437/5518, parent rejects voluntary (FR) services” to “reunification.” ACF requested clarification from the State regarding why these are considered discharge reasons. The State’s response is: “The presumption is that the County's basis for providing any services to the child and/or the family is due to a voluntary placement agreement where there is risk to a child but not substantial evidence to pursue dependency protection. Without the requisite cooperation of the child, as in an adolescent, or parent respectively, there is neither a basis for the voluntary agreement nor maintaining the placement.” ACF needs to further discuss this with the State. Based on the State’s response these children should not be picked up by the selection logic for extraction if there was no court order or signed voluntary placement agreement.



• The State maps “5611, CWS agency has jurisdiction” to “transfer to another agency.” If the child welfare agency still has care and placement responsibility this would not be a discharge reason. ACF asked the State to explain and the State’s response was: “We understand that if the child welfare agency still has care and placement this would not be a discharge reason. However, in rare situations, a voluntary agreement with a private child welfare agency in the state who may take responsibility for providing appropriate services to a family which might include a short-term voluntary placement.” The value name and the State’s explanation seem to be contradictory. The State and ACF need to discuss further.



• ACF asked for clarification regarding when the codes “5438/5519, private adoption agency (non-CWS) would be used. The State’s response: “This code is used to explain when a child is relinquished to a private adoption agency that was previously being provided services through a County Welfare Department, e.g. a voluntary placement.” The State is mapping this value to “adoption.” Based on the State’s response, this value should be mapped to “transfer to another agency.”



• The State maps “5632, incarcerated” to “transfer to another agency.” ACF asked for clarification on how this is differentiated from a placement change. The State’s response: “Currently, California does not have dual jurisdiction regarding children receiving Child Welfare Services and those incarcerated due to juvenile criminal offenses. Such a juvenile is not considered changing placements when going from foster care to a locked facility.” If the agency still has care and placement responsibility of the child, then this element is to be left blank and the current placement setting must be “institution.” If the agency’s care and placement responsibility was terminated by the courts and legal custody was given to the Juvenile Justice agency, then the child may be reported as discharged and the reason “transfer to another agency” can be used. If the child then leaves the locked facility and is again placed in foster care under the agency’s responsibility for care and placement, this would begin a new foster care episode.

ACF recommends that some internal audit reports be done to correct data inconsistencies (such as a “not applicable” being assigned to a record with a discharge date.)

Screen: Client services, Client Notebook, Identification Numbers

Elements #59 - 61 and #64 are incorrectly being reported if the child is “eligible” for these sources of Federal support without a payment being made during the current reporting period on behalf of the child.

Case workers and eligibility workers can enter data on this screen. The State should consider limiting access to the entry of this information to eligibility workers only.

The CWS/CMS does not interface with either a State financial system or to individual county payment systems.

Screen: Client services, Client Notebook, Identification Numbers
Program code: Paragraphs 2050 and 2750

Screen: Client services, Client Notebook, Identification Numbers
Program code: Paragraphs 2050, 2750 and 2800

The frequency for “applies” is 1,595 (1.25%) and appeared to be low according to the State staff.

Screen: Client services, Client Notebook, Identification Numbers
Program code: Paragraphs 2050 and 2750

The State uses TANF to pay foster care payments for children who are not eligible for Federal or State foster care payments. In many instances, these children are placed with relatives.

CWS/CMS does not have the capability to collect and report this data nor is there an interface with a Child Support System. The State anticipates having an interface with the planned Child Support System. In the interim, the State is exploring alternative methods of collecting this data.The State must provide data on whether title IV-D child support is a source of income for the child during each report period. This must be reported regardless of the status of implementation of an interface between the State’s SACWIS and Child Support Systems.

Screen: Client services, Client Notebook, Identification Numbers
Program code: Paragraphs 2050 and 2750

The frequency for “applies” is 316 (.25%). The State staff indicated the mapping for this element looks incorrect.

Screen: Client services, Client Notebook, Identification Numbers
Program code: Paragraphs 2050 and 2750

The frequency for “applies” is 34 (.03%). The State noted that the frequency distribution on this element appears to under represent the numbers of children receiving this category of financial assistance.

Screen: Client services, Client Notebook, Identification Numbers
Program code: Paragraphs 2050 and 2750

The State uses Emergency Assistance funds to pay for foster care and it is accurately mapped to this element.

If the State adds options to record other Federal, State or private funds, then these need to map to this element.

Screen: Client Services, Placement Notebook, Ongoing Requests tab.
Program code: Paragraphs 2050, 2900, 2950

This is not a mandatory field on the screen.

The frequency report indicates there are 61,819 (49%) of the records with a zero payment. The State indicated this was not accurate. This information is manually entered into CWS/CMS. It does not come through an automated interface to payment systems.

The State stores the person record number in base 62 that has been encrypted using the ACF encryption algorithm and submits it to ACF.

ACF noted that the same ID number appears in different submissions and may have different demographic information. State speculation: This may be due to the client merge functionality (i.e., merging the records when a client has been entered twice.)

Post-site visit analysis: Based on the State and ACF’s analyses, this element needs to be further investigated and corrections made. The record number reported for this element should remain the child’s identification number regardless of where he/she is living in the State or which county has primary responsibility. If a child exits foster care in one county and later re-enters foster care in another county, he/she should still have the same State system generated number. Additionally, numbers should not be re-used or used for multiple children.

Screen: Client Services (Client Notebook, ID tab)
Program code: SCAFCAX - Paragraphs 1100 (Line Number (LN) 004835) and 1150;
SCAFCAD - LN:000734; and SCAFCETH

Frequency report: For the AFCARS value “unable to determine,” 3,376 (100%) of the records indicate “does not apply.” 322 (10%) of the records indicate two or more races.

The screen has two fields, both labeled “ethnicity.” One field is for the primary race/ethnicity and the other is for all secondary races.

The State also collects primary and secondary language.

There is not an option on the screen of “unable to determine” for the workers to select.

This is not a required field.

The State uses “Hispanic” as a race. Forms used by workers do not distinguish races from ethnicities and include Hispanic as a race.

The State needs to make clear that “Hispanic” is not a race. The State should consider modifying the labels on the screens and forms. It should also provide enhanced worker training.Workers must ask individuals that identify themselves as “Hispanic” or other Latino origin to identify with a race(s). If the individual refuses to identify a race, the worker should enter “unable to determine.” The State may want to add a “refused” option so that the State can track this response.

The program code is initialized to “no” and then changes values based on the evaluation of stored data. This field must be initialized to blanks.

The State has additional ethnicities on the selection list that are not mapped to AFCARS. The State will review and map all values to the appropriate AFCARS values.

Missing data is mapped to “unable to determine.” Missing data must be mapped to blanks. If individuals identify themselves with only one race, it is acceptable to map the remaining, unmarked races to “No.” If the client declines to provide the information, “unable to determine” is the correct AFCARS response.

For the optional footnotes, the State should ensure that they are applicable to the current reporting period.

Screen: Client Services (Client Notebook, ID tab)
Program code: SCAFCAX - Paragraph 1100, LN 00487; and SCAFCETH

Frequency report: Yes = 1,396 (40%); No = 1,912 (57%); Unable to determine = 128 (4%)In addition to being listed on the primary and secondary option lists, there is a separate field on the screen to collect this information. It contains the responses “yes,” “no,” and “unable to determine.”

This is not a required field.

The program code checks both the list box and the radio buttons for this element. If there is a contradiction between the two, the program code maps to “Yes.” A program edit or pop-up box on the entry screen should be added to alert workers/staff to the inconsistent data entry. The worker should be prompted to correct the error at the time of data entry.

If the case worker selects “Hispanic” in the primary ethnicity box, and no secondary “ethnicity” (race) is selected, FC element #8 must be mapped to blanks.

If Hispanic is the primary race and another race is selected as a secondary race, the secondary race should be mapped in #8.

The State should remove the radio button default on the screen from “unable to determine” to blanks for this element.

The State needs to make clear that “Hispanic” is not a race. The State should consider modifying the labels on the screens and on its forms and to provide enhanced worker training.

Since the State has a field for answering whether an individual is Hispanic/Latino or not, it should consider removing “Hispanic” from the option lists.

Screen, page 18: Client Services: Client Notebook, AAP Eligibility tab.
Program code: SCAFCAD, LN000759

Frequency report (n=3,376): Yes = 3,318 (98%); No = 58 (2%)

Screen: Client Notebook, AAP eligibility tab.
Program code: SCAFCAD, LN000769

Frequency report (n=3,376): Not Applicable = 58 (2%); Racial/Origin Background = 316 (9%); Age = 1,381 (41%); Sibling Group = 517 (15%); Medical, Mental, Physical or Emotional Disabilities = 179 (5%); Other State Defined Special Need = 925 (27%)

On the screen the box “Reason for AAP Eligibility” contains five fields: “Race, Ethnicity, Color, or Language,” “Age 3 years or older” (screen default), “Membership in a Sibling group that should remain intact,” “mental, physical, emotion, or medical disability,” and “Adverse Parental Background.” Also, there is a file for “Primary Reason for AAP Eligibility” (mandatory field). This field also defaults to “age.”

The program code extracts the information from the “Primary Reason for AAP Eligibility.” The State indicated that the frequency distribution is reasonable.

The fields on the screen should not pre-fill. Remove the field defaults.

Case File Findings: Note additional findings for the case file review. The State needs to ensure that workers are selecting the basis that is the greatest barrier to a child’s adoption.

Program Code: SCAFCAD - LN 000795 and SCAFCAX - Paragraphs 1100 and 3100, 3110, 3120, 3130, and 3140

In the program code if element #10 is not set to “4,” it correctly maps these elements to “does not apply.”

The program code is initialized to “does not apply.” If a condition is not found, the response remains “does not apply.”

There are medical health conditions mapped to AFCARS that should not be included for these elements. The State should only be mapping those conditions that are chronic and debilitating. The table of California’s mapping of these conditions is included at the end of this section. It lists the codes that the State should or should not map to AFCARS.

Cleft palate or cleft lip should not be mapped to this element. It should be mapped to element #15.

The State’s values for conditions in the “04”category are mapped to this element.

See mapping in psuedocode for #13 and #15.

The State’s values for conditions in the “01” and “06 - 10” categories are mapped to this element.

Screen: Client Services: Family Information Notebook, Cohabitation tab and the AFCARS Navigation Tool.
Program Code: SCAFCAD - LN 000863

The “cohabitation” screen has a “start date” field and this date represents the date the marriage occurred.

According to the State staff the code is not extracting from the “cohabitation” screen. There is a question on the “adoption information” screen.

The State indicated that this information is important for TPR determinations.

The program code extracts this information directly from the screen. The default value on the radio button should be removed and the field should be left blank.

The State needs to ensure that workers understand this should reflect the mother’s marital status at the time of the child’s birth and not the current marital status.

Case file review findings: Six (26%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. The responses in AFCARS were “yes” and the reviewers indicated the response should have been “no.”

Screen: Client Services: Family Information Notebook, Parental Rights tab.

The program code assesses all dates entered for TPR and extracts the most recent TPR date. It will assess adoptive parent (if applicable), birth father and punitive fathers.

Based on the case file review findings the rating factor for this element was changed. The State needs to ensure that they are reporting the date considered by State law and policy as the date the child is considered legally freed for adoption and ensure all workers are entering the date based on this policy.

Case file review findings: Four (19%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. The were also records marked as questionable due to the reviewer noting that the date reported was the filed date.

Post-site visit analysis: Document: Interim Release 5.2.7, June 24, 2004 - Under SCR 7913 the State incorrectly states that AFCARS requires information on the birth father. This is not true for this element. For the TPR date it may represent punitive fathers and should be the last TPR date that allows the child to be considered free for adoption.

Screen: Resource Management, Placement Home Notebook, Substitute Care Provider tab.
Program Code: SCAFCAX - Paragraphs 1100, 1150, and 1210; SCAFCAD - LN000973 - 0011061; and SCAFCETH.

Frequency report: Unable to determine = 171 (5%); two or more races = 42 (1%)

This is not a mandatory field.

There is not an option on the screen of “unable to determine” for the workers to select.

The State uses “Hispanic” as a race. Forms used by workers do not distinguish races from ethnicities and include Hispanic as a race. The State needs to make clear that “Hispanic” is not a race. The State should consider modifying the labels on the screens and forms. Also provide enhanced worker training.

Workers must also ask individuals that identify themselves as “Hispanic” or other Latino origin to identify with a race(s). If the individual refuses to identify a race, the worker should enter “unable to determine.” The State may want to add a “refused” option so that the State can track this response.

The program code is initialized to “No” and then changes values based on the evaluation of stored data. This field must be initialized to blanks.

The State has additional ethnicities on the selection list that are not mapped to AFCARS. The State will review and map all values to the appropriate AFCARS values.

Missing data is mapped to “unable to determine.” Missing data must be mapped to blanks. If individuals identify themselves with only one race, it is acceptable to map the remaining, unmarked races to “No.” If the client declines to provide the information, “unable to determine” is the correct AFCARS response. The State may want to add a “refused” option so that the State can track this response.

Screen: Resource Management, Placement Home Notebook, Substitute Care Provider tab.
Program Code: SCAFCAX - Paragraphs 1100, 1150, and 1210; SCAFCAD - LN000973 - 0011061; and SCAFCETH.

Frequency report: Not applicable = 90 (3%); Yes = 861 (26%); No = 2,200 (65%); Unable to determine = 225 (7%)

This is not a mandatory field.

There is a separate field on the screen to collect this information. It contains the responses “yes,” “no,” and “undetermined.”

If the case worker selects “Hispanic” in the ethnicity box, element #52 must be mapped to blanks.

The State should remove the radio button default on the screen from “unable to determine” to blanks for this element.

The State needs to make clear that “Hispanic” is not a race. The State should consider modifying the labels on the screens and on its forms and providing enhanced worker training.

Since the State has a field for answering whether an individual is Hispanic/Latino or not, it should consider removing “Hispanic” from the option lists.

Screen: Resource Management, Placement Home Notebook, Substitute Care Provider tab.
Program Code: SCAFCAX - Paragraphs 1100, 1150, and 1210; SCAFCAD - LN000973 - 0011061; and SCAFCETH.

Frequency report: Unable to determine = 121 (4%); two or more races = 20 (1%)

This is not a mandatory field.

There is not an option on the screen of “unable to determine” for the workers to select.

The State uses “Hispanic” as a race. Forms used by workers do not distinguish races from ethnicities and include Hispanic as a race. The State needs to make clear that “Hispanic” is not a race. The State should consider modifying the labels on the screens and forms. It should also provide enhanced worker training.

Workers must also ask individuals that identify themselves as “Hispanic” or other Latino origin, to identify with a race(s). If the individual refuses to identify a race, the worker should enter “unable to determine.” The State may want to add a “refused” option so that the State can track this response.

The program code is initialized to “No” and then changes values based on the evaluation of stored data. This field must be initialized to blanks.

The State has additional ethnicities on the selection list that are not mapped to AFCARS. The State will review and map all values to the appropriate AFCARS values.

Missing data is mapped to “unable to determine.” Missing data must be mapped to blanks. If individuals identify themselves with only one race, it is acceptable to map the remaining, unmarked races to “No.” If the client declines to provide the information, “unable to determine” is the correct AFCARS response. The State may want to add a “refused” option so that the State can track this response.

Screen: Resource Management, Placement Home Notebook, Substitute Care Provider tab.
Program Code: SCAFCAX - Paragraphs 1100, 1150, and 1210; SCAFCAD - LN000973 - 0011061; and SCAFCETH.

Frequency report: Not applicable = 1,031 (31%); Yes = 584 (17%); No = 1,580 (47%); Unable to determine = 181 (5%)

This is not a mandatory field.

There is a separate field on the screen to collect this information. It contains the responses “yes,” “no,” and “undetermined.”

If the case worker selects “Hispanic” in the ethnicity box, element #52 must be mapped to blanks.

The State should remove the radio button default on the screen from “unable to determine” to blanks for this element.

The State needs to make clear that “Hispanic” is not a race. The State should consider modifying the labels on the screens and on its forms and providing enhanced worker training.

Since the State has a field for answering whether an individual is Hispanic/Latino or not, it should consider removing “Hispanic” from the option lists.

Screen: Client Services: Adoptive Placement, ID tab.
Program code: SCAFCAD - LN 001274

The screen has separate checkboxes for the following: Step-parent; Non-relative foster parent; relative by birth or marriage; other non-relative. There is no option for “relative foster parent.”

The screen allows the entry of non-relative foster parent only. If a relative adopts a child, and the relative was also a foster parent, workers enter the relationship as “relative.” The State needs to capture and report all relationships that apply in order to not lose the information that the foster parents were relatives. To get this information, the State should check data elements #30 and #31.

Screen: Client Services: Adoptive Placement, ID tab.
Program code: SCAFCAD - LN 001283

In the program code if elements #29, #30, and #31 are all “0, does not apply,” the system will submit a “1, applies” for this element. Remove the default and map missing data to blanks.

Hard coded to “1.” The State should re-evaluate whether there will ever be adoptions that they will be involved in where the child was placed by another county.

On the “Client Notebook, Demographics” tab there are fields for “birth country” and “birth State.”

Program code: SCAFCAD, LN 001300

The program code is incorrectly hard coding this element to “1, public agency.” The State is not reporting private agency adoptions in which there is an adoption agreement between the State/county agency and the family. See the findings in the General Requirements section. The system does not currently have a means to collect this information.

Screen: Adoptive Placement Notebook, AAP Agreement tab.
Program code: SCAFCAX - Paragraphs 2200 and 2210; SCAFCAD - LN001305

The program code does not check for a Medicaid only subsidy. The program code must be corrected so that adoption agreements with “Medicaid only” get mapped to “yes.”

Screen: AAP amounts are documented on the AAP Agreement page of the Adoptive Placement Notebook.
Program code: SCAFCAX - Paragraphs 2200 and 2220

Since all the records reviewed for the case file review were marked in error, the rating for this element was changed. The State needs to ensure that it is extracting from the correct field. Line number 005532 references summing the benefits. The screen has a field “Total monthly AAP benefit.” If this is the exact amount written into the adoption agreement then it should be a direct extraction from this field and should not be adding any other amounts to it.

Screen: Page 18, Client Notebook, AAP eligibility tab.

If the response to element #35 is a “yes” and if the “IV-E” field is “yes,” then this element is mapped to “yes.”
The rating for this element was changed based on the case file review findings. The State needs to ensure that this information is correctly entered by the eligibility workers.

Case file review findings: Four (16%) of the records analyzed were found in error.