Review date in paper files is typically earlier than the date reported in AFCARS.

The seven that were correct were cases that had been open for less then seven months.

Of the 39 records that did not match the AFCARS file:
9 were blank in AFCARS, and dates were found in the file;
14 had dates of August 30, 2000: seven of them had review dates that occurred prior to August 30^th, and 2 had review dates after the August date;
1 record had an AFCARS date of 2/17/2001;
14 records had "valid" dates in AFCARS (i.e., were dates other then 8/30/2000), but reviewers did not find these to be correct.

In 3 records the reviewers noted that a case review was not required because the child was over the age of 18.

Another record noted that children in Long Lang do not receive reviews.

The seven questionable records all had 8/30/2000 as the review date in AFCARS.

Paper case files typically contain earlier dates of first removal; many of these earlier dates are within the 1993-1996 historical conversion period.

Number (#) of cases with dates of removal prior to 1/1/1997 = 34. # reported correctly to AFCARS = 14. # of records that did not match what was in the case file = 19. Of the 19:AFCARS dates prior to 1/1/1997 = 15;records with AFCARS dates after 1/1/1997 = 4. 2 had AFCARS dates of 2000 and the actual removal dates were 1995 and 1996. 2 had AFCARS dates and the actual dates were 1994 and 1996.

The amount of difference in the dates reported to AFCARS and the actual dates ranged from 1 day to 2 months (4) and 10 were off by 2 to 12 years.

There were 19 records that had dates of 1^st removal after 1/1/1997. Of those, 13 matched, and 5 did not match.

The paper case files often contained fewer removals. This is due to the reviewers finding that the child had continuously been in care and not discharged as shown in the AFCARS report.

For those records with dates of 1^st removal prior to 1/1/97: 14 matched and 21 did not match. Of the 21 that did not match, 2 increased in the number of removals and 18 decreased.

For those with dates of 1^st removal after 1/1/97, all that did not match decreased in the total number of removals.

Paper case files confirm that some of these dates reported to AFCARS do not reflect actual discharges from care (probably changes in placements, particularly from paid to non-paid placement settings).

There were 18 records in the pre-1/1/97 group. Of those, 8 matched and 10 did not match.

There were 35 records in the post-1/1/97 group, and 13 matched and 21 did not match. One record showed a date in AFCARS after the end of the report period under review. 17 of the AFCARS records had dates, but the child had never been discharged and remained in the same removal episode.

Paper case files typically contain an earlier date of latest removal than the one in AFCARS report.

There were 17 records pre-1/1/97. Of those, 4 matched and 12 did not. In this group, the dates in AFCARS and the actual dates were:

In the post-1/1/97 group, 17 records matched and 15 did not.

Paper case files typically contain an earlier date of placement than the one in AFCARS report.

Of the 18 records that did not match: 3 had dates after the end of the report period, 5 had dates that were 2 to 4 years before what was reported to AFCARS, and 3 of those had dates prior to 1/1/1997.

The paper case files typically contained more placements than reported to AFCARS. This is probably due to the current removal episode being longer in duration than what was reported to AFCARS (see note in element #19).

There were 3 records that the number decreased and 22 that the number of placements were more than what was reported in AFCARS.