AFCARS Data Element

Rating

Factor

Findings/Notes

#1 State

4

#2 Report Date

4

#3 Local Agency FIPS code (County or Equivalent Jurisdiction)

4

On March 9, 2005 the State corrected the program code. Previously, the program code mapped missing FIPS codes to Suffolk county.

#4 Record Number

4

#5 Date of Most Recent Periodic Review (if applicable)

3

Screens: FCR reviews.

Frequency Report (n=16,086): Dates prior to 2004 = 634 (2%)

The State conducts “Foster Care Reviews,” which are their administrative reviews. “Decision Reviews” are the permanency reviews conducted in court.

The program code selects the more recent of the two above dates.

The older dates of review appear to be those for older youth, especially those over age 18 that the State is incorrectly including in the reporting population.

Case file review findings: Sixteen records that were reviewed were not analyzed because the child was older than 18 as of September 30, 2004 and the AFCARS data indicated that title IV-E, foster care, did not apply. These cases reflected older dates for the date of periodic review.

#6 Child Birth Date

___(mo) ___ (day)____(year)

3

Screen: Demographics

Frequency Report (n=16,086): Ages 18 or older - 1980 = 3; 1981 = 8; 1982 = 36; 1983 = 133; 1984 = 196; 1985 = 330; 1986 = 703

Refer to the General Requirement findings for the foster care population.

Case file review findings: Seventeen records that were reviewed were not analyzed because the child was older than 18 as of September 30, 2004 and the AFCARS data indicated that title IV-E, foster care, did not apply.

#7 Child Sex

1 = Male

2 = Female

4

Screen: Demographics

#8 Child’s Race

a. American Indian or Alaska Native

b. Asian

c. Black or African American

d. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

e. White

f. Unable to Determine

4

Screen: Demographics

State staff indicated there is a strong relationship to the race being recorded as “unable to determine” for individuals that are of Hispanic/Latino origin. The State staff indicated the Hispanic/Latino population often refuses to provide a race.

The State continues to address collection of this information through training case workers on how to ask clients their race.

#9 Hispanic/Latino Origin

1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = Unable to Determine

4

Screen: Demographics

The State continues to address collection of this information through training case workers how to ask clients their Hispanic/Latino Origin information.

#10 Has the child been clinically diagnosed as having a disability(ies)?

1=Yes

2=No

3=Not yet Determined

2

Screen: Medical/Behavioral Information: Conditions/Behavioral

Frequency Report (n=16,086): Yes = 2,196 (14%); No = 3,939 (24%);

Not Yet Determined = 9,951 (62%); Not Reported = 0

The State’s policy is that a child is to receive an initial medical exam for basic care within seven days of his/her removal from home.

The program code is based on whether a condition is entered and marked “diagnosed.” If so, then element #10 is mapped to “yes” and the appropriate conditions in #11 - 15 are set to “applies.” If there is a condition entered and marked as “observed,” this element is mapped to “no.” Otherwise, this element defaults to “not yet determined.”

The State plans to revise the program code to check for medical visit dates. If there is a visit date and no conditions entered, the State plans to map these to “no.” This may still result in false “no” responses. The State will need to evaluate this method further to ensure that once the evaluation reports are received from the medical personnel that the data are entered and the record is updated. The State should consider a way to incorporate the question and the responses into an appropriate screen in the system. This would ensure that a response of “no” means the child has been seen by a medical professional and determined to have no disabilities.

Case file review findings: 21 (38%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. The errors appear to reflect a failure to update the case records. There were nine records reported to AFCARS with a response of “no,” but the reviewer found applicable diagnosed conditions. In 12 records the AFCARS response was “not yet determined.” All of these children had been in care for more than a year. In eight records, the response should have been “yes.”

Diagnosed Disabilities #11 – 15

There are conditions that are not correctly mapped or should not be included in the AFCARS extraction. The Federal team modified the State’s Excel document “Allowable Values” and added notes for the values mapped to these elements. (See Tab C.)

#11 Mental Retardation

[0 = Does not apply]

1 = Applies

2

#12 Visually/Hearing Impaired

[0 = Does not apply]

1 = Applies

2

#13 Physically Disabled

[0 = Does not apply]

1 = Applies

2

#14 Emotionally Disturbed

[0 = Does not apply]

1 = Applies

2

Case file review findings: 17 (33%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. Most of the errors should have been reported as “applies.”

#15 Other Diagnosed Condition

[0 = Does not apply]

1 = Applies

2

#16 Has this child ever been adopted?

1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = Unable to Determine

3

Screen: Home Removal Episodes, child ever adopted field

Frequency Report (n=16,086): Yes = 655 (4%); No = 14,210 (88%); Unable to
determine = 368 (2%); Not reported = 853 (5%)

This field is initialized to blank.

The State recently modified the system by making this a mandatory field in order for a worker to open a removal episode.

For children adopted from the Massachusetts’ foster care system, the system will automatically populate this field on the screen with “yes” at the time of the child’s adoption. Therefore, if the child does re-enter foster care, this information is complete.

The State needs to do data clean-up on cases that were open at the time of conversion that are still open.

Case file review findings: 13 (22%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. The errors are primarily due to incomplete conversion of data.

There were three error cases reported as “unable to determine.” In two cases, the reviewer found that the child had not been previously adopted, and had been in one of the cases. All of these cases had a date of removal after October 1, 1994 and the implementation of FamilyNet.

There were 10 cases reported as blank, but the reviewer found in nine cases the answer should have been “no,” and in one case the response was “yes.” Nine of these cases were prior to when the State converted to FamilyNet. There was only one case that had a date of removal prior to October 1, 1994.

#17 If yes, how old was the child when the adoption was legalized?

[0 = Not Applicable]

1 = less than 2 years old

2 = 2-5 years old

3 = 6-12 years old

4 = 13 years or older

5 = Unable to Determine

3

Screen: Home Removal Episodes, age at adoption field

Case file review findings: 13 (22%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS.

See notes for foster care element #16.

#18 Date of First Removal from Home

___(mo) ___ (day)____(year)

4

2

Screen: Home Removal Episodes, Date of removal field

Post site-visit analysis: Based on the finding for element #21, this element also needs to be modified to ensure that this date does not reflect when a child may have first been placed in a hospital or locked facility prior to entering a foster care setting.

#19 Total Number of Removals from Home

4

#20 Date Child was Discharged from last foster care episode (if applicable)

___(mo) ___ (day)____(year)

4

There were some discrepancies found during the case file review. The State should consider a means to update data that is missing as a result of conversion.

#21 Date of Latest Removal

___(mo) ___ (day)____(year)

2

Screen: Home Removal Episodes, Date of removal field

The State needs to modify the program code to not include children that have a first placement in a hospital or locked facility. The removal date and the placement date would be when/if the child is moved to a foster home or other foster care setting.

#22 Date of Latest Removal Transaction Date

4

#23 Date of Placement in Current Foster Care Setting

___(mo) ___ (day)____(year)

3

2

Screen: Non-Referral Location and Service Referrals

Frequency Report (n=16,086): There are 196 (1%) records in the frequency report that are missing a date of placement.

The case workers can enter the date that a runaway status begins.

The State correctly reports the date of placement with the “sub-providers” within an umbrella agency.

If a child is returned home, the system flags it as a trial home visit. (See the notes for foster care data element #41.) The system sets the placement start date for “trial home visits” by adding one day to the end date of the previous placement. The actual day that a “trial home visit” begins is what is to be reported to AFCARS.

There are 196 records missing data for this element and 227 records missing information for the current placement setting (foster care element #41). The State indicated this may be due to those children that enter care and are in a setting for one night and there is a series of these one night stays. The State is not recording these as placements and, therefore, a date, location and accurate count is not reported to AFCARS. The State believed that since these are not placements of 24 hours or more, they did not have to report these as individual placement settings and relied on the Child Welfare Policy Manual (CWPM), 1.2B.7 question #21. The Federal team shared they would provide the State with clarification on this matter in the final findings and report. Post site-visit analysis: The State must record and report all new placements, including one night stays. In the CWPM, section 1.2B.7 question #7, we clarify that a new placement setting results when the foster care setting changes, for example, when a child moves from one foster family home to another or to a group home or institution.” In 1.2.B.7 question #21 of the CWPM, we address the issue of temporary absences and list certain situations that are not to be included as a placement setting, such as visitation or acute hospitalizations. It does not mean that a placement setting is defined by a 24 hour period. Case workers must be instructed to enter the date and location for each of these placement settings.

Case file review findings: 8 (16%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. In four of the error cases, the reviewer found an earlier date than what was reported. The State may want to verify if this is actually the case, or if the information was not in the paper file.

In the other three cases the dates found by the reviewers were after those reported in AFCARS. In each instance the number of placement settings was also wrong.

#24 Number of Previous Placement Settings in This Episode

2

Frequency Report: The State has a very high number of placement moves.

The State correctly counts the “sub-providers” within an umbrella agency.

The program code initializes this element to zero.

If the number of placements is blank or zero, the program code incorrectly sets the number of placements to one. The State must modify the program code to set missing placements to blank and not “1.” Also, zero would be the appropriate response in those situations in which the child runs away prior to the agency placing the child in a placement setting.

See the findings for foster care element #23 regarding a series of multiple placement settings. The program code does not count each of these placement moves. Post site-visit analysis: The State must record and report all placement moves, except for those noted in Child Welfare Policy Manual (CWPM), 1.2B.7 question #21.

Case file review findings: 13 (27%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS.

#25 Manner of Removal From Home for Current placement Episode

1 = Voluntary

2 = Court Ordered

3 = Not Yet Determined

2

Screen: Legal Status

The State has a code of “emergency removal” that is not mapped to AFCARS. It should be mapped to “not yet determined.”

If there is no information, this element is mapped to “not yet determined.” Map missing information to blank.

Actions or Conditions Associated With Child’s Removal (Indicate all that apply with a “1”.)

[0-Does not Apply]

1-Applies

Screen: Home Removal Episodes, Conditions Associated with Removal field

Frequency Report: There were 884 records missing data for elements #26 - 40.

Case file review findings: There were ten records reported with missing data for elements #26-40, but the reviewers were able to find the information. There were eight records with dates of removal prior to the implementation of FamilyNet.

In most of the cases reviewed, there should have been additional conditions checked as applying.

#26 Physical Abuse

3

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

#27 Sexual Abuse

3

Case file review findings: 14(24%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS.

#28 Neglect

3

Case file review findings: 24 (41%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS.

#29 Parent Alcohol Abuse

3

Case file review findings: 20 (34%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS.

#30 Parent Drug Abuse

3

Case file review findings: 21 (36%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS.

#31 Child Alcohol Abuse

3

Case file review findings: 18 (31%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS.

#32 Child Drug Abuse

3

Case file review findings: 12 (20%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS.

#33 Child Disability

3

Case file review findings: 11 (19%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS.

#34 Child’s Behavior Problem

3

Case file review findings: 16 (27%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS.

#35 Death of Parent

3

Case file review findings: 11 (19%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS.

#36 Incarceration of Parent

3

Case file review findings: 13 (22%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS.

#37 Caretaker Inability to Cope Due to Illness or Other Reasons

3

Case file review findings: 17 (29%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS.

#38 Abandonment

3

Case file review findings: 11 (19%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS.

#39 Relinquishment

3

Case file review findings: 11 (19%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS.

#40 Inadequate Housing

3

Case file review findings: 16 (27%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS.

#41 Current Placement Setting

1 = Pre-Adoptive Home

2 = Foster Family Home-Relative

3 = Foster Family Home-Non-Relative

4 = Group Home

5 = Institution

6 = Supervised Independent Living

7 = Runaway

8 = Trial Home Visit

2

Screen: Non-Referral Location and Service Referrals

Frequency Report Frequency Report (n=16,086): Pre-Adoptive Home = 592 (3.68%);

Foster Family Home (Relative) = 2532 (15.74%); Foster Family Home (Non-Relative) = 6052 (37.62%); Group Home = 1351 (8.40%); Institution = 1541 (9.58%); Supervised Independent Living = 762 (4.74%); Runaway = 460 (2.86%); Trial Home Visit = 2576 (16.01%); Not Reported = 220 (1.37%)

The State correctly extracts placement information for “sub-providers” within an umbrella agency. The program code is looking at sites as sub-providers.

Mapping form notes: 245, contracted FC/Respite home is mapped to “foster family home - non-relative;” 236, Departmental FC/Respite home is mapped to “foster family home - non-relative.”

Case workers do not enter a living arrangement of “trial home visit.” Instead, it is based on a placement end reason of “return home” and a legal status of “DSS custody.”

A status of “runaway” may be entered either as a location or a placement end reason.

The State staff indicated they cannot exclude “respites” as placement, therefore, respites are included. There are codes for “respite” in the program code and mapping forms. The State needs to look at whether the respite codes are used and, if not used, comment them out. The State should also evaluate whether these can be used to exclude respite as placement setting and to exclude them from the date of placement and the number of placements.

The State needs to modify the program code to not include children that have a first placement in a hospital or locked facility. The removal date and the placement date would be when/if the child is moved to a foster home or other setting.

The State indicated that some group homes are larger than 12 beds and all group homes are mapped to the AFCARS value “group home” regardless of the size of the home. The State needs to map group homes that house between seven and twelve children to “group home” and those with more than 12 beds to “institution.”

The State may want to comment out the program code for “3977, trial home visit” since this is not a value that the workers enter and the program code checks for a “trial home flag” in the beginning.

There are 220 records missing information for this element and 196 records missing data for the date of the current placement setting (foster care element #23). See the findings in foster care element #23. Post site-visit analysis: Case workers must be instructed to enter the date and location for all living arrangements.

#42 Is Current Placement Out-of-State?

1=Yes (Out of State placement)

2=No (In-State placement)

4

#43 Most recent case plan goal

1 = Reunify With Parent(s) Or Principal Caretaker(s)

2 = Live With Relative(s)

3 = Adoption

4 = Long Term Foster Care

5 = Emancipation

6 = Guardianship

7 = Case Plan Goal Not Yet Established

4

#44 Caretaker Family Structure

1 = Married Couple

2 = Unmarried Couple

3 = Single Female

4 = Single Male

5 = Unable to Determine

4

#45 1 st Primary Caretaker’s Birth Year

___(mo) ___ (day)____(year)

4

Screen: Home Removal, caretaker information field

Frequency Report (n=16,086): Reported = 15,807; Not reported = 279; There were 18 records reported for 1900 and 15 reported for 1901.

There are records missing a date of birth that should have one based on the numbers reported in element #44. The number of missing records is less than two percent. The State should ensure that this rate does not increase and try to ensure complete data entry.

#46 2 nd Primary Caretaker’s Birth Year (if applicable)

___(mo) ___ (day)____(year)

3

Screen: Home Removal, caretaker information field

Frequency Report (n=16,086): Reported = 2,108; Not reported = 13,978

There are several records missing a date of birth that should have one based on the numbers reported in element #44. (Number of couples reported was 4,575.)

Case file review findings: 6 (11%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. In all of the error cases, the marital structure for element #44 was either married or unmarried couple and this element was blank. The reviewers found a date of birth in all cases.

#47 Mother’s Date of TPR

2

The program code needs to be modified to extract the latest TPR date if there is more than one.

#48 Legal or Putative Father’s TPR

2

The program code needs to be modified to extract the latest TPR date if there is more than one.

#49 Foster Family Structure

0 = Not Applicable

1 = Married Couple

2 = Unmarried Couple

3 = Single Female

4 = Single Male

4

#50 1 st Foster Caretaker’s Birth Year

4

#51 2 nd Foster Caretaker’s Birth Year

4

#52 1 st Foster Caretaker’s Race

a. American Indian or Alaska Native

b. Asian

c. Black or African American

d. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

e. White

f. Unable to Determine

4

3

Case file review findings: For the values “white” and “unable to determine,” 5 (11%) records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. The AFCARS data reported indicated “unable to determine” as applying, but the reviewer found that the individual was “white.”

#53 1 st Foster Caretaker’s Hispanic or Latino Origin

1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = Unable to Determine

4

3

Case file review findings: 5 (11%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. The AFCARS data indicate “unable to determine.” The reviewer was able to determine whether the individual was Hispanic or not.

#54 2 nd Foster Caretaker’s Race (if applicable)

a. American Indian or Alaska Native

b. Asian

c. Black or African American

d. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

e. White

f. Unable to Determine

4

#55 2 nd Foster Caretaker’s Hispanic Origin

[0 = Not Applicable]

1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = Unable to Determine

4

#56 Date of Discharge from foster care

___(mo) ___ (day)____(year)

2

This information is automatically entered; the workers do not enter discharge dates. The date is based on the placement end date and the reason for the end of the placement. This was done to eliminate workers entering incorrect “exit” reasons of “placement end reasons.” The program code uses the last home removal episode end date.

There is an issue in the entry/extraction of dates of discharge for children that are adopted. The number of records with dates and/or the number of records with an outcome of adoption is significantly different from the number of adoptions reported in the adoption file. The State should modify the program code to also look for the legalization date of the adoption.

Case file review findings: 6 (10%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. There was one record, which had a correct date, with a discharge date of January 2004. The child’s date of removal was also in January 2004. The State needs to ensure that discharge information is entered in a timely manner.

#57 Date of Discharge Transaction Date

4

#58 Reason for Discharge

[0 = Not Applicable]

1 = Reunification with Parent(s) or Primary Caretaker(s)

2 = Living with Other Relative(s)

3 = Adoption

4 = Emancipation

5 = Guardianship

6 = Transfer to Another Agency

7 = Runaway

8 = Death of Child

2

The program code checks the removal episode table.

If element #56 is blank, this element is incorrectly mapped to blank. It should be mapped to “not applicable.”

The State’s number of outcomes to adoption is underreported.

Case file review findings: 6 (10%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. In two cases the child discharged due to adoption.

#59 Title IV-E (Foster Care)

2

There is a status of eligible/claimable.

The State is reporting this element based on whether the child is eligible, not that a payment was made on behalf of the child.

#60 Title IV-E (Adoption Subsidy)

4

The State does not claim Adoption Subsidy prior to finalization of an adoption.

#61 Title IV-A

4

#62 Title IV-D (Child Support)

2

There is not an interface. There are some payments that are received and entered into the system. The program code needs to check for the payment. Currently, it is not looking in the right location for the information.

#63 Title XIX (Medicaid)

4

#64 SSI or other Social Security Act Benefits

2

The program code must be modified to check for payment data not eligibility data.

#65 None of the Above

2

The program code must be modified to check for other sources of income in addition to checking elements #59 - 64 for “does not apply.”

#66 Amount Of Monthly Foster Care Payment (regardless of source)

2

The program code currently extracts an average payment, not an actual full month amount for a placement. The State needs to modify the program code.

#1 State FIPS Code

4

#2 Report Period End Date

4

#3 Record Number

4

#4 State Agency Involvement

1 = Yes

2 = No

4

#5 Child Date of Birth

4

#6 Child Sex

1 = Male

2 = Female

2

The program code maps the value “unknown” to zero, which is not a valid value in AFCARS. The State must map “unknown” to blank.

#7 Child Race

a = American Indian or

Native

b = Asian

c = Black or African

American

d = Native Hawaiian

Pacific Islander

e = White

f = Unable to Determine

4

The State staff indicated there is a strong relationship to the race being recorded as “unable to determine” for individuals that are of Hispanic/Latino origin. The State staff indicated the Hispanic/Latino population often refuses to provide a race.

The State continues to address the collection of this information through training case workers on how to ask clients their race.

#8 Child Hispanic Origin

1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = Unable to Determine

4

The State continues to address the collection of this information through training on how to ask clients their Hispanic/Latino Origin information.

#9 Has Agency Determined Special Needs?

1 = Yes

2 = No

4

#10 Primary Basis for Determining Special Needs

0 = Not Applicable

1 = Racial/Original Background

2 = Age

3 = Membership in a Sibling Group

4 = Medical Conditions or Mental, Physical or Emotional Disabilities

5 = Other State Defined Special Needs

2

The State does not use age independently as a basis of determining special needs. Instead, it is combined with sibling group.

The program code will set this element to “not applicable” if a primary basis for special needs is not selected by the case worker. The program code for this element is independent of the response for data element #9. The program code should include language that if element #9 is “no” and the special needs flag is not “yes,” then element #10 will be “not applicable.” Otherwise, if a primary basis for special needs is not identified, this element should be blank.

Diagnosed Disabilities #11 – 15

There are conditions that are not correctly mapped or should not be included in the AFCARS extraction. The Federal team modified the State’s Excel document “Allowable Values” and added notes for the values mapped to these elements. (See Tab C.)

The State is incorrectly including responses to elements #11 – 15, even if the response to element #10 is other than “medical conditions or mental, physical or emotional disabilities.” The code should only extract responses to these elements if the response to element #10 is “4, medical conditions or mental, physical or emotional disabilities.” If the response is other than the value “4,” these elements are to be left blank.

#11 Mental Retardation

2

#12 Visually/Hearing Impaired

2

#13 Physically Disabled

2

#14 Emotionally Disturbed

2

#15 Other Diagnosed Condition

2

#16 Mother's Birth Year

2

The program code checks for both legal and biological parent and selects the more current parent for the child prior to his/her current adoption.

The program code includes foster and stepparent information. This is incorrect. The State needs to remove foster parent and stepparent relationships from the program code.

#17 Father's Birth Year

4

#18 Mother Married at Time of Birth

1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = Unable to Determine

4

2

The system utilizes a “marital history” table. The program code compares the biological mom’s marital status as of the child’s birth.

The program code maps the State value “unknown” to blank.

Post site-visit analysis: The State does not have a value to account for children that are abandoned and, therefore, the marital status of the mother is not known. The State needs to be able to account for this type of situation and allow workers to record “unable to determine.”

#19 Date of Mother's TPR

2

The program code needs to be modified to extract the latest TPR date if there is more than one.

#20 Date of Father's TPR

2

The program code needs to be modified to extract the latest TPR date if there is more than one.

#21 Date Adoption Legalized

4

#22 Adoptive Family Structure

1 = Married Couple

2 = Unmarried Couple

3 = Single Female

4 = Single Male

4

#23 Adoptive Mother's Year of Birth

4

#24 Adoptive Father's Year of Birth

4

#25 Adoptive Mother's Race

a = American Indian or Alaskan Native

b = Asian

c = Black or African American

d = Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander

e = White

f = Unable to Determine

4

The State staff indicated there is a strong relationship to the race being recorded as “unable to determine” for individuals that are of Hispanic/Latino origin. The State staff indicated the Hispanic/Latino population often refuses to provide a race.

The State continues to address the collection of this information through training case workers on how to ask clients their race.

#26 Adoptive Mother's Hispanic Origin

0 = Not Applicable

1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = Unable to Determine

4

The State continues to address the collection of this information through training on how to ask clients their Hispanic/Latino Origin information.

#27 Adoptive Father's Race

a = American Indian or Alaskan Native

b = Asian

c = Black or African American

d = Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander

e = White

f = Unable to Determine

4

There State staff indicated there is a strong relationship to the race being recorded as “unable to determine” for individuals that are of Hispanic/Latino origin. The State staff indicated the Hispanic/Latino population often refuses to provide a race.

The State continues to address the collection of this information through training case workers on how to ask clients their race.

#28 Adoptive Father's Hispanic Origin

0 = Not Applicable

1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = Unable to Determine

4

The State continues to address the collection of this information through training on how to ask clients their Hispanic/Latino Origin information.

#29 Relationship of Adoptive Parent to Child - Stepparent

4

#30 Relationship of Adoptive Parent to Child - Other Relative

2

The program code checks for “other relative,” but the field it is checking is not the correct one. The state indicated they plan to modify the program code.

The State’s definition of “kin” is very broad and includes “fictive kin.” There are not separate codes for “fictive kin” in order to exclude them. The State needs to instruct case workers to not select “other relative” for individuals that are not related to the child by blood or marriage.

The system does not allow for workers to select more than one relationship between the child and the adoptive parents. The system/program code must be modified to extract all possible relationships between the child and the adoptive parents.

#31 Relationship of Adoptive Parent to Child - Foster Parent

4

All records reported will be reported as “foster parent.” The State must place a child with the adoptive parents for six months before the case is legalized.

#32 Relationship of Adoptive Parent to Child - Other Non-Relative

2

The program code defaults to “applies” for this element if elements #29 - 31 are “does not apply.” The State must modify the code to map missing data to blank.

The system does not allow for workers to select more than one relationship between the child and the adoptive parents. The system/program code must be modified to extract all possible relationships between the child and the adoptive parents.

#33 Child Was Placed from

1 = Within State

2 = Another State

3 = Another Country

4

The State indicated that they may report “another State” if a private agency in another State placed a child for adoption in Massachusetts and the agency signed an adoption agreement with the family.

#34 Child Was Placed by

1 = Public Agency

2 = Private Agency

3 = Tribal Agency

4 = Independent Person

5 = Birth Parent

4

There is a private agency indicator to indicate if it is a private agency adoption with an adoption agreement between the State agency and the adoptive family.

#35 Receiving Monthly Subsidy

1=Yes

2=No

4

This element is initialized to blank.

#36 Monthly Amount

2

This element is initialized to blank.

The State needs to modify the program code to extract the actual amount from the adoption agreement. Do not calculate the amount.

#37 Adoption Assistance IV-E

1=Yes

2=No

2

This element is initialized to blank.

The State needs to further evaluate the program code and system. State staff indicated the number of records reported as “yes” should be higher. The staff indicated it may be due to the new automated IV-E eligibility determination process.