 |
|---|
|
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|||
| ACF Home | Services | Working with ACF | Policy/Planning | About ACF | ACF News | HHS Home | ||||
Questions?
|
Privacy
|
Site Index
|
Contact Us
|
Download Reader™
|
Print
|
|---|
AFCARS Assessment Review Case File Findings: Foster Care Data Elements
|
AFCARS Element |
Data In AFCARS Matches Case File |
Data In AFCARS Does Not Match Paper File |
Questionable |
Not Found |
Comments |
#3 Local FIPS Code |
42 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
blank cell |
#5 Most Recent Periodic Review Date |
34 |
9 |
0 |
4 |
There were four error cases because the reviewer found that the most recent periodic review date was in the last half of March, 2006.
There were three error cases in which the reviewer found a recent date, within the report period, but the date reported to AFCARS was greater than six months prior to the end of the report period. Most were close to being a year earlier than what was found by the reviewer. |
#6 Child Birth Date |
46 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
blank cell |
#7 Child Sex
1 = Male 2 = Female |
47 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
blank cell |
#8 Child Race a. American Indian or Alaska Native |
37 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
blank cell |
b. Asian |
37 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
blank cell |
c. Black or African American |
37 |
|
|
10 |
blank cell |
d. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander |
37 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
blank cell |
se. White |
35 |
2 |
0 |
10 |
In one record, the reported responses for all races was “no.” In eleven cases, the reviewers found that this race did apply. |
f. Unable to Determine |
37 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
blank cell |
#9 Child Hispanic Origin
1 = Yes 2 = No 3 = Unable to Determine |
38 |
1 |
0 |
8 |
The error cases should have been “yes,” not “no.” |
#10 Has Child Been Diagnosed with Disability? |
19 |
28 |
|
|
There were nineteen error cases reported as “not yet determined” and the reviewer found the information. In all of the cases, the child had been in care for two or more years. Some were in care for as many as ten years.
There were two cases reported as “not yet determined,” and the reviewer found that the child had a diagnosed disability.
There were eight error cases reported as “no,” and the reviewer found that a diagnosed disability existed. |
#11 Mental Retardation |
43 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
There were three error cases where this was reported as “does not apply,” and the reviewer found that it did apply.
The questionable case is due to the AFCARS data indicating the child had been in care for seven years but the reviewer was not able to verify whether the child had a diagnosed disability. |
#12 Visually/Hearing Impaired |
45 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
There was one error case where this was reported as “does not apply” and the reviewer found that it did apply.
The questionable case is due to the AFCARS data indicating the child had been in care for seven years, but the reviewer was not able to verify whether the child had a diagnosed disability. |
#13 Physically Disabled |
43 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
There were three error cases where this was reported as “does not apply,” and the reviewer found that it did apply.
The questionable case is due to the AFCARS data indicating the child had been in care for seven years, but the reviewer was not able to verify whether the child had a diagnosed disability. |
#14 Emotionally Disturbed |
25 |
21 |
1 |
0 |
There were eight error cases where this was reported as “does not apply,” and the reviewer found that it did apply.
In eleven error cases, element #10 was incorrectly reported as “not yet determined” and the reviewer found that this condition did apply.
In two error cases, the reviewer found this as an additional diagnosed condition.
The questionable case is due to the AFCARS data indicating the child had been in care for seven years, but the reviewer was not able to verify whether the child had a diagnosed disability. |
#15 Other Diagnosed Condition |
35 |
11 |
1 |
0 |
There were two error cases where this was reported as “does not apply,” and the reviewer found that it did apply.
There were five error cases where this was reported as “applies,” and the reviewer found that it did not apply.
Four error cases were due to element #10 incorrectly reported as “not yet determined,” instead of “yes,” and the reviewer found this condition applied.
The questionable case is due to the AFCARS data indicating the child had been in care for seven years, but the reviewer was not able to verify whether the child had a diagnosed disability. |
#16 Has Child Ever Been Adopted?
1 = Yes 2 = No 3 = Unable to Determine |
47 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
blank cell |
#17 Age at Previous Adoption
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 |
47 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
blank cell |
#18 Date of First Removal from Home |
36 |
11 |
0 |
0 |
In seven error cases, the reviewers found earlier dates than what were reported to AFCARS. In one case, a later date was found.
One error case had “zero” reported to AFCARS, but a date was found by the reviewer. |
#19 Total Number of Removals from Home |
39 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
There were six error cases reported as having only one removal, but the reviewer found two removals.
There was one error case that indicated only one removal, but the reviewer found four removal episodes. One error cases had “zero” reported to AFCARS, but the reviewer found a removal episode. |
#20 Date of Discharge from Previous Episode |
38 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
Six error cases were due to only one removal being reported, making this element blank, but the reviewer found that there was two removal episodes.
There were three error cases where this element was reported as blank, but two or more removals were reported and verified by the reviewer. |
#21 Date of Latest Removal |
41 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
In two error cases, there was actually more than one removal as reported, so the date of latest removal was wrong. In three cases, the reviewers found an earlier date than what was reported. |
#23 Date of Placement in Current Setting |
36 |
6 |
1 |
4 |
blank cell |
#24 Number of Previous Placement Settings in This Episode |
12 |
23 |
7 |
5 |
In twenty of the error cases, the reviewers found fewer placement moves than what were reported.
In three error cases, more placement moves were found. |
#25 Manner of Removal From Home for This Episode
1 = Voluntary 2 = Court Ordered 3 = Not Yet Determined |
46 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
blank cell |
#26 Physical Abuse |
37 |
9 |
0 |
1 |
In three error cases, the response should have been “does not apply” instead of “applies.”
In two error cases, the response should have been “applies” instead of “does not apply.”
In one error case, a blank was reported and the reviewer found that this condition did apply.
In three error cases, a blank was reported and the reviewer found that this condition did not apply. |
#27 Sexual Abuse |
37 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
In four error cases, the response should have been “applies” instead of “does not apply.”
In one error case, a blank was reported and the reviewer found that this condition did apply.
In three error cases, a blank was reported and the reviewer found that this condition did not apply. |
#28 Neglect |
42 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
In two error cases, the response should have been “applies” instead of “does not apply.”
In two error cases, a blank was reported and the reviewer found that this condition did apply.
In one error case, it was reported as blank and the reviewer found that it did not apply. |
#29 Parent Alcohol Abuse |
32 |
15 |
0 |
0 |
In nine error cases, the response should have been “applies” instead of “does not apply.”
In three error cases, a blank was reported and the reviewer found that this condition did apply.
In two error cases, a blank was reported and the reviewer found that this condition did not apply. |
#30 Parent Drug Abuse |
40 |
4 |
0 |
3 |
In one error case, the response should have been “does not apply” instead of “applies.”
In one error case, a blank was reported and the reviewer found that this condition did apply.
In two error cases, a blank was reported and the reviewer found that this condition did not apply. |
#31 Child Alcohol Abuse |
26 |
20 |
0 |
1 |
In fourteen error cases, the response should have been “does not apply” instead of “applies.”
In five error cases, a blank was reported and the reviewer found that this condition did not apply. |
#32 Child Drug Abuse |
42 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
In five error cases, a blank was reported and the reviewer found that this condition did not apply. |
#33 Child Disability |
38 |
8 |
0 |
1 |
In two error cases, the response should have been “does not apply” instead of “applies.”
In one error case, the response should have been “applies” instead of “does not apply.”
In five error cases, a blank was reported and the reviewer found that this condition did not apply. |
#34 Child's Behavior Problem |
40 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
In one error case, the response should have been “does not apply” instead of “applies.”
In one error case, the response should have been “applies” instead of “does not apply.”
In two error cases, a blank was reported and the reviewer found that this condition did apply.
In three error cases, a blank was reported and the reviewer found that this condition did not apply. |
#35 Death of Parent |
41 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
In one error case, the response should have been “does not apply” instead of “applies.” In five error cases, a blank was reported and the reviewer found that this condition did not apply. |
#36 Incarceration of Parent |
40 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
In one error case, the response should have been “does not apply” instead of “applies.”
In one error case, the response should have been “applies” instead of “does not apply.”
In one error case, a blank was reported and the reviewer found that this condition did apply.
In four error cases, a blank was reported and the reviewer found that this condition did not apply. |
#37 Caretaker Inability to Cope |
36 |
11 |
0 |
0 |
In eight error cases, the response should have been “applies” instead of “does not apply.”
In one error case, a blank was reported and the reviewer found that this condition did apply.
In two error cases, a blank was reported and the reviewer found that this condition did not apply. |
#38 Abandonment |
41 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
In one error case, the response should have been “does not apply” instead of “applies.”
In five error cases, a blank was reported and the reviewer found that this condition did not apply. |
#39 Relinquishment |
42 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
In five error cases, a blank was reported and the reviewer found that this condition did not apply. |
#40 Inadequate Housing |
37 |
8 |
0 |
2 |
In three error cases, the response should have been “applies” instead of “does not apply.”
In one error case, a blank was reported and the reviewer found that this condition did apply.
In four error cases, a blank was reported and the reviewer found that this condition did not apply. |
#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 |
36 |
9 |
0 |
2 |
In eight of the records, the reviewer found that the child was in a group home. The option reported to AFCARS was “family foster home, non-relative” and the information for elements #49 - 55 (foster parent information) was reported as blank. |
#42 Out of State Placement |
45 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
blank cell |
#43 Most Recent Case Plan Goal
1 = Reunify with Parent(s) or Principal Caretaker(s) 2 = Live with Other Relative(s) 3 = Adoption 4 = Long Term Foster Care 5 = Emancipation 6 = Guardianship 7 = Case Plan Goal Not Yet Established |
30 |
16 |
0 |
1 |
In two error cases, the reported goal was “emancipation,” but the reviewer found a goal of “reunify.”
There were ten error cases in which “not yet established” was reported to AFCARS. In all of these cases the child had been in care for more than two years. There were two in which the child had been in care since 1998; three since 1997; one since 1995; and three since 1993. In all cases, the reviewer found a case plan goal. The goals were: adoption = 1; long-term foster care = 2; “another planned permanent living arrangement” (APPLA) = 6; and emancipation = 1.
There were two error records reported as blank. In one, the child was in care for two years and in the other the child had been care for seven years. For one case the reviewer found a goal of “long-term foster care” and in the other “adoption.”
There was one error case with “not yet established” reported for AFCARS and the child was in care for less than 60 days. The reviewer found a case plan goal of reunify. |
#44 Caretaker Family Structure
1 = Married Couple 2 = Unmarried Couple 3 = Single Female 4 = Single Male 5 = Unable to Determine |
33 |
12 |
0 |
2 |
There were five error cases reported with blanks, but the reviewer found the information. In four cases the family structure was “married couple,” and in one case it was “single female.”
In two error cases, the reviewers found that the family structure was “unmarried couple,” not “single female.”
In two error cases, the reviewers found that the family structure was “unmarried couple,” not “married couple.”
There was one error case reported as “married couple,” but the reviewer found “single female.” There was one error case reported as “single female,” but the reviewer found “married couple.” |
#45 1 st Primary Caretaker's Birth Year |
41 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
One error case was reported with a date of birth of 1990, and the reviewer found the actual year of birth was 1971. Another error case had 1991 and the reviewer found that it was 1971. |
#46 2 nd Primary Caretaker's Birth Year |
25 |
17 |
5 |
0 |
In four of the questionable cases, the reviewer wrote down a date of birth for a second caretaker. However, the reviewer also found that the caretaker family structure was “single female.”
In one questionable case, the reviewer noted a date of birth for a second caretaker but noted “not found” for caretaker family structure was “single female.”
In one error case, a date was reported, but element #44 was “single female.”
There were 17 error cases reported as blank. In eleven cases the response to element #44 was either “married couple” (10) or “unmarried couple” (one) and the reviewers found dates of birth. In four cases, element #44 was either “married couple” (three) or “unmarried couple” (one). In these cases the reviewer was not able to find dates of birth. In the remaining two cases reported as blank, one had element #44 reported as blank, but reviewer found that it was a married couple. In the other blank case, element #44 had a family structure reported in AFCARS. |
#47 Mother's Date of TPR |
43 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
In one error case, it was reported as blank, but the reviewer found a date. |
#48 Father's Date of TPR |
37 |
9 |
0 |
1 |
There were four error cases reported as blank, but the reviewers found dates. |
#49 Foster Family Structure
0 = Not Applicable 1 = Married Couple 2 = Unmarried Couple 3 = Single Female 4 = Single Male |
40 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
In one questionable case, this element was reported as blank. Element #41 was a “trial home visit,” but the reviewer was not able to find the information for element #41.
One of the “not found” cases was because the placement setting information was not found for the record (incomplete record).
In one error case, the information was not updated from “married couple” to “single female.” The reviewer found that the foster mother became a widow.
In three error cases, the child was in a family foster home setting and this information was reported as blank. The reviewers found that two cases were “married couples” and the other was a “single female.” |
#50 1 st Foster Caretaker's Birth Year |
38 |
6 |
1 |
2 |
In elements #50 – 55, the questionable cases were reported as blank. Element #41 was “trial home visit,” but the reviewers were not able to verify the information for element #41.
In three error cases, this field and element #49 were blank, but the child was in a relative foster home. |
#51 2 nd Foster Caretaker's Birth Year |
38 |
6 |
1 |
2 |
One error case was because the foster parent became a widow and this element should have been blank. One error case was because a date was reported, but the foster parent structure was “single female” (verified by reviewer.) In one error case, this element was blank, but #49 was verified to be “married couple.”
In three error cases, this field and element #49 was blank, but the child was in a relative foster home. |
#52 1 st Foster Caretaker's Race a. American Indian or Alaska Native |
38 |
3 |
1 |
5 |
In the error cases, this field and element #49 was blank, but the child was in a relative foster home. blank cell |
b. Asian |
38 |
3 |
1 |
5 |
In the error cases, this field and element #49 was blank, but the child was in a relative foster home. |
c. Black or African American |
38 |
3 |
1 |
5 |
In the error cases, this field and element #49 was blank, but the child was in a relative foster home. |
d. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander |
38 |
3 |
1 |
5 |
In the error cases, this field and element #49 was blank, but the child was in a relative foster home. |
e. White |
38 |
3 |
1 |
5 |
In the error cases, this field and element #49 was blank, but the child was in a relative foster home. |
f. Unable to Determine |
3 |
3 |
1 |
5 |
In the error cases, this field and element #49 was blank, but the child was in a relative foster home. |
#53 1 st Foster Caretaker's Hispanic Origin blank cell |
35 |
6 |
1 |
5 |
Three of the error cases were reported as blank and should have been “no.”
In three error cases, this field and element #49 were blank, but the child was in a relative foster home. |
#54 2 nd Foster Caretaker's Race
a. American Indian or Alaska Native |
35 |
7 |
1 |
4 |
One error case was because the foster parent became a widow and this category should have been blank.
One error case was because information was reported, but the foster parent structure was “single female” (verified by reviewer).
In two error cases, the race categories were blank, but element #49 was verified to be a “married couple.”
In three error cases, this field and element #49 were blank, but the child was in a relative foster home. |
b. Asian |
35 |
7 |
1 |
4 |
One error case was because the foster parent became a widow and this category should have been blank.
In three error cases, this field and element #49 were blank, but the child was in a relative foster home.
In two error cases, the race categories were blank, but element #49 was verified to be a “married couple.” |
c. Black or African American |
35 |
7 |
1 |
4 |
One error case was because the foster parent became a widow and this category should have been blank.
In three error cases, this field and element #49 were blank, but the child was in a relative foster home.
In two error cases, the race categories were blank, but element #49 was verified to be a “married couple.” |
d. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander |
35 |
7 |
1 |
4 |
One error case was because the foster parent became a widow and this category should have been blank.
In three error cases, this field and element #49 were blank, but the child was in a relative foster home.
In two error cases, the race categories were blank, but element #49 was verified to be a “married couple.” |
e. White |
34 |
8 |
1 |
4 |
In one error case, all of the race categories were reported as “no,” but the foster family structure was “married couple.” The reviewer found that the individual was white.
In three error cases, this field and element #49 were blank, but the child was in a relative foster home.
One error case was because the foster parent became a widow and this category should have been blank.
In two error cases, the race categories were blank, but element #49 was verified to be a “married couple.” |
f. Unable to Determine |
35 |
7 |
1 |
4 |
One error case was because the foster parent became a widow and this category should have been blank.
In two error cases, the race categories were blank, but element #49 was verified to be a “married couple.” |
#55 2 nd Foster Caretaker's Hispanic Origin blank cell |
34 |
8 |
1 |
4 |
In two error cases, this element was reported as blank, but the reviewer found that the answer was “no.”
In three error cases, this field and element #49 were blank, but the child was in a relative foster home.
In two error cases, the race categories were blank, but element #49 was verified to be a “married couple.” |
#56 Date of Discharge |
47 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
blank cell |
#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 |
47 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
blank cell |
#59 Title IV-E Foster Care |
15 |
0 |
0 |
27 |
blank cell |
#60 Title IV-E Adoption |
31 |
0 |
0 |
16 |
blank cell |
#61 Title IV-A AFDC |
30 |
0 |
0 |
17 |
blank cell |
#62 Title IV-D Child Support |
28 |
0 |
0 |
19 |
blank cell |
#63 Title XIX Medicaid |
22 |
3 |
0 |
22 |
The error cases were reported as “does not apply” and they should have been “applies.” |
#64 SSI |
24 |
0 |
0 |
23 |
blank cell |
#65 None of the Above |
27 |
0 |
0 |
20 |
blank cell |
#66 Monthly Amount |
1 |
1 |
|
45 |
blank cell |
Number of cases in sample: 68
Number of cases reviewed: 47
Number of cases analyzed: 47
AFCARS Element |
Data In AFCARS Matches Case File |
Data In AFCARS Does Not Match Paper File |
Questionable |
Not Found |
Comments |
#4 State Agency Involvement
1 = Yes 2 = No |
24 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
blank cell |
#5 Child Date of Birth |
24 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
blank cell |
#6 Child Sex
1 = Male 2 = Female |
24 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
blank cell |
#7 Child Race
a. American Indian or Alaska Native |
14 |
1 |
0 |
9 |
One record was reported as “no,” but the reviewer found that it did apply. It was an additional race. |
b. Asian |
15 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
blank cell |
c. Black or African American |
15 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
blank cell |
d. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander |
15 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
blank cell |
e. White |
15 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
blank cell |
f. Unable to Determine |
15 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
blank cell |
#8 Child Hispanic Origin
1 = Yes 2 = No 3 = Unable to Determine |
|
|
|
|
blank cell |
#9 Has Agency Determined Special Needs |
6 |
17 |
0 |
1 |
In all of the error cases, the response to AFCARS was “no,” but the reviewers found that the children were determined to be special needs. Also, in all of the error cases, element #35 (is child receiving a monthly subsidy?) was a “yes.”
In the “not found” case, the AFCARS data indicated “no.” The response for element #35 is “yes” and a subsidy amount is reported in element #36. The reviewer was not able to verify the information because of an incomplete file. |
#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 |
5 |
16 |
2 |
1 |
The error cases had a response of “not applicable.” The reviewers found that six had a “medical conditions or mental, physical or emotional disabilities;” three were due to age; three were due to “other;” and one was a sibling group.
There were four error cases in which the reviewers identified more than one special need. |
#11 Mental Retardation |
18 |
1 |
5 |
0 |
Not found #11 - 15: There were four error cases in which the reviewers identified more than one special need. One included category four in element #10. The other record marked as “not found” is due to the reviewer who had an incomplete file and could not identify the child’s special need.
The error case was reported as “applies” and it should have been “does not apply.” |
#12 Visually/Hearing Impaired |
18 |
1 |
5 |
0 |
blank cell |
#13 Physically Disabled |
17 |
2 |
5 |
0 |
blank cell |
#14 Emotionally Disturbed |
13 |
6 |
5 |
0 |
The error cases were reported as “does not apply,” but they should have been “applies.” |
#15 Other Diagnosed Condition |
18 |
1 |
5 |
0 |
blank cell |
#16 Mother's Birth Year |
21 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
The two error cases were reported as blanks, but the reviewer found a date of birth. |
#17 Father's Birth Year |
22 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
The error case was reported as blanks, but the reviewer found a date of birth. |
#18 Mother Married at Time of Birth
1 = Yes 2 = No 3 = Unable to Determine |
19 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
The error case was reported as “no,” but the reviewer the answer should have been “yes.” |
#19 Date of Mother's TPR |
21 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
The two error cases were reported as blank, but the reviewers found dates. |
#20 Date of Father's TPR |
18 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
In two of the two error cases, the AFCARS data were reported as blank, but the reviewers found dates. |
#21 Date Adoption Legalized |
22 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
blank cell |
#22 Adoptive Family Structure
1 = Married Couple 2 = Unmarried Couple 3 = Single Female 4 = Single Male |
22 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
blank cell |
#23 Adoptive Mother's Year of Birth |
21 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
The error case was missing a date of birth, but the reviewer found it. |
#24 Adoptive Father's Year of Birth |
22 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
blank cell |
#25 Adoptive Mother's Race
a. American Indian or Alaska Native |
17 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
blank cell |
b. Asian |
17 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
blank cell |
c. Black or African American |
17 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
blank cell |
d. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander |
17 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
blank cell |
e. White |
17 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
blank cell |
f. Unable to Determine |
17 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
blank cell |
#26 Adoptive Mother's Hispanic Origin |
15 |
1 |
0 |
8 |
The error case was reported as “unable to determine,” but the reviewer found that it should have been “no.” |
#27 Adoptive Father's Race
a. American Indian or Alaska Native |
17 |
1 |
0 |
6 |
The error case for a - f was reported as blank, but the reviewer found the information. |
b. Asian |
17 |
1 |
0 |
6 |
blank cell |
c. Black or African American |
17 |
1 |
0 |
6 |
blank cell |
d. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander |
17 |
1 |
0 |
6 |
blank cell |
e. White |
17 |
1 |
0 |
6 |
blank cell |
f. Unable to Determine |
17 |
1 |
0 |
6 |
blank cell |
#28 Adoptive Father's Hispanic Origin |
17 |
1 |
0 |
6 |
blank cell |
#29 Relationship of Adoptive Parent to Child - Stepparent |
22 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
blank cell |
#30 Relationship of Adoptive Parent to Child - Other Relative |
22 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
The error case was reported as “applies” and it should have been “does not apply.” |
#31 Relationship of Adoptive Parent to Child - Foster Parent |
10 |
12 |
0 |
2 |
The error cases were all reported as “does not apply,” but the child was adopted by his/her foster parent. This was in addition to one other relationship, which was reported. |
#32 Relationship of Adoptive Parent to Child - Other Non-Relative |
20 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
The two error cases reflected an additional relationship between the child and the adoptive parents. |
#33 Child Was Placed from
1 = Within State 2 = Another State 3 = Another Country |
24 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
blank cell |
#34 Child Was Placed by
1 = Public Agency 2 = Private Agency 3 = Tribal Agency 4 = Independent Person 5 = Birth Parent |
24 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
blank cell |
#35 Receiving Monthly Subsidy |
22 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
For elements #35 - 37, in one of the “not found” cases the reviewer found that there was no basis for special needs, but the AFCARS data for these elements indicated a subsidy is being paid. |
#36 Monthly Amount |
22 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
blank cell |
#37 Adoption Assistance |
20 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
blank cell |
Number of cases reviewed: 25
Number of cases analyzed: 24
Return to Table of Contents
