 |
|---|
|
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|||
| 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 Findings: Foster Care Data Elements
|
AFCARS Data Element |
Rating Factor |
Findings/Comments |
#1 State |
4 |
The State’s FIPS code is hard-coded into the extraction code. |
#2 Report Date ___(mo) ___ (year) |
4 |
The State is correctly reporting this information. |
#3 Local Agency(County or Equivalent Jurisdiction) |
4 |
Case file review findings: 5 (11%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. The State and ACF need to review the program code to ensure that it is selecting the county office that has placement and care responsibilities of the case. |
#4 Record Number |
4 |
The State is correctly reporting this information. |
#5 Date of Most Recent Periodic Review (if applicable) ___(mo) ___ (day)____(year) |
2 |
Frequency report (n = 3,155): 1998 = 1; 1999 = 3; 2000 = 3; 2001 = 11; 2002 = 47; 2003 = 92 The State no longer conducts “administrative reviews.” All periodic reviews are conducted in court. The program code checks if this is a split case (case receiving adoption services). If it is a split case, it will pull from the “base” case, which is the foster care record. The program code checks for hearing types of: 3 (C-2 jeopardy hearing), 4 (judicial review), 5 (TPR – involuntary – retired code), 6 (TPR – voluntary – retired code), 10 (judicial review/permanency hearing) or 11 (C-3 termination of parental rights).
The program code will not exclude periodic review dates that might have occurred prior to the current removal episode. The older dates of review appear to be those for older youth, especially those over the age of 18 that the State is incorrectly including in the reporting population. For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that may have occurred after the report period end date for the period being resubmitted. The staff indicated this will not be a problem. The State maintains detailed hearing information of all hearings in one table. Case file review findings: 9 (21%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. The findings seem to indicate an issue with the timely entry of this data, or there is an issue with the program code not pulling the correct recent review date. Dates found by the reviewers were later than those reported to AFCARS. |
#6 Child Birth Date ___(mo) ___ (day)____(year) |
3 |
Frequency report (n = 3,155): 1980 = 1; 1982 = 2; 1983 = 9; 1984 = 34; 1985 = 85; 1986 = 128 Refer to the General Requirement findings for the foster care population. ACF will check the frequencies for data resubmitted for 2005A and for subsequent submissions for improvement based on the State correcting the program code to report as discharge, youth over the age of 18 that are not to be included in AFCARS. Post site-visit analysis: The State’s data reflects ages up to age 19 only. |
#7 Child Sex 1 = Male |
4 |
The State is correctly reporting this information. |
#8 Child’s Race a. American Indian or Alaska Native |
4 |
The State is correctly reporting this information. |
#9 Hispanic/Latino Origin 1 = Yes |
4 |
The State is correctly reporting this information. |
#10 Has the child been clinically diagnosed as having a disability(ies)? 1=Yes: indicates a qualified professional has clinically diagnosed the child as having at least one of the disabilities listed below [#11 - 15] 2=No: indicates that a qualified professional has conducted a clinical assessment of the child and has determined that the child has no disabilities 3=Not yet Determined: indicates that a clinical assessment of the child by a qualified professional has not been conducted If “yes,” indicate each type of a disability with a “1.” |
2 |
Frequency report (n = 3,155): Yes = 585 (19%); No = 162 (5%); Not yet determined = 2,408 (76%) The State agency staff indicated that an appointment for a medical check-up is to be scheduled within ten days of the child’s removal from home. The program code checks for a diagnosed category (#11-15), if none are found the program code checks for an “effective” or an exam date. If all categories are “does not apply,” then element #10 is set to “no.” If any of the elements #11-15 are coded as “applies,” this element is set to “yes.” Otherwise, this element defaults to “not yet determined.” The program code does not check if the field “Child has no current clinically diagnosed special need” on the special needs screen has been checked. The program code should be modified to check if this indicator is selected and, if so, map element #10 to “no.” The design of the screens collecting information on whether a child has been clinically diagnosed with a disability may be contributing to the underreporting of this data and providing false “no” and “not yet determined” responses. There is not a specific field on the screen with this question and the AFCARS values as choices. The State should modify the screens to include the question, and develop a process to ensure that case workers enter this data in a timely manner and also update it when new information is obtained. For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that occurred after the report period end date for the period being submitted. The State indicated they don’t believe there will be a problem since the program code also checks for an exam date. Case file review findings: 28 (60%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. The errors were due the AFCARS data indicating no diagnosed disability, or no medical health exam, but the reviewer found the child had a diagnosed condition. |
For #11 - 15: Space must be available to accommodate all AFCARS disabilities. |
|
The State needs to add program code that if element #10 is either “no” or “not yet determined,” then elements #11-15 must be set to blank. For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that occurred after the report period end date for the period being submitted. It should reflect the health of the child for any given report period. Case file review findings: Several of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. In elements #11 – 15, the reviewers found conditions that were applicable for AFCARS, indicating the child had been seen and diagnosed with a medical condition by a physician. |
#11 Mental Retardation [0 = Does not apply] |
2 |
Case file review findings: Three errors were due to the AFCARS data indicating “does not apply,” but the reviewer found the child had a diagnosed condition. |
#12 Visually/Hearing Impaired [0 = Does not apply] |
2 |
Case file review findings: One error was due to the AFCARS data indicating “does not apply,” but the reviewer found the child had a diagnosed condition. |
#13 Physically Disabled [0 = Does not apply] |
2 |
Case file review findings: Three errors were due to the AFCARS data indicating “does not apply,” but the reviewer found the child had a diagnosed condition. |
#14 Emotionally Disturbed [0 = Does not apply] |
2 |
Case file review findings: 21 (46%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. Most of the errors were due to the AFCARS data indicating no diagnosed disability, or no medical health exam, but the reviewer found the child had a diagnosed condition. Eight errors were due to the AFCARS data indicating “does not apply,” but the reviewer found the child had a diagnosed condition. |
#15 Other Diagnosed Condition [0 = Does not apply] |
2 |
Case file review findings: 11 (24%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. Four of the errors were due to the AFCARS data indicating no diagnosed disability, or no medical health exam, but the reviewer found the child had a diagnosed condition. Two errors were due to the AFCARS data indicating “does not apply,” but the reviewer found the child had a diagnosed condition. Five of the errors were due to the AFCARS data indicating “applies,” but the conditions found by the reviewers are not to be mapped to AFCARS. |
#16 Has this child ever been adopted? 1 = Yes |
4 |
Frequency report (n = 3,155): Yes = 59; No = 2,945; Unable to determine = 5; Not reported = 146
|
#17 If yes, how old was the child when the adoption was legalized? [0 = Not Applicable] |
3 |
Frequency report (n = 3,155): Not applicable = 2,945; Age categories = 30; Unable to determine = 25; Not reported = 146 The age is calculated based on the date entered on the screen for the previous adoption legalization date. If no date is entered, this element is set to blank. Provide worker training that if the exact adoption finalization date is not known, the worker should estimate the date based on the age of the child at the time of the adoption. ACF will check the frequencies for data resubmitted for 2005A and for subsequent submissions for improvement based on the State correcting the program code to map missing legalization dates to blank instead of “unable to determine.” Post site – visit analysis: The 2005B data indicate the same number reported in element #17 for “unable to determine” equals the number reported for “unable to determine” in element #16. |
#18 Date of First Removal from Home ___(mo) ___ (day)____(year) |
2 |
If there is no date of removal, the program code inserts a zero. The frequency report has one record with invalid data (0). This case was in the sample for the case file review. The reviewer found that the date of first removal was August 12, 1993 and the child had only one removal. If it is a “split case,” the program code checks the base case and takes the earliest removal date. There is no code to exclude if the initial placement at the time the agency is given care and placement responsibility (custody) is a hospital or locked facility. For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that occurred after the report period end date for the period being submitted. The State indicated they don’t believe there will be a problem. Case file review findings: 11 (23%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. In seven of the error cases, the reviewers found a date of first removal prior to the one reported to AFCARS. |
#19 Total Number of Removals from Home |
3 |
Frequency report: There are 327 records with two or more removals. The frequencies for element #20 indicate there are 254 records with previous discharge dates. There is one record with zero as a removal count. (This case was in the sample for the case file review. The reviewer found that the date of first removal was August 12, 1993 and the child had only one removal.) The program code checks if the record is a “split case.” For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that occurred after the report period end date for the period being submitted. Case file review findings: 8 (17%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. In the majority of the errors, the reviewers found that there had been more removal episodes than what were reported to AFCARS. In most of these, the child actually experienced two removal episodes. In one case, the child had four removal episodes instead of only one, as reported. Based on the case file review finding, the rating factor for this element was changed. The State needs to verify that if the data are in the history table the program code is actually obtaining it. If there are no problems with the program code, notify ACF in the State’s first improvement plan update. |
#20 Date Child was Discharged from last foster care episode (if applicable) ___(mo) ___ (day)____(year) |
2 |
The frequency report has 254 records with previous discharge dates. This doesn’t match what is reported for element #19. If the number of removals is two or more, the program code will “count” to pull the latest “return date.” The program code must be modified to extract the maximum date of discharge that occurred prior to the current date of removal (element #21) and comment out the remaining program code. For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that occurred after the report period end date for the period being submitted. |
#21 Date of Latest Removal ___(mo) ___ (day)____(year) |
2 |
There is no code to exclude if the initial placement at the time the agency is given care and placement responsibility (custody) is a hospital or locked facility. For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that occurred after the report period end date for the period being submitted. Case file review findings: 6 (13%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. Two of the errors relate to the reporting of more than one removal. The date of latest removal was later than the one reported to AFCARS. In three cases, the reviewers found an earlier date than what was reported in AFCARS. |
#22 Date of Latest Removal Transaction Date ___(mo) ___ (day)____(year) |
4 |
The State is accurately recording and reporting these dates. |
#23 Date of Placement in Current Foster Care Setting ___(mo) ___ (day)____(year) |
2 |
There are 17 records missing a placement date. State staff indicated that the system does allow a worker to end a placement without entering a new placement setting or a discharge from care. If the status of the foster care setting changes (i.e., from a foster home to a pre-adopt home, or from one level of care to another), the program code incorrectly extracts that date. (This may be the cause for the errors in the case file review.) For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that occurred after the report period end date for the period being submitted. The State agency staff indicated that they don’t believe there will be a problem. Case file review findings: 6 (14%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. |
#24 Number of Previous Placement Settings in This Episode |
2 |
There are 25 records with zero placements. The State modified the program code to exclude certain brief temporary stays away from an ongoing placement setting. The State needs to check on the length of stay for the values “1100, medical-inpatient alcohol and drug treatment,” “1080, Med-Inpatient Medical Services,” and “1090, Med-Inpatient Psychiatric Services” (LN 1762). If these stays are not for acute care treatment, then they must be included as a placement, the date the placement started, and in the count of placements. The State staff found an error in the program code as a result of the extracted test case results. The answer for the test case should have been two; the extracted data indicated 21. The staff indicated that some service providers provide multiple services and the program code is counting all the types of services and not just placement settings. The problem is with the “rsdr_service.” If the status of the foster care setting changes (i.e., from a foster home to a pre-adopt home or from one level of care to another), the program code incorrectly counts it as placement move. The program code must be modified to exclude “runaways” in the count of placement moves. The State has licensed facilities that have a campus of “cottages.” The State asked if they are to count as a placement move when a child goes from one cottage to another. Response: If the child moves from one cottage to another within in the same institution and on the same location, then this would not count as a placement change. Workers may be incorrectly entering some respite stays as primary instead of secondary placements. For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that occurred after the report period end date for the period being submitted. The State indicated they don’t believe there will be a problem. Case file review findings: 23 (66%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. In the majority 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 Current placement Episode 1 = Voluntary |
4 |
Frequency report (n = 3,155): Voluntary = 199; Court Order = 2923; Not yet determined = 0; Not reported = 33 For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that occurred after the report period end date for the period being submitted. The State indicated they don’t believe there will be a problem. |
Actions or Conditions Associated With Child’s Removal (Indicate all that apply with a “1”.) [0-Does not Apply] |
|
Case file review findings: There were a significant number of errors related to elements #26 – 40. In general, the AFCARS data indicated that conditions did not apply, when in fact the reviewer found that it was a circumstance associated with the child’s removal. In many of the cases in the case file review, reviewers found domestic violence as a contributing reason for the child entering care. This is not an option on the State’s list for reasons of removal. The State does collect it on the intake/allegation screens and it is reported to NCANDS. The State may want to consider adding it to the options for reasons of removal. For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that occurred after the report period end date for the period being submitted. |
#26 Physical Abuse |
3 |
Case file review findings: 9 (20%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. |
#27 Sexual Abuse |
3 |
Case file review findings: 10 (21%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. |
#28 Neglect |
3 |
Case file review findings: 5 (11%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. |
#29 Parent Alcohol Abuse |
3 |
Case file review findings: 15 (32%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. |
#30 Parent Drug Abuse |
3 |
Case file review findings: 4 of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. |
#31 Child Alcohol Abuse |
3 |
Case file review findings: 20 (43%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. |
#32 Child Drug Abuse |
3 |
Case file review findings: 5 (11%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. |
#33 Child Disability |
3 |
Case file review findings: 8 (17%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. |
#34 Child’s Behavior Problem |
3 |
Case file review findings: 7 (15%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. |
#35 Death of Parent |
3 |
Case file review findings: 6 (13%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. |
#36 Incarceration of Parent |
3 |
Case file review findings: 7 (15%) 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: 11 (23%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. |
#38 Abandonment |
3 |
Case file review findings: 6 (13%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. |
#39 Relinquishment |
3 |
Case file review findings: 5 (11%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. |
#40 Inadequate Housing |
3 |
Case file review findings: 8 (18%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. |
#41 Current Placement Setting 1 = Pre-Adoptive Home |
3 |
Screens: Placement Details and Resource Management Frequency report (n = 3,155): Pre-adopt home = 312; relative foster home = 471; non-relative foster home = 1,532; Group home = 187; Institution = 148; supervised independent living = 169; Runaway = 16; Trial home visit = 256; Not reported = 64. There are 776 records for non-foster home settings. The program code for “foster home, relative” includes the codes for “spouse,” “stepparent,” and “former spouse.” Spouses and stepparents are not considered relatives. If the child is placed with a spouse or a stepparent, this may not constitute a “removal episode,” or could be a “trial home visit” depending on the circumstances. In regard to former spouses, if this person was not a parent or caretaker to the child, then they would be considered a “non-relative” and not a “relative foster parent.” If they are the parent of the child, then this would not be a placement (removal), or may be a trial home visit. The program code checks the relationship of the foster parent to the child and if they are related, the placement is mapped to “foster home, relative.” The program code does not include “great uncle,” but does include “great aunt.” Please provide the federal review team with an explanation regarding this omission. The program code checks the following resource type codes for the mapping of “supervised independent living - on own,” “life skills program,” “hotel,” and “miscellaneous.” The State needs to explain these resources. The program code includes the mapping of “hospitals.” However, the program code does not check the length of stay in the hospital. If the stay is for acute care, then the setting should not be included for this element. If it is for a longer stay, then the setting must be included. Also, the State needs to clarify if psychiatric hospitals are included under the resource type of hospital. Do the resource type codes “alcohol” and “children’s residential services” include contracted placement agencies? The State needs to ensure training and supervisory oversight for the correct use of “primary” and “secondary” placements. Case file review findings: 9 (20%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. 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 Is Current Placement Out-of-State? 1=Yes (Out of State placement) |
4 |
For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that occurred after the report period end date for the period being submitted. |
#43 Most recent case plan goal 1 = Reunify With Parent(s) Or Principal Caretaker(s) |
2 |
Screens: Child Plan. This screen contains the following tabs: Child’s wishes, Ind Lvng, No reunification, Peer relationship, No TPR, and Other. On the “no reunification” screen there are two additional tabs, “Adoption or TPR Pending” and “Other Permanent Living Arrangement.” Frequency report (n = 3,155): Reunify = 914; Live with other relative = 94; Adoption = 928; LTFC = 344; Emancipation = 440; Guardianship = 12; Not yet established = 219; Not reported = 204 The selection list on the child’s plan screen contains the goals: Reunification with parent(s) (or previous non-parental custodian), Transfer of custody to a relative (non-parent), Transfer of custody to an agency or non-relative, Determine whether to pursue termination of parental rights, Long term foster care [sic], Self-sufficient adulthood, Other - APPLA, Placement with a relative (non-parent), Emancipation, Adoption, and Not yet established. The State indicated that the options “transfer of custody to an agency or non-relative” and “determine whether to pursue termination of parental rights” are no longer used. The selection list must be modified by inactivating these options. If a case worker selects “Other - APPLA” as the child’s case plan goal, they should also complete the “no reunification, other permanent living arrangement” screen. The options on this screen are: Kinship care (other than adoption), Guardianship or custody to third party, Long-term foster care agreement, Self-sufficiency adulthood (age 16+), Other permanent plan (describe below). The worker also must select one of three reasons for the “non-preferred permanency plan.” However, the system does not automatically direct the worker to this screen. Also, there is duplication of permanency plan goals between these two screens. The program code checks the permanent plan table and the begin and end dates of case plans in order to extract the most current case plan goal within the report period. The most recent plan must also be an “approved” plan. The program code will first check the field “permanent plan” on the child’s plan screen. The State’s goal of “transfer of custody to an agency or non-relative” is mapped to “6, guardianship.” This should be mapped to blank since it is not a value workers should be using. The goal "Determine Whether to Pursue Termination of Parental Rights" is mapped to "3: Adoption." It should be mapped to blank. If no data are found in the permanent plan table, the program code checks if the child has been in care for 60 days or less. If so, this element is set to “case plan goal not yet established.” The goal “other - APPLA,” is mapped to “7, case plan goal not yet established.” If the case plan goal is “not yet established” (for any reason), the program code checks if the “other permanent living arrangement” indicator on the “no reunification” screen was selected. If so, it will then extract the option the worker has selected. “Other permanent plan (describe)” is mapped to “not yet established.” This option should be mapped to blank, or “long-term foster care” depending upon its use. The program code also checks for a legal status of “voluntary care-young adult” and maps this to “long-term foster care.” This is used for youth that voluntarily remain in foster care after the age of majority. Since these youth are not to be in the foster care reporting population the State can remove this section from the AFCARS program code. If the case plan goal is blank and the child’s age at the end of the report period is 18, the program code sets the case plan goal to “emancipation.” If the case plan goal is blank and a there is a permanent plan code “other - APPLA,” the program code checks the child’s age. If the child is older than 16, the program code will set the child’s goal to “emancipation.” If the child is 16 or younger, the program code sets this element to “not yet established.” The program code should not be determining a case plan goal. If no goal is entered into the system, or if “other-APPLA” was selected and the screen “no reunification, other permanent living arrangement” was not completed, and the child has been in care for more than 60 days, this element must be blank. If the case plan goal is “not yet established” and the child has been in care more than 60 days, this element is set to blank. This is okay. The State staff indicated they are making changes (in practice and to the system) on how case plan goals are determined and recorded in the system. As of January 2006, a goal of “State-subsidized guardianship” will be implemented in practice. For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that occurred after the report period end date for the period being submitted. The State indicated they don’t believe there will be a problem. Case file review findings: 16 (35%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. The most recent case plan goal (foster care element #43) had a high proportion of errors. In all but one of the errors, the record was reported to AFCARS as either “not yet established” or blank. All of the children had been in care for more than 60 days. 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.” |
#44 Caretaker Family Structure 1 = Married Couple |
2 |
Frequency report (n = 3,155): Married couple = 916; Unmarried couple = 440; Single female = 1,413; Single male = 141; Unable to determine = 27; Not reported = 218 The program code checks both the family structure table and the living arrangement screen. The value “008, whereabouts unknown” is incorrectly mapped to “unable to determine.” This value should be mapped to blank. For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that occurred after the report period end date for the period being submitted. Case file review findings: 12 (27%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. 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.” |
#45 1st Primary Caretaker’s Birth Year ___(mo) ___ (day)____(year) |
3 |
Frequency report (n = 3,155): The report contained the dates: 1995 = 3; 1996 = 1; 2001 = 1 For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that occurred after the report period end date for the period being submitted. Case file review findings: 6 (13%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. |
#46 2nd Primary Caretaker’s Birth Year (if applicable) ___(mo) ___ (day)____(year) |
3 |
Frequency report (n = 3,155): 1999 = 1; Invalid data 5200 = 1; 965 records reported with valid years. There is an issue of this data not being entered into the system as supported by both the frequency report and the case file review. There is an inconsistency between the frequency numbers reported in element #44 as couples and the number of dates of birth for the second primary caretaker’s date of birth. There were 1,356 records reported as couples in element #44. Case file review findings: 18 (43%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. 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. For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that occurred after the report period end date for the period being submitted. |
#47 Mother’s Date of TPR ___(mo) ___ (day)____(year) |
2 |
In the event there is more than one TPR date, the program code does not extract the latest TPR date. Modify the program code to extract the latest TPR date If there are no TPR dates, the program code will check for a deceased date. For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that occurred after the report period end date for the period being submitted. |
#48 Legal or Putative Father’s TPR ___(mo) ___ (day)____(year) |
2 |
The program extracts the latest TPR date if there are multiple fathers. For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that occurred after the report period end date for the period being submitted. Case file review findings: 9 (20%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. There were four error cases reported as blank, but the reviewers found dates. |
#49 Foster Family Structure 0 = Not Applicable |
4 |
Frequency report (n = 3,155): Not applicable = 446; Married couple = 1,173; Unmarried couple = 38; Single female = 317; Single male = 74; Not reported = 1,107 The number of records reported in element #41 for non-foster home settings is 776, but there are only 446 records reported for this element as “not applicable.” According to the program code, if a child’s current placement is not in a foster home this element is mapped to "0, not applicable." The rating was adjusted based on this finding. The State needs to re-examine the program code to ensure that there is not an additional problem. If the information is missing this element is mapped to blank. For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that may have been entered after the report period end date for the period being resubmitted. Note: While the number of errors in the case file review was small, 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 1st Foster Caretaker’s Birth Year
|
3 |
Frequency report (n = 3,155): 1990 =1; 1999 =1; Invalid data 1899 = 2; 1,542 records with birth years. 1,611 records with no data. There are 676 records reported in element #41 for non-foster home settings (values 1-3). There are 1,602 records reported for #49 with a marital status. If the child’s current placement is not in a foster home, this element is correctly mapped to blank. For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that occurred after the report period end date for the period being submitted. Case file review findings: 6 (14%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. In three error cases, this field and element #49 were blank, but the child was in a relative foster home. |
#51 2nd Foster Caretaker’s Birth Year |
3 |
Frequency report (n = 3,155): Invalid data 3 records. 1,210 records with birth years. There are 1,211 records reported as couples in element #49. If the child’s current placement is not in a foster home, this element is correctly mapped to blank. For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that may have been entered after the report period end date for the period being resubmitted. Case file review findings: 6 (14%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. 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 1st Foster Caretaker’s Race a. American Indian or Alaska Native |
4 |
Missing data are mapped to blank. For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that occurred after the report period end date for the period being submitted. Note: While the number of error cases for this element was small in the case file review findings, all were due to the child living in a relative foster home and the information was blank. |
#53 1st Foster Caretaker’s Hispanic or Latino Origin [0 = Not applicable] |
4 |
Frequency report (n=3155): Not applicable = 0; Yes = 10 (.32%); No = 1, 094 (35%); Unable to determine = 101 (3%); Not reported = 1,950 (62%). The number of records reported in element #41 for non-foster home settings is 776. If the child’s current placement is not in a foster home, this element is not mapped to "0, not applicable." The State must modify the program code to set this element to “not applicable” when the child’s current living arrangement is other than a foster home. For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that occurred after the report period end date for the period being submitted. Case file review findings: 6 (15%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. Three of the error cases were reported as blank and it should have been “no.” In three error cases, this field and element #49 was blank, but the child was in a relative foster home. |
#54 2nd Foster Caretaker’s Race (if applicable) a. American Indian or Alaska Native |
4 |
Missing data are mapped to blank. For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that occurred after the report period end date for the period being submitted. Case file review findings: Each of the race categories had seven errors (17%), except for “white,” which had eight (19%) errors. In two error cases, the race categories were blank, but element #49 was verified to be a “married couple.” In three error cases, the race categories and element #49 were blank, but the child was in a relative foster home. |
#55 2nd Foster Caretaker’s Hispanic Origin |
4 |
Frequency report (n=3155): Not applicable = 0; Yes = 16 (.19%); No = 985 (31%); Unable to determine = 73 (2%); Not reported = 2,091 (66%). The number of records reported in element #41 for non-foster home settings is 776. For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that may have occurred after the report period end date for the period being submitted. Case file review findings: 8 (19%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. 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 and Hispanic origin categories were blank, but element #49 was verified to be a “married couple.” |
#56 Date of Discharge from foster care ___(mo) ___ (day)____(year) |
2 |
Frequency report (n = 3,155): 518 records with a date. The case worker can enter a date and reason of discharge in three different screens. One is the placement screen and a pop-up window appears asking if this is a discharge from care. If so, this information populates the exit from foster care fields. Regardless of which of the three locations the workers uses to enter this data, the system will populate the other fields. The program code checks all of these locations. Since the entry in any one field populates the others, the program code does not need to check all three fields. Modify the program code to extract this data from the “exit date” and “reason for exit” fields only. For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that occurred after the report period end date for the period being submitted. |
#57 Date of Discharge Transaction Date |
2 |
When no transaction date is found, the program code checks other fields to construct a date for this element. The program code must extract the system date that is associated with the entry of the discharge date. |
#58 Reason for Discharge |
2 |
Frequency report (n = 3,155): Not applicable = 0; Reunify = 216; Living with other relative = 38; Adoption = 154; Emancipation = 93; Guardianship = 2; Transfer to another agency = 5; Runaway = 0; Death = 2; Not reported = 2,645 For children that are still in care, this element should be reported as “not applicable,” not blank. The State needs to modify the program code. There are fewer records reported with reasons for discharge than the number reported for dates of discharge. The State needs to ensure that for every discharge there are dates and reasons reported. For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that occurred after the report period end date for the period being submitted. |
#59 Title IV-E (Foster Care) |
4 |
The program code accurately checks for whether a payment was made on behalf of the child during the report period. For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that occurred after the report period end date for the period being submitted. |
#60 Title IVE (Adoption Subsidy) |
4 |
The State does claim title IV-E adoption assistance prior to finalization. For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that occurred after the report period end date for the period being submitted. |
#61 Title IVA (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) |
2 |
There is an interface with the title IV-A information system. However, the child welfare agency does not receive funding information through the interface. There is not a field in MACWIS to enter information manually on whether a payment was made on behalf of the child during his/her foster care episode. The child welfare agency must receive information regarding whether a title IV-A payment was made on behalf of the child at any time during the report period, and after the child enters foster care. For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that occurred after the report period end date for the period being submitted. |
#62 Title IV-D (Child Support) |
4 |
For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that occurred after the report period end date for the period being submitted. |
#63 Title XIX (Medicaid) |
4 |
For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that occurred after the report period end date for the period being submitted. |
#64 SSI or other Social Security Act Benefits |
4 |
For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that occurred after the report period end date for the period being submitted. |
#65 None of the Above |
2 |
The program code checks if there are other assets that the child receives, or if there are other sources of Federal or state funding. A review of the list indicates that there are some values that should not be included that are mapped to this element (tables 24 and 25). For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that occurred after the report period end date for the period being submitted. |
#66 Amount Of Monthly Foster Care Payment (regardless of source) |
4 |
For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that occurred after the report period end date for the period being submitted. |
#1 State FIPS Code |
4 |
The State’s FIPS code is hard-coded into the extraction code. |
#2 Report Period End Date |
4 |
The State is correctly reporting this information. |
#3 Record Number |
4 |
The State is correctly reporting this information. |
#4 State Agency Involvement 1 = Yes |
4 |
The State is correctly reporting this information. |
#5 Child Date of Birth |
4 |
The State is correctly reporting this information. |
#6 Child Sex 1 = Male |
4 |
The State is correctly reporting this information. |
#7 Child Race a = American Indian or Native American |
4 |
The State is correctly reporting this information. |
#8 Child Hispanic Origin 1 = Yes |
4 |
The State is correctly reporting this information. |
#9 Has Agency Determined Special Needs? 1 = Yes
|
2 |
Frequency report (n = 154): Yes = 23; No = 131 The number of records indicating that the child is receiving an adoption subsidy (element #35) is 152. This element is derived from element #10. If one of the conditions are listed, then this is “yes,” otherwise it is set “no.” If no conditions are selected for elements #11-15, this element is set to “no.” For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that may have been entered after the date of the adoption legalization. Case file review findings: 17 (74%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. 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.” |
#10 Primary Basis for Determining Special Needs 0 = Not Applicable |
2 |
Frequency report (n = 154): Not applicable = 131; Race = 0; Age = 9; Sibling = 5; Disabilities = 4; Other = 5 If element #9 is “no,” this element is correctly mapped to “not applicable.” The program code must be modified to look at the field “AAP Reason” on the “Adoption Assistance Program” screen. This field reflects the primary basis for a child’s special need. If a reason is selected here, then it should be mapped to the appropriate code for element #10 and set element #9 to “yes.” If the condition “Medical Conditions or Mental, Physical or Emotional Disabilities” is selected, then the appropriate disability information must be mapped to elements #11-15. If it is not selected as the primary basis for special needs, then elements #11 -15 should be reported as blank. For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that may have been entered after the date of the adoption legalization. Case file review findings: 16 (76%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. |
#11 Mental Retardation |
2 |
This element is incorrectly initialized to zero. Information regarding disabilities is reported regardless of what is reported in #10. The State is to only report elements #11 – 15, if element #10 is a “4.” For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, data for elements #11-15 should not be overwritten to reflect information that may have been entered after the date of the adoption legalization. |
#12 Visually/Hearing Impaired |
2 |
This element is incorrectly initialized to zero.
|
#13 Physically Disabled |
2 |
This element is incorrectly initialized to zero.
|
#14 Emotionally Disturbed |
2 |
This element is incorrectly initialized to zero. Autism is incorrectly mapped to this element, it should be mapped to element #15. Case file review findings: 6 (32%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. |
#15 Other Diagnosed Condition |
2 |
This element is incorrectly initialized to zero. |
#16 Mother's Birth Year |
4 |
|
#17 Father's Birth Year |
4 |
|
#18 Mother Married at Time of Birth 1 = Yes |
4 |
Frequency report (n = 154): Yes = 53; No = 94; Unable to determine = 7 This information is extracted directly from the screen. Modify the program code to comment out the language that sets a zero to “no.” For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that may have been entered after the date of the adoption legalization. |
#19 Date of Mother's TPR |
2 |
Frequency report: There were eight records reported with no TPR date. The program code does not extract the latest TPR date and does not extract the latest deceased and TPR date. Modify code to extract the latest TPR date and/or deceased date, if applicable. For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that may have been entered after the date of the adoption legalization. |
#20 Date of Father's TPR |
2 |
Frequency report: There were ten records reported with no TPR date. The program extracts the latest TPR date if there are multiple fathers. If the TPR date is blank, the program code will check for a deceased date and extracts it. For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that may have been entered after the date of the adoption legalization. Case file review findings: 4 (18%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. |
#21 Date Adoption Legalized |
4 |
|
#22 Adoptive Family Structure 1 = Married Couple |
4 |
Frequency report (n = 154): Married couple = 134; Unmarried couple = 1; Single Female = 17; Single male = 2 For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that may have been entered after the date of the adoption legalization. |
#23 Adoptive Mother's Year of Birth |
4 |
There is one date of birth missing. For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that may have been entered after the date of the adoption legalization. |
#24 Adoptive Father's Year of Birth |
4 |
There is one date of birth missing. |
#25 Adoptive Mother's Race a = American Indian or Alaskan Native |
4 |
For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that may have been entered after the date of the adoption legalization. |
#26 Adoptive Mother's Hispanic Origin 0 = Not Applicable |
4 |
For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that may have been entered after the date of the adoption legalization. |
#27 Adoptive Father's Race |
4 |
For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that may have been entered after the date of the adoption legalization. |
#28 Adoptive Father's Hispanic Origin |
4 |
For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that may have been entered after the date of the adoption legalization. |
#29 –32 0 = Does not Apply |
|
The screen does not allow the worker to select more than one relationship. Workers have the option to select a checkbox indicating that the placement resource is a relative. They may also select the specific familial relationship from a pull-down menu. The option of "foster parent" is not an option on this menu. The State made changes to the program code based on the NRC-CWDT technical assistance. ACF will check the frequencies for data resubmitted for 2005A and for subsequent submissions for improvement Modifying the screen will allow the worker to more accurately identify the relationship between the child and the adoptive parents by allowing the workers to select all that apply. For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that may have been entered after the date of the adoption legalization. |
#29 Relationship of Adoptive Parent to Child - Stepparent |
2 |
|
#30 Relationship of Adoptive Parent to Child - Other Relative |
2 |
|
#31 Relationship of Adoptive Parent to Child - Foster Parent |
2 |
Case file review findings: 12 (55%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. |
#32 Relationship of Adoptive Parent to Child - Other Non-Relative |
2 |
|
#33 Child Was Placed from 1 = Within State |
2 |
This field is initialized to blank. The State value “DHS out of state” is incorrectly mapped to “another country.” The State is not to report adoptions of children placed in their State from another State, so this code would not be applicable. The State value “CPA out of country” is incorrectly mapped to “another State” instead of “another country.” The program code also checks the ICPC indicator for children placed in Maine by another State. This is not correct. The program code should not check for incoming ICPCs. For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that may have been entered after the date of the adoption legalization. |
#34 Child Was Placed by 1 = Public Agency |
4 |
For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that may have been entered after the date of the adoption legalization. |
#35 Receiving Monthly Subsidy 1=Yes |
2 |
Frequency report (n = 154): Yes = 152; No = 2 If there is an end date for a adoption subsidy agreement that is after the date of the adoption finalization, the program code should ignore it. (There should not be a check if there is a “closure date” of an adoption agreement after the date of finalization.) For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that may have been entered after the date of the adoption legalization. |
#36 Monthly Amount |
4 |
There are 154 (100%) records reported with an amount. |
#37 Adoption Assistance IV-E 1=Yes |
4 |
For the purpose of submitting subsequent files, this data should not be overwritten to reflect information that may have been entered after the date of the adoption legalization. |
Return to Table of Contents
