AFCARS Assessment Improvement Plan - Foster Care Data Elements

AFCARS Assessment Review Case File Findings: Foster Care Data Elements
State: Minnesota
Report Period Under Review: October 1, 2004 - March 31, 2005 (2005A)

AFCARS Element

Data In AFCARS Matches Case File

Data In AFCARS Does Not Match Paper File

Questionable

Not
Found

Comments

#5 Most Recent Periodic Review Date

There were nine error cases in which the reviewer found a review date that was later than the date reported to AFCARS.

There were three dates found by the reviewers that were in February 2005 and another in which the review date found by the reviewer was on March 30th.

In one error case, the date was missing in the AFCARS report, but the child had been in care for eleven months. The reviewer found a review date.

#6 Child Birth Date

blank cell

#7 Child Sex

1 = Male
2 = Female

blank cell

#8 Child Race

a. American Indian or Alaska Native

An additional race was identified by the reviewer.

b. Asian

blank cell

c. Black or African American

An additional race was identified by the reviewer.

d. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

blank cell

e. White

An additional race was identified by the reviewers.

f. Unable to Determine

blank cell

#9 Child Hispanic Origin

1 = Yes
2 = No
3 = Unable to Determine

blank cell

#10 Has Child Been Diagnosed with Disability?

There were six cases in which the reviewer found diagnosed disabilities and the AFCARS indicated “no.”

There was one error case that the AFCARS information indicated “yes,” but the reviewer found the child had no diagnosed disabilities.

There was one error case with a reported response of “not yet determined,” and the child had been in care for 11 months.

There was another error case with missing data in AFCARS and the child had been in care since 1997.

There was one case in which the child was only in care three days by the end of the report period and the AFCARS data indicated a response of “no.” The response should have been “not yet determined.” The reviewer did not find that the child had been seen by a physician by the end of the report period.

#11 Mental Retardation

There was one error case that the reviewer found this element did apply.

In the other error case the reviewer found that the response should have been “does not apply,” not “applies.”

One of the cases marked “questionable” is because the child had been in foster care since 1997.

#12 Visually/Hearing Impaired

There was one error case that the reviewer found this element did apply.

In the other error case the reviewer found that the response should have been “does not apply,” not “applies.”

One of the cases marked “questionable” is because the child had been in foster care since 1997.

#13 Physically Disabled

In the error case the response should have been “applies.”

One of the cases marked “questionable” is because the child had been in foster care since 1997.

#14 Emotionally Disturbed

Six of the error cases were because the response to #10 should have been “yes,” and the reviewer found conditions that mapped to this element.
In two error cases, the response should have been “applies.”

One of the cases marked “questionable” is because the child had been in foster care since 1997.

#15 Other Diagnosed Condition

There were four cases in error because of incorrect mapping; the response should have been “applies.”

There were five error cases because the reviewer found an additional condition.

There were two cases reported as “applies” that should have been “does not apply.”

One of the cases marked “questionable” is because the child had been in foster care since 1997.

#16 Has Child Ever Been Adopted?

1 = Yes
2 = No
3 = Unable to Determine

In all of the error cases the reviewer found that the child had been previously adopted. The AFCARS response was “no.”

#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

blank cell

#18 Date of First Removal from Home

In two of the error cases, the date found for the date of removal was earlier than what was reported to AFCARS (child only had one removal).

In ten cases, the date found the date of removal was earlier than what was reported to AFCARS (child had more than one removal).

In five of the error cases, the reviewer found a later date than what was reported to AFCARS.

In one error case, the child had been in the hospital at the time the agency obtained responsibility for care and placement. The reported removal date reflected the start date of the hospitalization instead of the date the child entered “foster care.”

In one case, the reviewer noted that twins were born drug addicted. One child left the hospital after four days. The other, the child in the sample, was in the hospital for a week and a half. The date reported in AFCARS reflects the day the first sibling left the hospital.

In one of the “questionable” cases the reviewer noted there may have been involvement in foster care prior to the date reported as the first removal.

#19 Total Number of Removals from Home

There were ten error cases that had more removals than what was reported to AFCARS.

There were four error cases that had one less removal than what was reported to AFCARS.

In two error cases, the reported dates of first removal (#18) and latest removal (#21) were not the same, but the number of removals reported was one.

#20 Date of Discharge from Previous Episode

There were seven error cases because there was actually more than one removal and no date was reported for this element.

There were two error cases because there was only one removal, but two removals were reported.

Two of the error cases were due to the dates of first removal (#18) and latest removal (#21) reported to AFCARS not being the same, and there was not a date of discharge reported for this element.
One case is “questionable” because the reviewer could not find any discharge dates in the file that made sense. There appears to be two dates that may be discharges, but it is not clear, and the reviewer was not able to determine who the child was discharged to.

#20 Date of Discharge from Previous Episode

There were seven error cases because there was actually more than one removal and no date was reported for this element.

There were two error cases because there was only one removal, but two removals were reported.

#21 Date of Latest Removal

In two of the error case, the date found for the date of removal was earlier than what was reported to AFCARS (child only had one removal.).

Four error cases had dates of removal that were earlier than what was reported to AFCARS (child had more than one removal).

There was one case in which the reviewer found a later date than what was reported to AFCARS (six days).

There were three error cases where the child had only one removal, not two as reported. Therefore, this date should have been the same as what was reported in element #18.
In one case, the reviewer noted that twins were born drug addicted. One child left the hospital after four days. The other, the child in the sample, was in the hospital for a week and a half. The date reported in AFCARS reflects the day the first sibling left the hospital.

One case is “questionable” because the reviewer could not find any discharge dates in the file that made sense. There appears to be two dates that may be discharges, but it is not clear, and the reviewer was not able to determine who the child was discharged to. Also, the date reported as the date of current removal is after the dates of TPR. The reviewer did find a date of removal that is earlier than the one reported for element #18.

#23 Date of Placement in Current Setting

In one case, the reviewer noted that twins were born drug addicted. One child left the hospital after four days the other, the child in the sample, was in the hospital for a week and a half. The date reported in AFCARS reflects the day the first sibling left the hospital.

#24 Number of Previous Placement Settings in This Episode

In four error cases the reviewer found fewer moves than what were reported in AFCARS.

In 11 error cases the reviewer found more moves than what were reported in AFCARS.

#25 Manner of Removal From Home for This Episode

1 = Voluntary
2 = Court Ordered
3 = Not Yet Determined

There were eight cases reported as “court ordered,” but the reviewer noted it was a “voluntary” removal.

There was one case reported as “not yet determined” and the child was in care for six months. The reviewer found that a voluntary agreement was in place.

There were error cases and either the AFCARS response was “not yet determined” (one), or it was blank (two). Reviewers found court orders for the removals.

#26 Physical Abuse

The cases were reported as “does not apply” and the reviewer found that it did apply.

#27 Sexual Abuse

There was one case reported as “does not apply” and the reviewer found that it did apply.

There were two cases reported as “applies” and the reviewer found that it did not apply.

#28 Neglect

There were ten cases reported as “does not apply” and the reviewer found that it did apply.

There were three cases reported as “applies” and the reviewer found that it did not apply.

#29 Parent Alcohol Abuse

There were nine cases reported as “does not apply” and the reviewer found that it did apply.

#30 Parent Drug Abuse

There were eight cases reported as “does not apply” and the reviewer found that it did apply.

There was one case reported as “applies” and the reviewer found that it did not apply.

#31 Child Alcohol Abuse

The cases were reported as “applies” and the reviewer found that it did not apply.

#32 Child Drug Abuse

The cases were reported as “does not apply” and the reviewer found that it did apply.

#33 Child Disability

The cases were reported as “does not apply” and the reviewer found that it did apply.

#34 Child's Behavior Problem

There was one case reported as “does not apply” and the reviewer found that it did apply.

There were four cases reported as “applies” and the reviewer found that it did not apply.

Questionable: The reviewer indicated a question mark in the data from the paper file. It is unclear if this means that the condition was found in the paper file.

#35 Death of Parent

The case was reported as “does not apply” and the reviewer found that it did apply.

#36 Incarceration of Parent

The cases were reported as “does not apply” and the reviewer found that it did apply.

#37 Caretaker Inability to Cope

The cases were reported as “does not apply” and the reviewer found that it did apply.

#38 Abandonment

The case was reported as “applies” and the reviewer found that it did not apply.

Questionable: Reviewer indicated a question mark in the data from the paper file. Unclear if this means that the condition was found in the paper file.

#39 Relinquishment

blank cell

#40 Inadequate Housing

There was one case reported as “does not apply” and the reviewer found that it did apply.

There was one case reported as “applies” and the reviewer found that it 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

In one error case, the child was a runaway but the living arrangement was reported as “group home.”

Note: One error case was marked in error because the reported setting was non-relative and the reviewer marked relative and added a note saying it met the State’s definition of relative.

#42 Out of State Placement

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

Reported as:	Reviewer found:
Reunify	Long-term foster care (3)
Reunify	Emancipation
Reunify	Adoption
Reunify	TLC(?)
Live with other relative	Long-term foster care
Adoption	Long-term foster care
Adoption	Emancipation
Long-term foster care	Emancipation
Emancipation	Long-term foster care
Guardianship	Long-term foster care
Not yet determined	Emancipation (child in care for 12 years)

#44 Caretaker Family Structure

1 = Married Couple
2 = Unmarried Couple
3 = Single Female
4 = Single Male
5 = Unable to Determine

One error case had “single female” but the reviewer found “single male.”

Three error cases were reported with a status of single and the reviewers found “married couple.”

Two error cases were reported as blank, but the reviewer found the information.

#45 1st Primary Caretaker's Birth Year

Five cases were reported as blank and element #44 was “single female.” The reviewers found a date of birth.

#46 2nd Primary Caretaker's Birth Year

There was one error in data entry.
Four cases were incorrect because element #44 was wrong. In three cases, the reviewer found the caretakers’ family structure as “unmarried couple;” the other was a “married couple.”

In one error case, a date was reported, but element #44 was “single female.”

#47 Mother's Date of TPR

Nine of the error cases were missing the information in AFCARS and the reviewers found dates of TPR

One error case was reported as blank, but reviewer found a deceased date.

There was one error in data entry.

#48 Father's Date of TPR

All of the error cases were missing the information in AFCARS and the reviewers found dates of TPR.

#49 Foster Family Structure

0 = Not Applicable
1 = Married Couple
2 = Unmarried Couple
3 = Single Female
4 = Single Male

blank cell

#50 1st Foster Caretaker's Birth Year

In eight error cases, element #49 was “married couple” and this information was missing.

#51 2nd Foster Caretaker's Birth Year

In nine error cases, element #49 was “married couple” and this information was missing.

In one error case, the reviewer found that element #49 was a married couple, but the information reported was a single caretaker. Also, the reviewer found a date of birth.

#52 1st Foster Caretaker's Race

a. American Indian or Alaska Native

Element #49 was “married couple” and all race categories were reported as “no.” The reviewer found the information.

b. Asian

Element #49 was “married couple” and all race categories were reported as “no.” The reviewer found the information.

c. Black or African American

Element #49 was “married couple” and all race categories were reported as “no.” The reviewer found the information.

d. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

blank cell

e. White

Element #49 was “married couple” and all race categories were reported as “no.” The reviewer found the information.

f. Unable to Determine

blank cell

#53 1st Foster Caretaker's Hispanic Origin

blank cell

In eight error cases, element #49 was “married couple” and this information was missing.

One error case was reported as “no,” but the reviewer found that the individual is Hispanic.

#54 2nd Foster Caretaker's Race

a. American Indian or Alaska Native

Element #49 was “married couple” and all race categories were reported as “no.” The reviewer found the information.

In one error case the reviewer found an additional race.

blank cell

b. Asian

Element #49 was “married couple” and all race categories were reported as “no.” The reviewer found the information.

c. Black or African American

Element #49 was “married couple” and all race categories were reported as “no.” The reviewer found the information.

d. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

Element #49 was “married couple” and all race categories were reported as “no.” The reviewer found the information.

e. White

Element #49 was “married couple” and all race categories were reported as “no.” The reviewer found the information.

One error case was because an additional race was found.

f. Unable to Determine

Element #49 was “married couple” and all race categories were reported as “no.” The reviewer found the information.

#55 2nd Foster Caretaker's Hispanic Origin

In eight error cases, element #49 was “married couple” and this information was missing.

One error case was reported as “no,” but the reviewer found that the individual is Hispanic.

#56 Date of Discharge

blank cell

One error case is due to the child reported as reunified when the child actually ran away. There was no indication that the child was found and placed back in foster care.

One error case indicated the child turned 18 during the report period and was not receiving title IV-E.

One of the questionable cases had a date of discharge and the reason for discharge was “runaway.”

#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

One of the error cases had “guardianship” as the discharge reason and the reviewer found “reunification.”

One error case was due to a child reported as reunified, when the child actually ran away and there was no indication that the child was found and placed back in foster care.

One error case indicated the child turned 18 during the report period and was not receiving title IV-E.

In one questionable record, the discharge reason was “runaway,” but it was two days later than the child’s 18th birthday.

One of the questionable cases had a date of discharge and the reason for discharge was “runaway.”

One of the questionable cases was reported as “guardianship” and reviewer wrote “transfer to relative.”

#59 Title IV-E Foster Care

There were five cases reported as “does not apply” and the reviewer found that it did apply.

#60 Title IV-E Adoption

blank cell

#61 Title IV-A AFDC

There was one case reported as “does not apply” and the reviewer found that it did apply.

There was one case reported as “applies” and the reviewer found that it did not apply.

#62 Title IV-D Child Support

Two cases were reported as “applies,” but the reviewer found that it did not apply. In one instance the reviewer noted that the parent’s rights were terminated several years previous to the report period.

#63 Title XIX Medicaid

There were four cases reported as “does not apply” and the reviewer found that it did apply.

#64 SSI

There were six cases reported as “does not apply” and the reviewer found that it did apply.
There were two cases that had missing information. In one, the reviewer found the information.

#65 None of the Above

There were two cases that had missing information. In one, the reviewer found the information.

#66 Monthly Amount

blank cell

Number of cases reviewed: 80
Number of cases analyzed: 75

AFCARS Assessment Review Case File Findings: Adoption Data Elements
State: Minnesota
Report Period Under Review: October 1, 2004 - March 31, 2005 (2005A)

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	30	0	0	0	blank cell
#5 Child Date of Birth	30	0	0	0	blank cell
#6 Child Sex 1 = Male 2 = Female	29	1	0	0	blank cell
#7 Child Race a. American Indian or Alaska Native	27	3	0	0	In two of the error cases, the reviewer found an additional race that was not reported. The other error case is due to the reviewer finding a race and the AFCARS data indicated “unable to determine” applied.
b. Asian	30	0	0	0	blank cell
c. Black or African American	29	1	0	0	The reviewer found a race and the AFCARS data indicated that “unable to determine” was “applies.”
d. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	30	0	0	0	blank cell
e. White	29	1	0	0	The reviewer found a race and the AFCARS data indicated that “unable to determine” was “applies.”
f. Unable to Determine	29	1	0	0	The error case is due to the reviewer finding a race and the AFCARS data indicated “unable to determine” applied.
#8 Child Hispanic Origin 1 = Yes 2 = No 3 = Unable to Determine	30	0	0	0	blank cell
#9 Has Agency Determined Special Needs	28	2	0	0	The error cases were reported as “no,” but element #35 was reported as the child receiving a monthly subsidy. The reviewer found that the child had a diagnosed medical condition.
#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	22	6	2	0	One of the error cases was reported as “medical conditions or mental, physical or emotional disabilities,” but the reviewer found that the child was at risk of medical/emotional factors. Two error cases were reported as “not applicable,” but element #35 was reported as the child receiving a monthly subsidy. The reviewer found that the child had a diagnosed medical condition in one case and the other the child was at-risk for future medical disabilities. Two of the error cases were incorrect because the AFCARS information reflected the wrong category. One of the questionable cases had all of elements #11 - 15 as “applies,” but the reviewer noted the child was part of a sibling group and there was not documentation supporting the diagnosis of disabilities. The other questionable case had this element reported as “medical conditions or mental, physical or emotional disabilities,” but the reviewer found that it had been treated and found no other medical conditions.
#11 Mental Retardation	27	1	2	0	One of the questionable cases had all of elements #11 - 15 as “applies,” but the reviewer noted the child was part of a sibling group and there was not documentation supporting the diagnosis of disabilities.
#12 Visually/Hearing Impaired	28	0	2	0	One of the questionable cases had all of elements #11 - 15 as “applies,” but the reviewer noted the child was part of a sibling group and there was not documentation supporting the diagnosis of disabilities.
#13 Physically Disabled	27	1	2	0	The error case was reported as “medical conditions or mental, physical or emotional disabilities” in element #10, but the reviewer found that the child was at risk of medical/emotional factors. This element was incorrectly reported as “applies.” One of the questionable cases had all of elements #11 - 15 as “applies,” but the reviewer noted the child was part of a sibling group and there was not documentation supporting the diagnosis of disabilities.
#14 Emotionally Disturbed	24	4	2	0	One of the error cases was reported as “medical conditions or mental, physical or emotional disabilities” in element #10, but the reviewer found that the child was at risk of medical/emotional factors. This element was incorrectly reported as “applies.” In one error case, the reviewer found this element did not apply because the information reported in element #10 was not “medical conditions or mental, physical or emotional disabilities.” One error cases indicated that this should have been “applies,” instead of “does not apply.” One of the questionable cases had all of elements #11 - 15 as “applies,” but the reviewer noted the child was part of a sibling group and there was not documentation supporting the diagnosis of disabilities.
#15 Other Diagnosed Condition	25	3	2	0	One error case is because the condition did apply and elements #9 and 10 were not marked as applying. In two error cases, the reviewer found this element did not apply because the information reported in element #10 was not “medical conditions or mental, physical or emotional disabilities.” One of the questionable cases had all of elements #11 - 15 as “applies,” but the reviewer noted the child was part of a sibling group and there was not documentation supporting the diagnosis of disabilities.
#16 Mother's Birth Year	30	0	0	0	blank cell
#17 Father's Birth Year	27	3	0	0	The error cases were all reported as blank, but the reviewers found dates of birth.
#18 Mother Married at Time of Birth 1 = Yes 2 = No 3 = Unable to Determine	29	1	0	0	The AFCARS report reflected missing information, but the reviewer found the information.
#19 Date of Mother's TPR	26	4	0	0	In two error cases the reviewer found an earlier date than what was reported in AFCARS. In one error case the data was missing, but the reviewer found that the mother was deceased.
#20 Date of Father's TPR	27	3	0	0	In one error case the reviewer found an earlier date than what was reported in AFCARS. In one error case the data was missing, but the reviewer found that the father was deceased.
#21 Date Adoption Legalized	30	0	0	0	blank cell
#22 Adoptive Family Structure 1 = Married Couple 2 = Unmarried Couple 3 = Single Female 4 = Single Male	29	1	0	0	blank cell
#23 Adoptive Mother's Year of Birth	30	0	0	0	blank cell
#24 Adoptive Father's Year of Birth	29	1	0	0	The error case was reported as blank, but the reviewer found the information.
#25 Adoptive Mother's Race a. American Indian or Alaska Native	30	0	0	0	blank cell
b. Asian	30	0	0	0	blank cell
c. Black or African American	29	1	0	0	The error case is due to the reviewer finding a race and the AFCARS data indicated “unable to determine” applied.
d. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	30	0	0	0	blank cell
e. White	30	0	0	0	blank cell
f. Unable to Determine	29	1	0	0	The error case is due to the reviewer finding a race and the AFCARS data indicated “unable to determine” applied.
#26 Adoptive Mother's Hispanic Origin	30	0	0	0	blank cell
#27 Adoptive Father's Race a. American Indian or Alaska Native	30	0	0	0	blank cell
b. Asian	30	0	0	0	blank cell
c. Black or African American	30	0	0	0	blank cell
d. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	30	0	0	0	blank cell
e. White	30	0	0	0	blank cell
f. Unable to Determine	30	0	0	0	blank cell
#28 Adoptive Father's Hispanic Origin	30	0	0	0	blank cell
#29 Relationship of Adoptive Parent to Child - Stepparent	30	0	0	0	blank cell
#30 Relationship of Adoptive Parent to Child - Other Relative	29	1	0	0	The reviewer found this condition applied.
#31 Relationship of Adoptive Parent to Child - Foster Parent	22	8	0	0	In all of the error cases, there was an additional relationship found that was not reported in AFCARS.
#32 Relationship of Adoptive Parent to Child - Other Non-Relative	27	3	0	0	In one of the error cases there was an additional relationship found that was not reported in AFCARS. One error case was reported as “applies” in addition to element #31. The reviewer found this element did not apply. In one error case, the AFCARS data showed that it applied and the reviewer indicated it did not apply.
#33 Child Was Placed from 1 = Within State 2 = Another State 3 = Another Country	30	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	30	0	0	0	blank cell
#35 Receiving Monthly Subsidy	29	0	0	1	blank cell
#36 Monthly Amount	26	2	0	2	blank cell
#37 Adoption Assistance	29	0	0	1	blank cell

Number of cases reviewed: 30
Number of cases analyzed: 30

Return to Table of Contents

AFCARS Assessment Review Case File Findings: Foster Care Data Elements State: Minnesota Report Period Under Review: October 1, 2004 - March 31, 2005 (2005A)

AFCARS Assessment Review Case File Findings: Adoption Data Elements State: Minnesota Report Period Under Review: October 1, 2004 - March 31, 2005 (2005A)

AFCARS Assessment Review Case File Findings: Foster Care Data Elements
State: Minnesota
Report Period Under Review: October 1, 2004 - March 31, 2005 (2005A)

AFCARS Assessment Review Case File Findings: Adoption Data Elements
State: Minnesota
Report Period Under Review: October 1, 2004 - March 31, 2005 (2005A)