#1  State

4

#2  Report Date

___(mo) ___ (year)

4

#3 Local Agency (County or Equivalent Jurisdiction)

2

3

The Department is organizationally structured into regions.  The program code contains the FIPS county code for Providence county only.  The State staff indicated that at one time all regional offices were in Providence. 

Upon review of the FIPS county code table, there are FIPS codes for the five regions.  The local agency FIPS county codes are:

44001   Bristol

44003   Kent

44005   Newport

44007   Providence

44009   Washington

The State must add program code to identify a case worker’s administrative office and map the record to the appropriate FIPS county code.  Post-site visit analysis:  The program code has been modified to retrieve the appropriate FIPS county code by using the location, the town, and zip code of the worker.

#4  Record Number

4

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

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

2

3

Frequencies (n=3,257):  1999 = 7; 2000 = 30; 2001 = 133; 2002 = 1,905;  Not reported = 1,182 (36%)

The State conducts periodic reviews every six months.  In addition to court reviews, the State has an Administrative Review Unit (ARU) that conducts administrative reviews of the cases. 

If no dates are found, this element is left blank.

The program code checks for a periodic review applicable to the current removal episode.

The State included the AFCARS standard for determining compliance with this element.  The program code checks if the child has been in care for more than seven and nine months.  If so, it will leave this element blank even if there is a date of a periodic review.

The program code checks for a permanency hearing code and if a date is found it is mapped to this element.  If there is no court review date, and the child has been in care for more than nine months, the program code checks whether an administrative review was held.  If a date is found, it will extract that date.  The program code does not check for the latest of the two review dates.  If there are dates in both fields, and if the administrative review is more recent than the permanency hearing date, it will not be extracted. 

The calculation for the two time frames should be removed and the program code should check for a date in the “meeting scheduled” and court hearing tables.  The program code should look at the latest date for either the ARU or the permanency hearing.  This will also make the program code simpler.

Case file findings:  There were 12 out of 40 (30%) records analyzed that were incorrect.  The findings included dates that were reported to AFCARS that occurred after the end of the report period and those that occurred prior to the current removal episode for the child.  Additional significant findings were those cases that either had a periodic date that was more than year old (for the report period under review) or there was no information reported and the child had been in care for several years.  Also, there were two instances where a child had been in care for three and six months respectively and the reviewer found dates of periodic review, but these were not reported in AFCARS.

Post-site visit analysis: 1. The program code no longer checks if the child has been in care for at least 7 months. The program code now applies to all children.

2. The program code compares the permanency planning hearing date and the most recent, closed ARU meeting date that occurred before the end of the report period, and selects the most recent of the two, for the review date.  If both selects statements do not produce any output, the review date will be blank.

3.  The program no longer calculates if the number of days between the date of the permanency hearing and the report period end date is greater than 274.

#6 Child Birth Date

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

4

#7 Child Sex

1 = Male

2 = Female

4

#8 Child’s Race

a. American Indian or Alaska Native

b. Asian

c. Black or African American

d. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific  Islander

e. White

f. Unable to Determine

4

The screen contains an option of “undetermined” that is used if someone refuses to provide the information. 

#9 Child’s Hispanic/Latino Origin

1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = Unable to Determine

3

2

Screen selections are “yes,” “no,” and “unknown.”  The State staff shared that the meaning of the value “unknown” is the same as that for “unable to determine.”  It would probably be clearer to workers if the option “unknown” was changed to “unable to determine.”

State staff believes this information is not accurate and is underreported for “yes.”  This was identified as a training issue.  Workers also need to be made aware of the AFCARS meaning for “unable to determine.”

There are two screens that the worker can use to enter this information.  On one of the screens, the field pre-fills with the response “unknown.”    

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

1=Yes

2=No

3=Not yet  Determined

If yes, indicate each type of a disability with a “1.”

2

Frequencies (n=3,257): Yes = 748 (23%); No = 890 (27%); Not yet determined = 1,601 (49%)

This is a question on the screen and the choices are the same as the AFCARS values.

This is not a mandatory field for the workers to complete.

The program code contains a statement: “Cannot be null.” 

The screen and the program code defaults to “not yet determined.”  Post-site visit analysis:   The program code was modified to initialize to blank and the statement that this element cannot be blank was removed.

State staff shared there has been a change request for the last two years.

Case file findings:  There were 18 out of 43 (42%) records analyzed that were incorrect.  The records marked as not matching indicated “not yet determined” and the reviewers found diagnosed conditions in the child’s paper case record.

For #11 - 15:  Space must be available to accommodate all AFCARS disabilities

Elements #11-15 are initialized to zero.

The screen has limited options for workers to select.  The options are the same as the AFCARS categories plus the option “learning disability.”

The State should review the AFCARS Disability Code List that is available at http://acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/dis/afcars, and included in Tab D.  This chart can be used to expand the codes that the State needs to include for the disability information.

#11 Mental Retardation

[0 = Does not apply]

1 = Applies

2

Frequencies (n=3,257):  Applies = 109; Does not apply = 3,148

Post-site visit analysis:  If element #10 is "no," "not yet determined," or there is no medical profile row, elements #11-15 will be blank.   If element #10 is "yes", elements 11-15 will be “0, does not apply” or “1 applies.”.

#12 Visually/Hearing Impaired

[0 = Does not apply]

1 = Applies

2

Frequencies (n=3,257):  Applies = 52; Does not apply = 3,205

Post-site visit analysis:  If element #10 is "no," "not yet determined," or there is no medical profile row, elements #11-15 will be blank.   If element #10 is "yes", elements 11-15 will be “0, does not apply” or “1 applies.”

#13 Physically Disabled

[0 = Does not apply]

1 = Applies

2

Frequencies (n=3,257):  Applies = 64; Does not apply = 3,193

Post-site visit analysis:  If element #10 is "no," "not yet determined," or there is no medical profile row, elements #11-15 will be blank.   If element #10 is "yes", elements 11-15 will be “0, does not apply” or “1 applies.”

#14 Emotionally Disturbed

[0 = Does not apply]

1 = Applies

2

Frequencies (n=3,257):  Applies = 304; Does not apply = 2,953

Case file findings:  The majority of the errors were in this element.  There were several diagnoses that were found in the paper case files that should have been reported under this category in AFCARS. 

Post-site visit analysis:  If element #10 is "no," "not yet determined," or there is no medical profile row, elements #11-15 will be blank.   If element #10 is "yes", elements 11-15 will be “0, does not apply” or “1 applies.”

#15 Other Diagnosed Condition

[0 = Does not apply]

1 = Applies

2

Frequencies (n=3,257):  Applies = 592; Does not apply = 2,665

Case file findings:  This area had several errors because items were entered as “other diagnosed” conditions that should have been mapped to "emotionally disturbed."

Post-site visit analysis:  If element #10 is "no," "not yet determined," or there is no medical profile row, elements #11-15 will be blank.   If element #10 is "yes", elements 11-15 will be “0, does not apply” or “1 applies.”

#16 Has this child ever been adopted?

1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = Unable to Determine

2

Frequencies (n=3,257):  Yes = 51; No = 2,815; Unable to determine = 391

This information is collected on the “maintain participant information” screen.  The screen does contain the question whether the child has been previously adopted.   However, this information is listed under the “participant NCANDS information” section and there is both AFCARS and NCANDS information listed.  State should separate the “NCANDS” and “AFCARS” collection to make it clearer to the worker. 

The program code maps missing data to blank.  However, this field will never be blank because the screen pre-fills to “no.”  If the worker does not change the information, and saves the screen, the response remains “no.”

Once the worker checks the box that the child had been previously adopted he/she enters the date the adoption was legalized. 

The State staff remarked that the wording of the question on the screen should be changed to reflect if the child had ever been adopted prior to the current removal episode rather than asking if the child had previously been adopted.

The entry of the correct information is an issue that needs to be addressed through training. 

Case file findings:  There were 11 out of 44 (25%) records analyzed that were incorrect.  There were six records that were reported as “unable to determine,” but the review indicated that the child had never been adopted.  There were five records that indicated either “unable to determine” or “no” and the reviewer found that the child had been previously adopted prior to the current removal episode.

#17 How old was the child when the adoption was legalized?

[0 = Not Applicable]

1 = less than 2 years old

2 = 2-5 years old

3 = 6-12 years old

4 = 13 years or older

5 = Unable to Determine

2

Frequencies (n=3,257):  Not applicable = 3,206; Unable to determine = 31; Less than 2 years old = 2;

2 to 5 years old = 7; 6 to 12 years old = 11; 13 years or older = 0.

The screen contains a field to enter the adoption legalized date.  If the adoption legalized date is not known, workers select “unknown.”  “Unknown” is mapped to “unable to determine.”  “Unknown” should be mapped to blank.

The screen does not have a field for the worker to enter the age or an estimated age at adoption.   The program code calculates the age by subtracting the child’s date of birth from the adoption legalization date.

The program code will map this element to blank if foster care element #16 is blank.  However, element #16 will never be blank because the screen pre-fills to “no.”

Case file findings:  There were 11 out of 44 (25%) records analyzed that were incorrect. 

Removal Episodes

Case file findings:  One record indicated that the child was placed in a residential care center, but there was no removal information.   The child had previously been in the State’s foster care system and then was adopted.  The Federal team asked for clarification.  The State staff explained that the parent approached the agency for assistance, but would not sign a voluntary placement agreement and the agency did not obtain a removal order since the case was open for an adoption subsidy.   The workers can enter a foster care placement without a “re-removal” order or a VPA.  This record was in the AFCARS file because the selection logic checks for service types.  There are several elements affected in this case.  These are: date of most recent periodic review (FC #5); removal episode information (FC #18 through 22, #25, #26 - 40, #43, and #56 - 58).

The State should not report a child to AFCARS as being in foster care when the State does not have placement, care, or supervision of a child.   Additionally, consistent with State law (if applicable), the State should have obtained a court order/VPA.

#18 Date of First Removal from Home

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

3

In the frequency report, there were 33 records with missing information.   See the note under “removal episodes.”

The information for placements and removals are on the same screen.  If the placement is due to a removal, the worker is to check the removal box.   This is how placements and removals are differentiated.  The State staff noted there is some question as to how reliable the information is due to whether or not the workers are checking the removal box when a placement should trigger a removal.

Case file findings:  There were 9 out of 42 (21%) records analyzed that were incorrect.  (Three of these records were on children that re-entered foster care after having been adopted.  The State includes the full historical information on removals on these children.)   

#19 Total Number of Removals from Home

3

In the frequency report, there were 41 records that had zero removals.

See the findings under “date of first removal.”  The number of removals will be affected if the worker does not select the box indicating the placement is a removal. 

Case file findings:  There were 7 out of 38 (18%) records analyzed that were incorrect.  See the note under the cell for “removal episodes.”

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

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

3

There were 24% of the records reviewed that did not match what was in the paper file.   See the note under the cell for “removal episodes.”

See the findings under “date of first removal.”  The date of discharge from last foster care episode can be affected if the worker does not select the box indicating the placement is a removal. 

Case file findings:  There were 9 out of 41 (22%) records analyzed that were incorrect.

#21 Date of Latest Removal

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

3

In the frequency report, there were 41 records that were missing information.  See the note under the cell for “removal episodes.”

See the findings under “date of first removal.”  The date of latest removal will be affected if the worker does not select the box indicating the placement is a removal. 

Case file findings:  There were 11 out of 39 (28%) records analyzed that were incorrect.

#22 Date of Latest Removal Transaction Date

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

2

In the frequency report, there were 380 records that were missing information.   The State staff indicated that the records with a missing transaction date are records that were converted into RICHIST.

All converted cases had the conversion date of 1997 for this element.

The program code selects the most recent time stamp of the initial approval.  This time stamp reflects the date the supervisor approves the removal from home.   This date should reflect the actual date the worker enters the removal date.  This is supposed to be a computer generated non-modifiable date.

#23 Date of Placement in Current Foster Care Setting

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

2

The program code has a statement where it checks for a previous provider and the “first begin” date.  The staff explained that if a foster parent moves the workers have to close the placement and re-open a new placement.  The program code verifies this is the same provider and if it is, the program code extracts the first begin date.  Workers have to close and re-open the placement due to the payment to the provider.

The program code does not extract the date that a child runs away from his/her placement setting.  “Runaway” is not included in the “placement table.”   The updated AFCARS policy requires that this date be entered and extracted for the “current foster care setting.”

Case file findings:  There were 6 out of 37 (16%) records analyzed that were incorrect.

#24 Number of Previous Placement Settings in This  Episode

2

In the frequency report, there were 43 records that had zero placement settings. 

The placement count is based on a “unique” provider identifier.

The program code contains a statement that excludes same day placements.  If the placement is overnight (covering two separate dates), the placement is counted.   The code should include a placement regardless of the length of time of the placement.

State will review program code to ensure it matches the new AFCARS policy clarification in the Child Welfare Policy Manual (CWPM).   The State needs to assess the length of time for hospitalizations to determine if it should be counted as a placement. 

#25 Manner of Removal From Home for Current placement Episode

1 = Voluntary

2 = Court Ordered

3 = Not Yet Determined

2

Frequencies (n=3,257):  Voluntary = 952; Court ordered = 2,264; Not yet determined = 0; Not

reported = 41

This is a required field. 

State has 48 hour and 72 hour holds.  A 48-hour hold can be used by law enforcement and caseworkers.  Medical personnel use a 72-hour hold.  This field cannot be updated.  Therefore, once a 48 or 72 hour hold is selected it cannot be changed to “court ordered” or “voluntary.”  The program code maps “48 and 72 hour holds” to court order.  If at the end of a report period there is a “48 or 72 hour hold” these should be mapped to “not yet determined.”  Post-site visit analysis:  For those records that have 48 or72 hour hold selected, the program code was corrected to check for an “Ex-parte” order or a voluntary agreement.  If either is found the program code maps each accordingly.  If not, the response is mapped to “not yet determined” court activity.

Once the worker obtains a court order or a voluntary placement agreement, the information should be updated to reflect the actual manner of removal.

Once a VPA is signed, it should continue to be reported to AFCARS as a VPA, even if the agency obtains a court order at the end of the 180 days.

Case file findings:  There were 17 out of 42 (68%) records analyzed that were incorrect.  There were two records that reported “court order” in AFCARS, but the child originally entered care under a voluntary agreement.

Actions or Conditions Associated With Child's Removal (Indicate all that apply with a ``1''.)

[0-Does not Apply]

1-Applies

When the worker selects that the placement is a removal from home a pop-up screen listing the conditions associated with removal is displayed.  Workers select all the conditions that apply.  If workers do not select the box that indicates this is a removal from home, this information is never entered.

The information is “frozen” at the time of the supervisor approves the removal.

#26 Physical Abuse

3

Frequencies (n=3,257):  Applies = 694; Does not apply = 2,522; Not reported = 41

Case file findings:  There were 9 out of 43 (21%) records analyzed that were incorrect. 

#27 Sexual Abuse

3

Frequencies (n=3,257):  Applies = 136; Does not apply = 3,080; Not reported = 41

Case file findings:  There were 5 out of 44 (11%) records analyzed that were incorrect. 

#28 Neglect

3

Frequencies (n=3,257):  Applies = 1,356; Does not apply = 1,860; Not reported = 41

Case file findings:  There were 5 out of 44 (11%) records analyzed that were incorrect. 

#29 Parent Alcohol Abuse

3

Frequencies (n=3,257):  Applies = 229; Does not apply = 2,987; Not reported = 41

Case file findings:  There were 5 out of 44 (11%) records analyzed that were incorrect. 

#30 Parent Drug Abuse

3

Frequencies (n=3,257):  Applies = 524; Does not apply = 2,692; Not reported = 41

#31 Child Alcohol Abuse

3

Frequencies (n=3,257):  Applies = 59; Does not apply = 3,157; Not reported = 41

#32 Child Drug Abuse

3

Frequencies (n=3,257):  Applies = 129; Does not apply = 3,087; Not reported = 41

#33 Child Disability

2

Frequencies (n=3,257):  Applies = 251; Does not apply = 2,965; Not reported = 41

Wording needs to be changed on the screen. 

#34 Child's Behavior Problem

3

Frequencies (n=3,257):  Applies = 1,088; Does not apply = 2,128; Not reported = 41

Case file findings:  There were 8 out of 44 (18%) records analyzed that were incorrect. 

#35 Death of Parent

4

3

Frequencies (n=3,257):  Applies = 31; Does not apply = 3,185; Not reported = 41

#36 Incarceration of Parent

4

3

Frequencies (n=3,257):  Applies = 137; Does not apply = 3,079; Not reported = 41

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

3

Frequencies (n=3,257):  Applies = 795; Does not apply = 2,421; Not reported = 41

Case file findings:  There were 7 out of 44 (16%) records analyzed that were incorrect. 

#38 Abandonment

3

Frequencies (n=3,257):  Applies = 158; Does not apply = 3,058; Not reported = 41

#39 Relinquishment

3

Frequencies (n=3,257):  Applies = 71; Does not apply = 3,145; Not reported = 41

#40 Inadequate Housing

3

Frequencies (n=3,257):  Applies = 327; Does not apply = 2,889; Not reported = 41

#41 Current Placement Setting

1 = Pre-Adoptive Home

2 = Foster Family Home-Relative

3 = Foster Family Home-Non-Relative

4 = Group Home

5 = Institution

6 = Supervised Independent Living

7 = Runaway

8 = Trial Home Visit

2

3

Frequencies (n=3,257):  Pre-adopt home = 36; Foster family home (relative) = 681; Foster family home (non-relative) = 905; Group home = 1,189; Institution = 103; Supervised independent living = 124; Runaway = 215; Trial home visit = 3; Not reported = 1

Respite is incorrectly mapped to non-relative foster home.   Post-site visit analysis:  The State modified the program code and removed the mapping of “respite” to “non-relative foster home.”  There are no episodes (placements) with this living arrangement.

State policy does not include documenting residential training school as a placement.  When a child is placed at the Rhode Island Training School (RITS), the placement setting reported to AFCARS is the setting the child was in prior to going to RITS.   Post-site visit analysis: The State corrected the program code to include the Rhode Island Training School (RITS) and it is  mapped to “institution.”

The State team indicated that for pre-adopt settings the current placement is closed and a new placement is created.  The program code checks for a provider identifier number and counts it as one placement.  Service type codes lists “pre-adoptive home.”  Staff was not sure if workers select this option.

The State has “diagnostic assessment service centers” (DAS).  The State correctly includes these settings in their extraction code.   These settings are mapped to “group home.” The State staff indicated the centers have 10 to 12 beds.  The State team also indicated that it is possible that in some situations the agency may have temporary custody of the child pending the outcome of the assessment.  In other situations the parents may retain legal custody of the child.  Agency needs to further assess and make changes to reflect this child in care based on whether the agency has responsibility for care and placement.    Post-site visit analysis: The State corrected the mapping of “DAS – inpatient.” It is now mapped to “group home” (not Institution).

State to verify whether independent living settings that are mapped to “group home” are indeed supervised. 

The State has a change request for placement end reason.

Case file findings:  There were 7 out of 42 (17%) records analyzed that were incorrect.  Most of the errors were “group homes” that should have been coded as “institutions.”

Post-site visit analysis:  The State modified the program code to get the most current living arrangement at the time of the last placement.  “Runaway," " trial home visit,” and RI training school are mapped to the appropriate AFCARS value.

#42 Is Current Placement Out-of-State?

1=Yes (Out of State placement)

2=No (In-State placement)

4

Frequencies (n=3,257):  Yes = 231; No = 3,026

Program code checks the address of the provider.

#43 Most recent case plan goal

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

2 = Live With Relative(s)

3 = Adoption

4 = Long Term Foster Care

5 = Emancipation

6 = Guardianship

7 = Case Plan Goal Not Yet Established

2

3

Frequencies (n=3,257):  Reunify = 1,723; Live with relatives = 2; Adoption = 464; Long term foster

care = 245; Emancipation = 426; Guardianship = 14; Case plan goal not established = 1; Not reported = 382

Once a case plan is approved, it is the active case plan.  The previous plan is saved as “historic” information for the record. 

The program code also checks for a discharge date if there is a DCYF goal of “maintain in home.”  It will then map a goal of “reunification” to AFCARS.   The program code is not extracting the “active” case plan goal at the time of discharge.  Post-site visit analysis:  The State removed this routine.  The program code no longer checks for a “discharge date.”  If the case plan goal is “maintain in own home,” “father’s home,” or “mother’s home,” these are mapped to “not yet established.” After 60 days from the latest removal from home, the field will be blank.

The State maps the codes “11, planned permanent living arrangement/relative” and “12, PPLA/other” to “long term foster care.”  These are new codes as of the summer of 2001.   The value “PPLA/Relative” must be mapped to AFCARS “live with other relative.”  Post-site visit analysis:  Case plan goal of “planned permanent living arrangement w/relative” is now mapped to ”live with other relative.”

State must map all case plan goals that are “not yet established” to blank after 60 days from the date of latest removal from home.   Post-site visit analysis:  The State modified the program code to map the value “not yet established” to blank after 60 days from the latest removal from home.

The State team indicated that a case plan goal must be established within 60 days of assignment to the Family Services Unit worker.  This could be more than 60 days since the removal date.  The requirements for title IV-E indicate that a case plan should be established within 60 days of the child’s removal from home. 

On cases affected by the issue listed under the "removal information,” it is possible a case plan goal is not established for these records. 

#44 Caretaker Family Structure

1 = Married Couple

2 = Unmarried Couple

3 = Single Female

4 = Single Male

5 = Unable to Determine

3

Frequencies (n=3,257):  Married = 593; Unmarried couple = 325; Single female = 1,832; Single male = 205; Unable to determine = 92; Not reported = 210

The information pertaining to the “removal home” is “frozen” at the time of removal of the child from his/her home. 

Workers should enter “married couple” if the parents are separated and not divorced.

Case file findings:  There were 14 out of 42 (33%) records analyzed that were incorrect.  Most of the errors were due to missing data reported in AFCARS, but the reviewers found the information in the paper case file.

Post-site visit analysis:  The value of "Separated" has been added to the selection list for “Caretaker Family Structure” as an option for workers to select.  The program code was modified to map “separated” to “married.”

#45 1st Primary Caretaker's Birth Year

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

3

There were eight records reported with year of birth between 2000 and 1991.

Case file findings:  There were 12 out of 42 (29%) records analyzed that were incorrect.  Most of the errors were due to missing data reported in AFCARS, but the reviewers found the information in the paper case file.

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

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

3

There were seven records reported with year of birth between 1992 and 1998.

Case file findings:  There were 13 out of 42 (31%) records analyzed that were incorrect.  Most of the errors were due to missing data reported in AFCARS, but the reviewers found the information in the paper case file.

#47 Mother’s Date of TPR

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

2

3

State policy is that there must be TPR dates before a child can be placed in a pre-adoptive home.

This information is collected on the legal screen and the program code looks for the information in the court outcome tables.   The State staff shared that there was a change to this module earlier in the year.  Therefore, there will be no missing data.  This change, however, has not been made in program code. 

Post-site visit analysis: The program code was changed to include the code “1085, deceased date.”  If there is no TPR date the program will check for a deceased date and if one is present it will map it to the TPR date.

#48 Legal or Putative Father’s TPR

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

2

3

State policy is that there must be TPR dates before a child can be placed in a pre-adoptive home.

Post-site visit analysis: The program code was changed to include the code “1085, deceased date.”  If there is no TPR date the program will check for a deceased date and if one is present it will map it to the TPR date.

#49 Foster Family Structure

0 = Not Applicable

1 = Married Couple

2 = Unmarried Couple

3 = Single Female

4 = Single Male

3

Frequencies (n=3,257):  Not applicable = 1,635; Married = 807; Unmarried couple = 78; Single female = 593; Single male = 42; Not reported = 102

If foster parent legal status is “separated,” workers must enter the marital status as “married couple.”

Post-site visit analysis:  The value of "Separated" has been added to the selection list for “Foster  Family Structure” as an option for workers to select.  The program code was modified to map “separated” to “married.”

#50 1st Foster Caretaker's Birth Year

4

#51 2nd Foster Caretaker's Birth Year

4

#52 1st Foster Caretaker's Race

4

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

1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = Unable to Determine

4

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

4

#55 2nd Foster Caretaker's Hispanic Origin

[0 = Not Applicable]

1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = Unable to Determine

4

#56 Date of Discharge from foster care

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

3

When a “close placement reason” is selected a pop-up question appears asking if this is a closure of all removals.  If so, worker must enter a discharge reason.   There is an issue that the workers may not be selecting the box that indicates that this is a discharge from the removal episode.  State needs to add training and supervisory oversight to this area. 

State indicated that a “closed case” has no legal status, but a “discharge” does not mean the case is closed.  Caseworkers must not enter the date a child is returned home while he/she is under the responsibility of the agency for care, placement or supervision.  See the findings in the General Requirements section.

#57 Date of Discharge Transaction Date

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

2

Old transaction dates are due to workers modifying an episode that ended that they did not think was ended.  Child was AWOL.

The program code selects the most recent time stamp of the initial approval of when the supervisor approves the end of placement.   This date should reflect the actual date the worker enters the date of the discharge from foster care.  This is supposed to be a computer generated non-modifiable date.

Post-site visit analysis:  The State removed the program code that selects the most recent time stamp of the initial approval.  However, it is not clear when and how the transaction date is created in the “episode” table.   

#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

3

If adoption is chosen as a “close reason” for placement, an outcome reason of adoption is automatically selected.

State indicated that a “closed case” has no legal status, but a “discharge” does not mean the case is closed.  Caseworkers must not enter an outcome reason when a child is returned home while he/she is under the responsibility of the agency for care, placement or supervision.  See the findings in the General Requirements section.

#59 Source(s) of Federal financial support/assistance for child - title IV-E (Foster Care)

0-Does not apply

1-Applies

2

3

The State team indicated that the select statement in the program code for elements #59 – 64 includes

“ - 60 days” because it looks at every reimbursement.  They indicated they are 60 days behind in claiming reimbursement so they look back 60 days from the end of the report period.  This method will miss any payments made on behalf of the child that occurs in the last two months of the report period.  Post-site visit analysis:   Program code now looks for a payment reimbursement occurring within the reporting period.

State will remove the “- 60 days” and look for whether the child had one of these items as a source of income.  Post-site visit analysis:  The program code  has been modified by removing the routine that subtracted 60 days from the report date.

#60 Source(s) of Federal financial support/assistance for child - title IVE (Adoption Subsidy)

0-Does not apply

1-Applies

4

Hard coded to zero.  The State currently does not claim tile IV-E adoption assistance for children in foster care prior to the child’s legalized adoption date.  If the State starts to claim these funds, the program code must be modified to extract the information.

#61 Source(s) of Federal financial support/assistance for child - title IVA (Aid to Families with Dependent Children)

0-Does not apply

1-Applies

2

3

The State team indicated that the select statement in the program code for elements #59 – 64 includes

“ - 60 days” because it looks at every reimbursement.  They indicated they are 60 days behind in claiming reimbursement so they look back 60 days from the end of the report period.  This method will miss any payments made on behalf of the child that occurs in the last two months of the report period.  Post-site visit analysis:   Program code now looks for a payment reimbursement occurring within the reporting period.

State will remove the “- 60 days” and look for whether the child had one of these items as a source of income.  Post-site visit analysis:  The program code  has been modified by removing the routine that subtracted 60 days from the report date.

#62 Source(s) of Federal financial support/assistance for child - title IVD (Child Support)

0-Does not apply

1-Applies

3

The State team indicated that the select statement in the program code for elements #59 – 64 includes

“ - 60 days” because it looks at every reimbursement.  They indicated they are 60 days behind in claiming reimbursement so they look back 60 days from the end of the report period.  This method will miss any payments made on behalf of the child that occurs in the last two months of the report period.  Post-site visit analysis:   Program code now looks for a payment reimbursement occurring within the reporting period.

At time RICHIST was implemented there was a plan to start collecting child support.  It has not yet happened.

The office of child support enforcement used to be part of the Department of Human Services and there was an integrated system (INRhodes).  When child support moved to the Office of Taxation there was a plan to create an interface with their system.  This has not happened.    

There is program code to extract information on whether child support was a source of income for the child, if the information is entered into RICHIST.

#63 Source(s) of Federal financial support/assistance for child - title XIX (Medicaid)

0-Does not apply

1-Applies

2

3

The State team indicated that the select statement in the program code for elements #59 – 64 includes

“ - 60 days” because it looks at every reimbursement.  They indicated they are 60 days behind in claiming reimbursement so they look back 60 days from the end of the report period.  This method will miss any payments made on behalf of the child that occurs in the last two months of the report period.  Post-site visit analysis:   Program code now looks for a payment reimbursement occurring within the reporting period.

State will remove the “- 60 days” and look for whether the child had one of these items as a source of income.  Post-site visit analysis:  The program code  has been modified by removing the routine that subtracted 60 days from the report date.

#64 Source(s) of Federal financial support/assistance for child - SSI or other Social Security Act Benefits

0-Does not apply

1-Applies

2

3

The State team indicated that the select statement in the program code for elements #59 – 64 includes

“ - 60 days” because it looks at every reimbursement.  They indicated they are 60 days behind in claiming reimbursement so they look back 60 days from the end of the re