AFCARS Data Element

Rating Factor

Findings

#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

The State correctly reports the county that has primary responsibility for the case.

#4 Record Number

4

The State is correctly reporting this information.

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

4

The State is correctly recording and reporting this data.

#6 Child Birth Date

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

4

The State is correctly recording and reporting this data.

#7 Child Sex

1 = Male

2 = Female

4

The State is correctly recording and reporting this data.

#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 State is correctly recording and reporting this data.

#9 Hispanic/Latino Origin

1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = Unable to Determine

4

The State is correctly recording and reporting this data.

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

1=Yes

2=No

3=Not yet Determined

2

3

Frequencies (n=2209): Yes = 435 (20%); No = 1,417 (64%); Not yet determined = 357 (16%); Not reported = 0

The responses for element #10 are derived from responses to elements #11 - 15.

The program code checks for the most recent assessment date that is prior to the end of the report period. The State should check that if there is an assessment from a prior removal episode and the diagnosed conditions are still applicable that this information is extracted.

The State is changing how this information is collected on the system. There will be a question on the screen with the options “yes,” “no,” and “not yet determined.” The State submitted the draft screen design to ACF in January 2005 for approval. The changes are anticipated to be operational by mid-June. The State will send the updated code, mapping and screens. Post site-visit analysis:The State submitted a copy of the screen that was implemented on May 25, 2005 to capture whether a child was diagnosed with a disability. The options for the worker to select are: “yes,” “no,” and “not yet determined.” An “add” button brings up a screen that the worker uses to add the diagnosed conditions. Additionally, the State has added this item to its compliance report. The program code has been modified to directly extract the answer from the screen. Explain how the new code works in relation to the previous code that maps missing data to “no.”

Case file review findings: 20 (26%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. The majority of the errors were due the AFCARS data indicating no diagnosed disability but the reviewer found the child had a diagnosed condition.

#11 - 15 Diagnosed disability conditions

[0 = Does not apply]

1 = Applies

The screen provides the options “yes,” “no,” and “undetermined” for each of the categories for #11-15. The current program code is incorrect but will be corrected when the screen changes are implemented.

The new approach has options of diagnosed conditions for the workers to select and these will be mapped to the appropriate AFCARS values. The State submitted these to ACF in January 2005 for approval. The changes are anticipated to be operational by mid-June. The State will send the updated code, mapping and screens.

Post site-visit analysis: See notes in foster care element #10. On May 25, 2005 the State implemented the screen that collects diagnosed conditions. A response to foster care element #10 of “not yet determined” will result in elements #11 - 15 to be left blank.

#11 Mental Retardation

2

3

Frequencies (n=2209): Applies = 58 (3%); Does not apply = 2,151 (97%); Not reported = 0

#12 Visually/Hearing Impaired

2

3

Frequencies (n=2209): Applies = 94 (4%); Does not apply = 2,115 (96%); Not reported = 0

#13 Physically Disabled

2

3

Frequencies (n=2209): Applies = 35 (2%); Does not apply = 2,174 (98%); Not reported = 0

#14 Emotionally Disturbed

2

3

Frequencies (n=2209): Applies = 220 (10%); Does not apply = 1,989 (90%); Not reported = 0

Case file review findings: 16 (21%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. All but two of the error cases should have been reported as “applies.”

#15 Other Diagnosed Condition

2

3

Frequencies (n=2209): Applies = 198 (9%); Does not apply = 2,011 (91%); Not reported = 0

Post site visit analysis: The State included “allergies.” This should not be mapped to AFCARS (mapping form).

#16 Has this child ever been adopted?

1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = Unable to Determine

2

Frequencies (n=2209): Yes = 27 (1%); No = 2,182 (99%); Unable to determine = 0; Not reported = 0

The program code is incorrectly initialized to “no.” The State needs to initialize it to blank.

This is not an option on the system for the worker to answer. Instead, the program code extracts adoptions that occurred from the South Dakota child welfare system.

The State needs to add this question to the system with the answers “yes,” “no,” and “unable to determine.”

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

[0 = Not Applicable]

1 = less than 2 years old

2 = 2-5 years old

3 = 6-12 years old

4 = 13 years or older

5 = Unable to Determine

2

Frequencies (n=2209): Not applicable = 0; Total reported for age groups = 27; Not reported = 2,182

The code is initialized to spaces.

The responses in #16 for “no” are not reported as “not applicable” for element #17.

There is not an option on the screen to collect the age of the child at the time of adoption. The State needs to add either an estimated age field or a date of finalization (or add both fields).

#18 Date of First Removal from Home

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

4

The State should note the findings from the case file review. Included with the analysis are the record numbers of those that were found in error. The State may want to conduct its own case review to ascertain if there are additional records with the wrong date of first removal.

#19 Total Number of Removals from Home

3

Case file review findings: 8 (10.5%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. The errors appear to be related to conversion. The State needs to ensure that all prior removals are properly entered into the system.

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

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

3

Case file review findings: 9 (12%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. The errors appear to be related to conversion. The State needs to ensure that all prior removals are properly entered into the system. Also, the State needs to verify that this date represents the date a “trial reunification” ended.

#21 Date of Latest Removal

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

4

#22 Date of Latest Removal Transaction Date

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

4

#23 Date of Placement in Current Foster Care Setting

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

2

A new procedure for extracting placement information was implemented in February 2005. The State provided the review team with a copy of the old extraction code so it could be compared to the current version.

This information is pulled from the placement field only. Information on runaways is entered as an exit reason on the placement screen. Therefore, the date the runaway began is not reported for this element.

The State contracts out some of its foster care placement activities. The staff of these agencies received access to FACIS in early 2004 and the cases assigned to them. These agencies are responsible for completing the information in FACIS for these children. The information previously was not always complete and up-to-date and may have been missing placement dates, number of placement moves, current placement setting, and foster parent information.

Case file review findings: 9 (12%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS.

#24 Number of Previous Placement Settings in This Episode

3

Case file review findings: 17 (22%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. In seven of the error cases the reviewer indicated the child’s number of placements was less than what was reported in AFCARS. In ten of the error cases the reviewer indicated the child’s number of placements was more than what was reported in AFCARS.

#25 Manner of Removal From Home for Current placement Episode

1 = Voluntary

2 = Court Ordered

3 = Not Yet Determined

3

Screen: Initial placement

Frequencies (n=2209): Voluntary =53; Court Ordered = 2077; Not Yet Determined = 33; Not reported = 46

It is State policy that only law enforcement personnel can remove a child from his/her home. Law enforcement obtains court authority to give the child to DSS for placement. Therefore, most removals are court ordered. The State can enter into voluntary agreements, but it generally is only for two reasons: a hospital stay for 30 days, or if a parent wants to voluntarily relinquish their parental rights.

The State made changes that will affect data reported in the October to March (2005A) report period. The State implemented a change to the screen. Workers are no longer able to select “not yet determined.” This change reflects the policy noted above. ACF will review the data for the 2005A report period.

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

[0-Does not Apply]

1-Applies

The State is unable to report more than one option. The staff indicated that they are making changes to the screen. The case file findings reflect that many more circumstances were applicable at the time of the child’s removal.

Case file review findings: Nearly all of the elements regarding actions or conditions associated with a child’s removal had errors. Please refer to the Case File Findings document for detailed information regarding these findings.

#26 Physical Abuse

2

#27 Sexual Abuse

2

#28 Neglect

2

Case file review findings: 9 (12%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. The reviewer found this circumstance was associated with the child’s removal.

#29 Parent Alcohol Abuse

2

Case file review findings: 9 (12%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. The reviewer found this circumstance was associated with the child’s removal.

#30 Parent Drug Abuse

2

Case file review findings: 9 (12%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. The reviewer found this circumstance was associated with the child’s removal.

#31 Child Alcohol Abuse

2

#32 Child Drug Abuse

2

#33 Child Disability

2

#34 Child’s Behavior Problem

2

#35 Death of Parent

2

#36 Incarceration of Parent

2

Case file review findings: 9 (12%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. The reviewer found this circumstance was associated with the child’s removal.

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

2

#38 Abandonment

2

#39 Relinquishment

2

#40 Inadequate Housing

2

#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

“Unknown” is an option on the list, but if it is selected an alert appears not allowing the worker to make this selection.

The State has licensed facilities that are “group homes” and maps these to the AFCARS value for “group home.” However, the size of the State’s licensed group homes does not match the size definition for “group home” in AFCARS. Based on the State’s definition, these facilities must be mapped to the AFCARS value “institution.” Post site-visit: The State corrected the mapping form and the program code to extract and map “group home” to “institution.”

“Runaway” is not an option in the placement setting field. The worker enters “runaway” as a reason for exiting a placement. However, the program code does not check placement exit reasons. In order to capture a placement status of “runaway,” the State is considering adding the option “runaway” in the “leave location” field. The program code needs to be modified accordingly.

Case file review findings: 14 (18%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. In nine records the reviewers found that the current living arrangement was “trial home visit.” The State indicated that once a child is discharged from a trial reunification, the placement setting is reset to the foster care setting prior to the trial reunification. This is also true if the child’s last placement setting was “runaway.” The State needs to correct this so that the current living arrangement at the time the agency discharges the child is “trial home visit” or “runaway” as appropriate. Post site-visit: The language in the mapping document referencing the handling of “trial home visit” and “runaway” has been deleted.

#42 Is Current Placement Out-of-State?

1=Yes (Out of State placement)

2=No (In-State placement)

4

#43 Most recent case plan goal

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

2 = Live With Relative(s)

3 = Adoption

4 = Long Term Foster Care

5 = Emancipation

6 = Guardianship

7 = Case Plan Goal Not Yet Established

2

Frequencies: Not yet established = 507 (23%)

The program code initializes this element to “not yet established.”

Missing information is mapped to “not yet established.” This is acceptable for the children in care for 60 days or less. The State should modify the program code to map missing goal information to blanks after a child has been in foster care for more than 60 days.

The State maps the goals “maintain family,” “improve family functioning,” and “ICPC/maintain placement” to “reunification.” These values need to be mapped to blanks.

When a goal of adoption is established, the worker is to choose a permanent plan of adoption. However, the State indicated the plan may not actually be recorded until a review hearing or the next periodic review. Therefore, this data may not be up-to-date at the end of the report period.

The State staff indicated they are making changes to this module.

For the report period under review, the program code was ordering the goals based on date and was extracting the earliest goal and not the most recent case plan. This accounts for the errors in the case file review. There were 26 errors (34%). The State made changes to the program code in February and these should be reflected in the 2005A report period. ACF will review the data submitted for 2005A.

#44 Caretaker Family Structure

1 = Married Couple

2 = Unmarried Couple

3 = Single Female

4 = Single Male

5 = Unable to Determine

2

Frequencies (n=2209): Married Couple = 798 (36%); Unmarried Couple = 248 (11%); Single Female = 786 (36%); Single Male = 91 4%); Unable to Determine = 286 (13%); Not reported = 0

Total couples = 1,046

This is a field on the initial placement screen.

The State option “unknown” is mapped to “unable to determine,” it should be mapped to blank. The State indicated that if the worker selects the option “unknown,” the worker will get an error message that this option cannot be selected. The State may want to remove it as an option if it isn’t used.

The program code defaults to “unable to determine .” Missing data must be mapped to blank.

The options on the selection list also include “conversion” and “not applicable.” Conversion was used to indicate the placements a child had prior to conversion of open cases. “Not applicable” is defined the same as AFCARS’ “unable to determine.” Conversion should be mapped to blank. The State should change the option “not applicable” to “unable to determine” as an option and map it to the AFCARS value of “unable to determine.” If the State maintains the option of “not applicable,” it should be mapped to blank.

The State is making changes to how dates of birth and the caretaker family structure are entered into the system. Also, there will be an edit that checks for matching number of dates of birth in relation to the marital status.

Case file review findings: 19 (24%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. There were eight error cases reported to AFCARS as “unable to determine” and the reviewer found the family structure. In six of these cases, there were dates of birth reported in AFCARS for elements #45 and #46. In two of the cases there was a date of birth for element #46and the caretaker was a “single female.”

#45 1 st Primary Caretaker’s Birth Year

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

2

Frequencies: 10 records indicating a date of birth later than 1993 and 6 records indicating 1993. 198 records were missing data.

The State is making changes to how dates of birth and the caretaker family structure are entered into the system. Also, there will be an edit that checks for matching number of dates of birth in relation to the marital status.

Case file review findings: 11 (14%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS.

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

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

2

Frequencies: Two records indicating a date of birth as 1900. There are 12 records indicating birth years after 2000. 860 records were blank. 877 records were reported as single family structure.

The State is making changes to how dates of birth and the caretaker family structure are entered into the system. Also, there will be an edit that checks for matching number of dates of birth in relation to the marital status.

Case file review findings: 16 (21%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. There were eleven cases where either “single male” or “single female” was reported for element #44 and there was also a date of birth reported for this element.

#47 Mother’s Date of TPR

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

4

#48 Legal or Putative Father’s TPR

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

4

#49 Foster Family Structure

0 = Not Applicable

1 = Married Couple

2 = Unmarried Couple

3 = Single Female

4 = Single Male

2

3

Frequencies (n=2,209): Not applicable = 0; Married Couple = 899 (41%); Unmarried Couple = 51 (2%); Single Female = 347 (16%); Single Male = 15 (.68%); Not reported = 897

Total couples = 950

Number of kids in a non-foster home setting = 749

The mapping form states that if the child is in a non-foster home setting, set this element to zero “not applicable.” However, this is not in the program code. The State needs to modify the program code to set “foster parent structure” to “not applicable” for children in non-foster home settings. Post site-visit analysis: The State has made this correction to the program code.

Agencies that the State contracts with for placement services have access to FACIS. The staff in these agencies has not been entering the data in a timely manner. The State indicated they have been working with these agencies and instructing them about entering placement resource information and changes in placements. The State indicated there the data in the 2005A report period should show improvement.

#50 1 st Foster Caretaker’s Birth Year

3

See notes for foster parent family structure.

Case file review findings: 12 (18%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. Nine records were not included in the analysis because the living arrangement found by the reviewer was “trial home visit.” There were several errors related to missing data, but the child was in a foster home.

#51 2 nd Foster Caretaker’s Birth Year

3

Due to the issue related to data entry by the contract placement agencies and the findings from the case file review, the State needs to monitor the accuracy of this data. ACF will review the 2005A data to note if the data has improved.

#52 1 st Foster Caretaker’s Race

a. American Indian or Alaska Native

b. Asian

c. Black or African American

d. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

e. White

f. Unable to Determine

3

Case file review findings: There were several errors in each of the race categories. Most of these were related to missing data for children in a foster home setting. See notes for “foster parent family structure.”

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

1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = Unable to Determine

3

Case file review findings: 12 (18%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. There were several errors in each of the race categories. Most of these were related to missing data for children in a foster home setting. See notes for “foster parent family structure.”

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

a. American Indian or Alaska Native

b. Asian

c. Black or African American

d. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

e. White

f. Unable to Determine

3

Case file review findings: There were several errors in each of the race categories. Most of these were related to missing data for children in a foster home setting. See notes for “foster parent family structure.”

#55 2 nd Foster Caretaker’s Hispanic Origin

[0 = Not Applicable]

1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = Unable to Determine

3

Due to the issue related to data entry by the contract placement agencies and the findings from the case file review, the State needs to monitor the accuracy of this data. ACF will review the 2005A data to note if the data has improved.

#56 Date of Discharge from foster care

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

4

The State is accurately recording and reporting these dates.

#57 Date of Discharge Transaction Date

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

4

The State is accurately recording and reporting these dates.

#58 Reason for Discharge

[0 = Not Applicable]

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

2 = Living with Other Relative(s)

3 = Adoption

4 = Emancipation

5 = Guardianship

6 = Transfer to Another Agency

7 = Runaway

8 = Death of Child

2

3

The program code maps this element to blanks if the child is still in foster care. It must be changed to map children still in foster care to “not applicable.” Post site-visit analysis: The mapping document was modified to indicate that if the child is still in foster care this element should be set to “not applicable.” The program code was also modified.

#59 Title IV-E (Foster Care)

0-Does not apply

1-Applies

2

The program code extracts whether the child is title IV-E eligible and not that there was a title IV-E payment.

#60 Title IV-E (Adoption Subsidy)

0-Does not apply

1-Applies

2

Pre-adopt placements = 123; Applies for #60 = 65 (2.94%)

The program code checks the subsidy screen and does not check for payments. Post site-visit analysis: The mapping form was modified by removing the language “before the adoption was legalized.” The program code has not been modified.

#61 Title IV-A

0-Does not apply

1-Applies

1

This is hard-coded to zero. An interface with the Access PMI system is required.

The State does not receive information from the TANF office on children in foster care and placed with relatives who receive TANF.

The interface is an action item for the SACWIS Assessment Review (SAR) to be completed by August 2005. However, this date may get moved back.

This information cannot be entered into the system.

#62 Title IV-D (Child Support)

0-Does not apply

1-Applies

2

3

Initialized to zero.

In the system, workers are able to record “own funds” as revenue for the child. Child support payments are recorded here. The program code checks to see if there is a revenue source code for child support. If one is found this element is set to “applies.”

There is not an interface to the child support enforcement system. The State is in process of meeting its SACWIS interface requirement.

The State needs to be able to report if any child support applies for children regardless of how the child support is collected.

#63 Title I (Medicaid)

0-Does not apply

1-Applies

4

The State is accurately recording and reporting this information.

#64 SSI or other Social Security Act Benefits

0-Does not apply

1-Applies

4

The State is accurately recording and reporting this information.

#65 None of the Above

0-Does not apply

1-Applies

2

The code does not check for other types of resources.

The State uses emergency assistance (EA) for children in foster care. The State needs to map EA to this element

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

4

The State is accurately recording and reporting this information.

#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

#4 State Agency Involvement

1 = Yes

2 = No

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

2 = Female

4

The State is correctly reporting this information.

#7 Child Race

a = American Indian or Alaska Native

b = Asian

c = Black or African American

d = Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

e = White

f = Unable to Determine

4

The State is correctly reporting this information.

#8 Child Hispanic Origin

1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = Unable to Determine

4

The State is correctly reporting this information.

#9 Has Agency Determined Special Needs?

1 = Yes

2 = No

4

The State is correctly reporting this information.

#10 Primary Basis for Determining Special Needs

0 = Not Applicable

1 = Racial/Original Background

2 = Age

3 = Membership in a Sibling Group

4 = Medical Conditions or Mental, Physical or Emotional Disabilities

5 = Other State Defined Special Needs

4

The State is correctly reporting this information.

#11 Mental Retardation

2

3

This information is pulled from the foster care screen and the foster care record. It will also reflect the changes being made in foster care. See the findings to foster care elements #11-15.

#12 Visually/Hearing Impaired

2

3

#13 Physically Disabled

2

3

#14 Emotionally Disturbed

2

3

#15 Other Diagnosed Condition

2

3

#16 Mother's Birth Year

4

The State is correctly reporting this information.

#17 Father's Birth Year

4

The State is correctly reporting this information.

#18 Mother Married at Time of Birth

1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = Unable to Determine

2

3

The program code is mapping “legally separated” to “no” and it should be mapped to “yes.” Post site-visit analysis: The program code was corrected and “legally separated” is now mapped to “yes”

“Unknown” is mapped to “unable to determine,” should be mapped to blank. Post site-visit analysis: The mapping in the program code was corrected to map “unknown” to spaces.

“Unknown” is not an option on the screen.

Case file review findings: 3 (10%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS.

#19 Date of Mother's TPR

4

The State is correctly reporting this information.

#20 Date of Father's TPR

4

The State is correctly reporting this information.

#21 Date Adoption Legalized

4

The State is correctly reporting this information.

#22 Adoptive Family Structure

1 = Married Couple

2 = Unmarried Couple

3 = Single Female

4 = Single Male

2

This element is taken from the “family structure” field.

The selection list also includes: “not applicable,” “unknown,” and “conversion.” “Unknown” is mapped to blank. These options should either be removed from the selection list or map “not applicable” and “conversion” to blank.

#23 Adoptive Mother's Year of Birth

4

The State is correctly reporting this information.

#24 Adoptive Father's Year of Birth

4

The State is correctly reporting this information.

#25 Adoptive Mother's Race

a = American Indian or Alaskan Native

b = Asian

c = Black or African American

d = Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander

e = White

f = Unable to Determine

4

The State is correctly reporting this information.

#26 Adoptive Mother's Hispanic Origin

0 = Not Applicable

1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = Unable to Determine

4

The State is correctly reporting this information.

#27 Adoptive Father's Race

a = American Indian or Alaska Native

b = Asian

c = Black or African American

d = Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander

e = White

f = Unable to Determine

4

The State is correctly reporting this information.

#28 Adoptive Father's Hispanic Origin

4

The State is correctly reporting this information.

#29 Relationship of Adoptive Parent to Child - Stepparent

0 = Does not Apply

1 = Applies

4

The State is correctly reporting this information.

#30 Relationship of Adoptive Parent to Child - Other Relative

0 = Does not Apply

1 = Applies

4

The State is correctly reporting this information.

#31 Relationship of Adoptive Parent to Child - Foster Parent

0 = Does not Apply

1 = Applies

2

3

Screen: The options on the list include: Foster Parent, Foster Parent (relative), Non-relative, Other relative and Stepparent. The worker is able to select more than one relationship.

The program code only extracts one relationship between the child and the adoptive parent. The program code maps “other relative” and “foster parent (relative)” to “other relative.” Modify the program code to map “foster parent (relative)” to “foster parent.” Post site-visit analysis: Program code was modified and code was added to check for “foster parent” and “foster parent (relative).

Case file review findings: 7 (25%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. In the error cases, all were reported in AFCARS as “does not apply,” but the reviewer indicated the adoptive parents were also foster parents. Five were also relatives and two were non-relatives.

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

0 = Does not Apply

1 = Applies

4

3

Based on the case file review findings, the rating factor for this element was changed.

Case file review findings: 5 (17%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. In each of the error cases, AFCARS information indicated “does not apply.” The reviewer indicated that in addition to being a foster parent, the adoptive parents were non-relatives.

#33 Child Was Placed from

1 = Within State

2 = Another State

3 = Another Country

4

#34 Child Was Placed by

1 = Public Agency

2 = Private Agency

3 = Tribal Agency

4 = Independent Person

5 = Birth Parent

2

3

The State staff indicated that all adoptions would be either public agency, private agency or tribal agency. The State adoption specialist is the only person that would enter private agency adoption information.

The State is going to remove the other selections on the list (“independent person,” “guardian,” and “relative - first degree”) and modify the program code accordingly. Post site-visit analysis: The program code was modified by mapping “independent person,” “guardian,” and “relative - first degree” to spaces. Also, the screen was modified and the only options are: “birth parent,” “private agency,” “public agency,” and “tribal agency.”

#35 Receiving Monthly Subsidy

1=Yes

2=No

4

#36 Monthly Amount

2

3

Screen: Adoption Subsidy

The program code checks both the “first month subsidy” field and the “continuing subsidy” field. The “first month subsidy” field may not reflect the amount in the adoption agreement. Instead, it may be a partial month payment. The code should only extract from the “continuing subsidy” amount field. Post site-visit analysis: The program code was modified to only extract the amount in the “continuing subsidy” field.

#37 Adoption Assistance IV-E

1=Yes

2=No

4