Frequency Report (n = 25,026): 283 records have most recent periodic review date between 1997-2000.

Program code looks for a Permanency Planning Team (PPT) review or legal status.

Reviews are conducted for children in Temporary Management Conservatorship (TMC). A review is held before the 60-day status hearing, then four months after the 60-day status hearing. A PPT review is generally held one month before this review. Reviews are held every six months afterward.

Approximately a year ago, State staff identified an issue regarding the entry of information for sibling groups. Workers enter information in the oldest child's record and are not entering dates of review for the remaining sibling's records. TDPRS has since provided guidance on updating most recent periodic review date.

The program code does not contain a parameter to extract the review date for the current removal episode.

Case file review findings: Of the 38 cases reviewed, reviewers found 11 records (29%) where the AFCARS information did not match the case file.

If an individual refuses to identify a race, the worker selects "unable to determine." If race is "unable to determine," than Hispanic/non-Hispanic check buttons are disabled.

As a result of the finding in foster care element #8, if an individual is of Hispanic/Latino origin and refuses to provide a race, the worker is not able to enter the Hispanic/Latino information.

The option "unable to determine" must be added to the screen for Hispanic/Latino origin and not linked to the race option of "unable to determine."

Frequency Report (n=25,026): Yes = 8,556; No = 16,470; Unable to determine = 0

All children receive a physical exam within 30 days of removal. Psychological evaluations are conducted but there is not a set time frame.

The State generates an edit report to ensure that children in a placement setting at levels 2 - 6 have a diagnosed disability or a recurrent behavior problem. The State is using this report to monitor that appropriate services are being provided in relation to a child's level of care.

The child's characteristics must be entered before a child's placement can be entered.

State is adding an edit to check for a diagnosed disability.

The State is implementing a change in August 2002 to add "developmental disabled." ACF will review the State's definition of "developmental disabled" and advise what it should be mapped to in AFCARS. Response: The Children's Bureau has reviewed the definition of "developmental disability." This definition overlaps with many of the AFCARS categories for disability, therefore the State must map the individual diagnosed conditions that results in "developmental disability" to each of the appropriate disability types in AFCARS.

This element is derived from responses entered by the worker for elements #11-15.

The worker selects the appropriate information from the "person list window." This screen contains a category selection list. Based on the category selected, the characteristics for that category are displayed. The worker selects "child-placement" and then selects the appropriate characteristics of the child. This list contains characteristics that pertain to placement setting decisions as well as diagnosed medical/psychiatric conditions.

The screen contains an option "no characteristics applicable." However, the response in this checkbox is not mapped to AFCARS.

There is not an option for the worker to select "not yet determined" if the child has not had a medical/psychiatric exam, or if the results are not yet known.

The medical history is recorded in a Word document. Since this information is not stored in the CAPS database, it cannot be extracted to the AFCARS file. This may contribute to an under-reporting of relevant information.

The State needs to re-evaluate the design of the screen capturing disability information. There are several options the State can consider. These include:

• Modify the "category selection list" by adding a category "medically diagnosed conditions." Under this category, list only the diagnosed conditions.
• At the time of the six-month case review, add a tickler/alert for the caseworker to verify that this information is accurate and up-to-date. Or add a field for the worker to note the last up-date to this information, and if the information has not be reviewed in six months, then a task alert could be sent to the worker. This option would best be combined with the first option.
• Add a "health" or "medical history" screen to record all information pertaining to the health of the child.

Case file review findings: Of the 38 cases reviewed, there were nine records (24%) in which reviewers identified a condition that should have been reported to AFCARS.

Frequency Report (n = 25,026): Does not apply = 24,016; Applies = 1,010

"Downs Syndrome" appears on the selection list but does not indicate "diagnosed" next to it. The State should map "Downs Syndrome" to this element.

Frequency Report (n = 25,026): Does not apply = 21,941; Applies = 3085

State code "22, emotionally disturbed" is vague. The State's frequencies may be under-reported as a result of a lack of detailed information. Note the case file findings below.

The State can map the following to this element: ADD/ADHD and eating disorder (anorexia, bulimia).

Case file review findings: Of the 38 cases reviewed, there were 10 (26%) cases where reviewers identified a condition that should have been reported to AFCARS. Most of the records reported to AFCARS did not indicate the child had been diagnosed with a disability.

Frequency Report (n = 25,026): Does not apply = 18,527; Applies = 6499

The State code "24, enuresis" should not be mapped to AFCARS.

The State may map "learning disabled " and "fetal alcohol syndrome" to this element.

The State code "34, health disabled" is vague. This category may contain conditions that should be mapped to one of the other AFCARS elements #11 through 14.

Frequency Report (n = 25,026): Yes = 468; No = 24,558; Unable to determine = 0

This is not a question on the screen for caseworkers to complete. There is an option on the child characteristics screen of "previously adopted." It is not possible for the workers to select "unable to determine."

The program code checks for records with a code of "090" (adoptions that were State agency adoptions), an adoption consummation date, and the characteristics table for "previously adopted."

The program code is initialized to "2, no."

The State's method of selecting this data may be providing a false "no" response, thus resulting in a higher number of 'nos."

Review and revise program code to reflect AFCARS definition of "unable to determine." State must add this as a question on a screen or develop some way for the caseworkers to select "unable to determine." A reminder should occur when this is selected showing the Federal definition for "unable to determine."

Frequency Report (n = 25,026): 0 = 24,588; 1 = 9; 2 = 49; 3 = 100; 4 = 8; 5 = 302.

There is an inconsistency between the responses in element #17 and #16. The frequency for data element #17 indicates that there are 302 records coded as "unable to determine." However, there are no responses for "unable to determine" in element #16.

Age at previous adoption is calculated, if the child was previously adopted in the State.

For those children that were adopted either through a private agency or in another State, the State is unable to record an age at time of the adoption (foster care element #17).

The screen and program code need to be revised to reflect AFCARS definition of "unable to determine."

Case file review findings: Of the 38 cases reviewed, there were five records (13%) where the information reported to AFCARS did not match what was found in the case file. In the two TYC cases, the dates reported to AFCARS reflect the dates the youth left home, not when they entered a community based reimbursable placement. In two cases the dates reported to AFCARS were five and six years later then what was found in the case file. One record was 30 days later then what was found in the case file.

Based on the case file findings, the State needs to review the collection of the data, and address data quality issues.

The State system is capable of reporting removals that occurred for children that were in their care, that were adopted, and that may have a later removal episode.

There appears to be a problem with the way the program code counts the number of removals from home (see comments under the case file review findings). There were instances in which the AFCARS report indicated there was one removal, however, the dates of first and latest removal were different. The reviewer verified that there was more then one removal. The State staff need to review the program code and provide an explanation and a plan for correcting the problem See notes on the General Requirements Findings form regarding the reporting of trial home visits. The accuracy of the data for this element is affected by the State showing children as discharged that are returned home while still under the care, placement or supervision of the State (AFCARS placement setting of trial home visit). If a child returns to foster care during a specified period of time, or if non-specified before six months, from a trial home visit, then the number of removals remains the same.

The State staff indicated the information reported for title IV-E juvenile justice youth may not be correct.

Case file review findings: Of the 38 cases reviewed, there were 12 records (32%) where the information reported to AFCARS did not match what was found in the case file. The majority of the records indicated an undercount in the number of removals (two instead of one removal). There appears to be a significant problem with how the system is counting removals. In seven cases the number of removals reported to AFCARS was one, however, the dates of latest removal and first removal were different. One of these records did not have a date of discharge from the previous removal episode, the others did have a date in element #20. There also seems to be some errors as a result of conversion and multiple records not being merged together. This resulted in some of the undercounting of the number of removals.

The program code checks for discharge reasons of "adoption consummation," "emancipation," "PRS terminated," and "CVS not obtained." Could missing discharge dates be related to those cases that had a discharge reason other then one of the ones noted? There appears to be an additional problem with the program code based on the case file review (see comments below). This is related to the findings in foster care element #19.

State may want to remove the unused (not applicable) codes from the program code.

Juvenile Justice is using the stage start date, which is a system date. This needs to be corrected.

See notes on the General Requirements Findings form. The accuracy of the data for this element may be affected by the State showing children as discharged, if home for more then six months while still under the care, placement or supervision of the State.

Case file review findings: Of the 38 cases reviewed, there were six records (16%) where the information reported to AFCARS did not match what was found in the case file.

The State staff indicated the information reported for title IV-E juvenile justice youth may not be correct.

The State staff indicated that the condition in the program code where the date of current removal is null refers to cases open at the time of conversion. Please explain what date is entered for the date of latest removal for these cases. It appears that the date is set as the start date of the current substitute care stage. Is this correct? There were instances found in the case file review where the dates of first and latest removal were the same. However, there was actually more then one removal in the cases.

See notes on the General Requirements Findings form. The accuracy of the data for this element may be affected by the State showing children as discharged, if home for more then six months while still under the care, placement or supervision of the State.

Case file review findings: Of the 38 cases reviewed, there were six records (16%) where the information reported to AFCARS did not match what was found in the case file. Some information appears not to have been entered at the time of conversion.

The event date is not the date recorded on the system.

The transaction date should be the date when the date of latest removal is entered into the system by the caseworker.

There appears to be an error in the program code that enters the date a foster family moved as the new placement date for the child. This should not have occurred. Also, see the case file review findings for foster care element #24 regarding the counting of placements.

Note: As of October 1, 2002 the State must enter the date when the child enters a "trial home visit" or runs away. The Children's Bureau added this policy to the Child Welfare Policy Manual on July 5, 2002 (see section 1.2B.4)

Case file review findings: Of the 38 cases reviewed, there were four records (11%) where the information reported to AFCARS did not match what was found in the case file. In one case the date reported as the date of the current placement setting reflects the date the child was discharged from placement and care. The actual current placement date was two years earlier then what was reported. In another case, the date of latest placement is wrong in AFCARS because it reflects the date the foster parents moved out of State. This is not considered a new placement setting for the child.

Frequency Report (n = 25,026): There are 537 records reported with zero placements. The range for the number of placements is from 1 to 52.

The State defines "short-term" placements as no more than two weeks.

State excludes hospitals and mental health crisis stabilization that are short-term stays.

The State requested clarification on whether to increment the number of placements on youth that are in jail for two to three nights. ACF to follow-up and provide a response. Response: The Children's Bureau is reviewing this question. The State will be notified of the response.

Missing placement information should be mapped to "blank."

Case file review findings: Of the 38 cases reviewed, there were 13 records (34%) where the information reported to AFCARS did not match what was found in the case file.

Information pertaining to removal characteristics are entered during the investigation stage.

On the "characteristics associated with removal" screen, information from the characteristics list is carried over to the removal characteristics screen. A caseworker can add or subtract characteristics based on the reason(s) the child was removed from the home.

Case file review findings: There were problems noted for the Texas Youth Commission (TYC) cases. For all three of the TYC cases reviewed foster care elements #26 - 40 had the response "does not apply." This is because the circumstances of removal are associated with the investigation stage and this section does not get completed on the juvenile justice youth. These cases are entered as eligibility cases. The State identified a problem with how the system is designed to capture and report this information.

See notes above regarding TYC youth.

See notes above regarding TYC youth.

See notes above regarding TYC youth.

See notes above regarding TYC youth.

See notes above regarding TYC youth.

See notes above regarding TYC youth.

See notes above regarding TYC youth.

Frequency Report: Does not apply = 25,026; Apply = 0

The program code does not include coding for this element. State needs to modify the program code and submit to ACF for review.

See notes above regarding TYC youth.

"Emotional abuse" should be mapped to "neglect" element #28.

See notes above regarding TYC youth.

See notes above regarding TYC youth.

See notes above regarding TYC youth.

See notes above regarding TYC youth.

See notes above regarding TYC youth.

See notes above regarding TYC youth.

Frequency Report (n = 25,026): Pre-Adoptive home = 1,922; Foster family home (relative) = 4,522; Foster family home (non-relative) = 10,790; Group home = 2,083; Institution = 3,907; Supervised independent living = 81; Runaway = 504; Trial home visit = 1,031; Not reported = 186

State should identify why there were 186 records reported with no placement information. All records should have a current placement setting.

The system has a screen that lists the child's placement history.

The State has "group foster homes" that are homes licensed for 7 to 12 children. The "house parents" have staff that work shifts. State is appropriately mapping these to "group home" because of size.

The agency has six levels of residential care for children that have been removed from their homes and placed in agency paid foster care. The level of care is tied to the services needed by the child and the payment that is made for the placement. Placement in a level of care higher then "1" are reviewed by a third party review board for both agency and contracted placements.

Placements would be entered if there was an over-night stay, except for those that are for short-term stays such as a short-term hospitalization (medical or psychiatric), or respite.

The worker can select "planned" or "actual" placement. The "planned" would be checked in order to hold a placement for a planned move, or when a pre-adopt family has been identified, etc. Once the child is physically placed in that setting, the worker changes the setting to "actual."

The program code defaults to "1-yes, out of state placement." If "TX" is not found in the State address field, then this element is mapped to "yes". Modify code to allow for missing information and take out the default.

If the placement is an out of State placement that is non-paid, it is possible addresses are not entered.

Frequency Report:(n = 25,026): Not reported = 2,342; Reunification = 7,984; Live with other relative = 2,178; Adoption = 7,786; Long-term foster care = 2,183; Emancipation = 1, 957; Guardianship = 506; Case plan goal not yet established = 0

This is a required field. A case plan goal must be established within 45 days of the child's removal from home.

The program code maps "long-term care in adulthood" and "transfer of conservatorship" to "guardianship."

Missing information is mapped to "not yet established."

There are instances where a child may be in care for less then 60 days and a case plan goal is never established. This may be appropriately mapped to "not yet established."

The State team gave "symbolic" caretaker or churches as examples of other types of family structure.

Missing is being mapped to "unable to determine". Missing data should be mapped to blank.

"Separated" should be mapped to "married."

Case file review findings: Of the 38 cases reviewed, there were five records (13%) where the information reported to AFCARS did not match what was found in the case file.

State identifies the male as the primary caretaker.

Case file review findings: Of the 38 cases reviewed, there were eight records (21%) where the information reported to AFCARS did not match what was found in the case file. For three records the caretakers were reported as single males and this element was blank. The dates of birth were reported in element #46.

Frequency Report (n = 25,026): Not reported = 13,504.

The records that have missing information are possibly the private agency providers. The State office receives the information that is entered into CAPS through a nightly batch. The form goes to licensing. The CPS State office adds the demographics when the form is received.

The State code "07, separated female" is mapped to AFCARS "single female." It should be mapped to "married."

The State code "09, separated male" is mapped to AFCARS "single male." It should be mapped to "married."

Modify program code to include the following condition. If element #41 = 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, then element #49 = 0.

Case file review findings: Of the 38 cases reviewed, there were six records (16%) where the information reported to AFCARS did not match what was found in the case file.

The records that have missing information are possibly the private agency providers. The State office receives the information that is entered into CAPS through a nightly batch. The form goes to licensing. The CPS State office adds the demographics when the form is received. However, there is a problem with not receiving the information from the providers and/or the information not being entered into the system by the State staff.

Case file review findings: Of the 38 cases reviewed, there were 12 records (32%) where the information reported to AFCARS did not match what was found in the case file. In eleven records the AFCARS record indicated a family structure and a placement setting of foster home but the birth year information was missing. In one record the placement setting was a foster home, and the family structure and foster caretaker date of birth were missing.

The records that have missing information are possibly the private agency providers. The State office receives the information that is entered into CAPS through a nightly batch. The form goes to licensing. The CPS State office adds the demographics when the form is received.

Case file review findings: Of the 38 cases reviewed, there were five records (13%) where the information reported to AFCARS did not match what was found in the case file. Five records indicated the foster family structure was "married" and no information was reported for the second foster caretaker. Also, there were five questionable records because of missing information. The placement setting is foster home but the foster family structure is blank. Therefore, these records may actually have information.

If an individual refuses to identify a race, the worker selects "unable to determine." If race is "unable to determine," than Hispanic/non-Hispanic check buttons are disabled.

The records that have missing information are possibly the private agency providers. The State office receives the information and that is entered into CAPS through a nightly batch. The form goes to licensing. The CPS State office adds the demographics when the form is received.

Case file review findings: There were 12 records (32%) in which there is an inconsistency in the data reported in AFCARS. The AFCARS records indicated that the child was in a family foster home, however, information on the foster caretakers was missing.

If an individual refuses to provide a race, but the person is "Hispanic," then this cannot be recorded into the system.

"Unable to determine" is not an option for the worker to select for Hispanic origin.

The records that have missing information are possibly the private agency providers. The State office receives the information and it is entered into CAPS through a nightly batch. The form goes to licensing. The CPS State office adds the demographics when the form is received.

Case file review findings: Of the 38 cases reviewed, there were 13 records (34%) in which there is an inconsistency in the data reported to AFCARS. The AFCARS records indicated that the child was in a family foster home, however, information on the foster caretakers was missing.

If an individual refuses to identify a race, the worker selects "unable to determine." If race is "unable to determine," than Hispanic/non-Hispanic check buttons are disabled.

Case file review findings: For each of the races there were five records (13%) in which there was an inconsistency in the date reported to AFCARS. The AFCARS records indicated that the child was in a family foster home, however, information on the foster caretakers was missing.

If an individual refuses to provide a race, but the person is "Hispanic," then this cannot be recorded into the system. "Unable to determine" is not an option for the worker to select.

The records that have missing information are possibly the private agency providers. The State office receives the information and it is entered into CAPS through a nightly batch. The form goes to licensing. The CPS State office adds the demographics when the form is received.

Case file review findings: Of the 38 cases reviewed, there were seven records (18%) in which there was inconsistent data reported to AFCARS. The AFCARS records indicated that the child was in a family foster home, however, information on the foster caretakers was missing.

Frequency Report (n = 25,026): Not reported = 20,298; 2000 = 22; 2001 = 2,684; 2002 = 2,022

For a child that returns home while under the care, placement, or supervision of the State agency, and the case is still open after six months, the State's program code enters a discharge date that is six months from the date the child returned home. For those children that have been returned home for a specified period of time that exceeds six months, this approach is incorrect.

The State must continue to report those children who have been returned home for a specified period of time until the agency no longer has responsibility for care, placement, or supervision. The State must remove from the program code the section that calculates a discharge date for children in their own homes for more then six months. For children that are returned home for a specified period of time, the worker must enter the date the agency no longer has placement, care or supervision. For those children that are returned home for a non-specified period of time, the worker must enter the date the agency no longer has placement, care or supervision of the child. If the non-specified period of time extends to six months, then the worker must enter the date that is six months after the child returns home.

The State staff asked how they should report if a judge requires another review within another specified period of time. Does the agency continue to report the child in AFCARS even if it goes beyond six months?

Response: If after a specified period of time there is a court review and the judge orders another specified period of time for the child to remain home and retains the agency's placement, care or supervision, then the State is to continue including the child in its AFCARS population.

Case file findings: Of the 38 cases reviewed, there were four (11%) in which there was inconsistent data reported to AFCARS. One record indicates a discharge date in the AFCARS report. However, the reviewer noted there was a periodic review that occurred after the discharge date. Also, no discharge reason was given for element #58. The date submitted in AFCARS reflects the individual's 18th birthday. In another record the discharge date was incorrect and it reflected the individual's 18th birthday. However, the reviewer found an actual discharge date in the case file that was a year later, after the individual turned 19. Also, the date of the most recent periodic review reported to AFCARS occurred after the discharge date. One discharge date reflected six months from the time the child entered a "trial home visit." The actual discharge date was two months later.

This is a system-generated date.

The State was able to adequately explain to the Federal team's satisfaction why the 1996 date showed up in the frequency report even though the screen should be frozen.

Frequency Report (n = 25,026): Not applicable = 0; Reunify = 1,477; Live with other relative = 1,157; Adoption = 1,174; Emancipation = 95; Guardianship = 0; Transfer to another agency = 0; Runaway = 42; Death of child = 9; Not reported = 21,072

There are only three terminating legal status events that can be entered into CAPS. They are: "PRS responsibility terminated" (court ordered or the child turns 18), "Child Emancipated" (court ordered), and "Adoption consummated" (court ordered). The "legal status code" is used to populate this field unless the terminating legal status event is "PRS responsibility terminated." When this occurs, the information is derived from the living situation. The program uses the legal status event, the "living arrangement" found on the placement detail screen and the "reason for discharge" on the placement removal screen.

The State needs to add the AFCARS values "transfer to other agency" and "guardianship" to the program code and map information accordingly. ACF will follow-up on how the State should map "transfer of conservatorship."

Response: This term is too vague. State needs to identify to whom conservatorship was given and map it appropriately (i.e., a relative, another agency or guardianship). The State may footnote that guardianships are relatives.

Case file review findings: Of the 38 cases reviewed, there were five records (13%) where the AFCARS data did not match what was in the paper case file. The AFCARS report had missing data for this element. In three cases the reviewer marked the reason as "emancipation." One record was for a TYC youth and the reviewer noted the youth left the title IV-E eligible placement.

One record that was missing a discharge reason had a current placement setting of "runaway." Also, the reviewer noted the discharge date was incorrect and that the date was the most recent periodic review.

Frequency Report (n = 25,026): Does not apply = 13,410; Applies = 11,616

Program logic checks for those cases eligible for payment. Program code should be modified to capture payments made. The State is aware of the problem and is working on it.

The payment/benefit can be for less than a full month and still qualify as "applies" for any one of these benefits.

Frequency Report (n = 25,026): Does not apply = 22,719; Applies = 2,307

State is reporting emergency assistance for this element. This should not be included.

Frequency Report (n = 25,026): Does not apply = 25,026; Applies = 0

The title IV-D interface is one-way; the child welfare agency does not receive information from the Attorney General regarding payments made on behalf of the child.

The State is to report if "child support funds are being paid to the State agency on behalf of the child by assignment from the receiving parent" (45 CFR Part 1355, Appendix A, Section II.XI.

Frequency Report (n = 25,026): Does not apply = 10,896; Applies = 14,130

The agency does not include if a child is eligible for Medicaid.

Case file review findings: Of the 38 cases reviewed, there were four records (11%) where the information reported to AFCARS did not match what was found in the case file.

Frequency Report (n = 25,026): Does not apply = 16,395; Applies = 8,631

This element is derived from elements #59-64.

A child receiving emergency assistance would have a response of "applies" for this element.

Element #65 should not be derived from elements #59-64. The program code needs to check if there are State funds, or other Federal funds or non-Federal funds, which are a source of support for the child. If there are then this element should be coded as applies, otherwise it would be marked as does not apply.

Do not include those children for whom there is no financial income.

As a result of the finding in foster care element #8, if an individual is of Hispanic/Latino origin and refuses to provide a race, the worker is not able to enter the Hispanic/Latino information.

The option "unable to determine" must be added to the screen for Hispanic/Latino origin and not linked with the race option of "unable to determine."

Frequency Report (n=1,117): Yes = 1,015; No = 101

This element is derived from element #10. The accuracy of this information is dependent on whether a worker enters the correct information for element #10.

Frequency Report (n = 1,117): Not applicable = 101; Racial = 50; Age = 45; Sibling group = 499; Medical condition or mental, physical, or emotional disabilities = 421; Other = 0.

The program code follows the hierarchy below to determine the primary basis for determining special needs:

• Medical
• Sibling
• Age 6 or older
• Race

This element should reflect the area that is the primary basis as determined by the worker. The hierarchy was based on data analysis.

The program code does not include the AFCARS value of "other." There are some "disabilities" that are being mapped to element #15 that should not be included that would meet the definition for "other primary basis." There are other possible child characteristics that may qualify as a State defined special need that could be mapped to "other."

Because the disability information is carried forward from the foster care screens, there is a possibility that the information for this element is under-reported and that its accuracy is incorrect.

State code "22, emotional disturbed" is too broad of a category.

The State can map the following to this element: ADD/ADHD; Eating disorder (anorexia, bulimia).

The State code "24, enuresis" should not be mapped to this element.

The State may map "learning disabled" to this element.

The State code "34, health disabled" is too broad a category. This category may contain conditions that should be mapped to one of the other elements in #11-14.

Case file review findings: Of the 18 cases reviewed, there were four records (22%) that the information reported to AFCARS did not match what was found in the case file. In three of the AFCARS records the information was blank but the reviewer found a date in the case file. Blank information for this element will not fail the compliance standard for missing data, however, the State should encourage workers to enter this information when it is known.

Frequency Report (n=1,117): Yes = 233; No = 742; Unable to determine = 143; Not reported = 8.

This information is entered on the "person detail CVS/FA home" screen. The caseworker must enter this information during the "sub" (substitute care) stage in order to enter a foster care placement.

The records indicating no information may be older cases in which the information was not converted from the legacy system.

The State should develop a method to ensure workers understand the use of "unable to determine." Suggestion: Add description in the "AFCARS Job Aid." Also, add an alert message when "unable to determine" is selected on the screen reminding the worker of the definition.

Case file review findings: Of the 18 cases reviewed, there were two records (11%) where the information reported to AFCARS did not match what was found in the case file. The reviewers were able to identify whether the mother was married or not at the time of the child's birth.

Case file review findings: Of the 18 cases reviewed, there were four records (22%) where the information reported to AFCARS did not match what was found in the case file. One of the records was missing a TPR for the father. One record the date of TPR was actually a month later then what was reported to AFCARS. The other two records had data entry errors.

Frequency Report (n=1,117): Married = 782; Unmarried = 2; Single female = 243; Single male = 27; Not reported = 62.

State regulation does not allow "unmarried couples," including couples in a state of separation to adopt. The adoptive parent must be legally married (for at least two years) or legally single (single or divorced) before they are considered as an adoptive parent(s) in the State. Since State's policy does not allow separated individuals to adopt, if "separated" is selected State should map to blank.

Private placement agencies enforce the same approval requirements as the State when approving adoption homes for children. Therefore, when placement agencies solicit assistance from the State to adopt a child no additional study on the adoption home is necessary. In these circumstances, the State should ensure that workers are entering adoption home study data completed by private agencies as the current CAPS screen does not prompt worker to enter home study data. This may be the reason 62 cases are "not reported." The web-based application will provide a screen to allow workers to enter adoptive family structure.

Frequency Report (n = 1,117): Apply = 314; Does not apply = 802.

The field is initialized to "0, not apply." This element is derived from elements #29-31.

The system has the capability to handle multiple entries.

State only reports the cases where a payment is made.

Medicaid only subsidy cases are not being reported.