AFCARS Data Element

Rating Factor

1,2,3,4

Findings/Notes

#1 State

4

#2 Report Date

4

#3 Local Agency (County or Equivalent Jurisdiction)

4

#4 Record Number

4

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

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

3

Screen: Action Items

Frequency Report: There are 12 cases with a review date prior to 2004. The State child welfare staff indicated these are juvenile justice cases.

The DCFS case workers are instructed to enter the date the hearing was held, not the date the court document is received or signed. The State staff believe that workers are entering the date they create the log and not the date of the actual hearing. (See case file review findings.)

In addition to court hearings the State has a Foster Care Review Board (FCRB) that conducts periodic reviews. The FCRB does not have direct access to SAFE. Once a FCRB hearing is held, the case worker is notified and the case worker enters the information into SAFE.

Juvenile Justice cases: The DJJS staff indicated that in their database there is a field for entering the review date, which is entered by their eligibility worker. This data may not be getting entered in a timely manner. (See case file review findings.)

Case file review findings: 16 (30%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. 14 (33%) of the errors were DCFS and 2 (20%) were DJJS. In general, the errors for the DCFS cases reflect a later date (a few days to a week) than when the actual review was held.

Post site - visit analysis of the DJJS program code: There are two dates in the program code, 1/1/2001 and 6/1/2001, please explain the purpose of these dates. Based on the result of this discussion, this element may be given a rating factor of a “2.”

#6 Child Birth Date

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

2

The DCFS case workers can enter an estimated age for a child if a date of birth is not known. The system will generate a birth date that is six months prior to the date of entry and sets the day to the first of the month. The State staff indicated the program code will be modified to add the 15 th for the estimated day of birth. Post site visit analysis: The State modified the program code so that if there is an estimated date of birth, the day of birth will be the 14 thinstead of the 15 th.

Post site visit analysis of the DJJS program code: The program code is correct.

#7 Child Sex

1 = Male

2 = Female

4

Post site visit analysis of the DJJS program code: The program code is correct.

#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

3

2

Frequency report (n = 3277): Unable to determine = 47. No records reported with more than one race. In the 2000 census, 2.1% (47,195 of 2,233,169) of the general population reported being two or more races.

The State staff indicated the Hispanic population often refuses to provide race information.

Based on the frequency report it appears there may be an underreporting of multi-racial children.

Case file review findings: 1 (10%) of the DJJS records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS.

Post site visit analysis: The State staff found an error in the program code; the code was only selecting and reporting one race. The program code was corrected to extract more than one race. However, it is now initialized to zero and this is incorrect. It must remain initialized to blank, and if no data are found it should remain blank.

Post site visit analysis of the DJJS program code: The program code is correct.

#9 Hispanic/Latino Origin

1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = Unable to Determine

4

Post site visit analysis of the DJJS program code: The program code is correct.

#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.”

3

2

Frequency report (n = 3277): Yes = 2383; No = 710; Not yet Determined = 184

Case file review findings: 7 (12%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. 6 (60%) of the errors were DJJS cases. In two cases, the AFCARS data indicated “not yet determined,” and it should have been “yes.” In four of the cases, the AFCARS data was “no,” and the response should have been “yes.”

Post site visit analysis of the DJJS program code:The program code checks for conditions listed for elements #11 - 15. If a condition is found, element #10 is set to “yes.” If elements #11 - 15 are blank, element #10 is set to “not yet determined.” Otherwise, this element is “no.” The DJJS database should have a field that specifically contains the question for element #10 with the response options of “yes,” “no,” and “not yet determined.” Staff should be instructed on the specific definitions of each of the responses.

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

Screen: Medical Event Detail

The responses to elements #11 thru 15 are based on the response to element #10.

Post site-visit analysis: The State maps elements #11 - 15 to zero if element #10 is either a “no” or “not yet determined.” If element #10 is not “yes,” then elements #11 - 15 should be blank. This finding is also applicable to the DJJS program code.

#11 Mental Retardation

[0 = Does not apply]

1 = Applies

3

2

#12 Visually/Hearing Impaired

[0 = Does not apply]

1 = Applies

3

2

#13 Physically Disabled

[0 = Does not apply]

1 = Applies

3

2

#14 Emotionally Disturbed

[0 = Does not apply]

1 = Applies

2

The State should remove the following from the mapping of this element: self mutilation; substance abuse; alcohol abuse; insomnia; drug abuse; and physical abuse. Post site visit analysis: The State indicated they have removed these from the mapping form. The State needs to send ACF the updated reference table (tbl_ref_condition_type) that is used to extract the information for this element.

Case file review findings: 9 (15%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. 6 (60%) of the errors were DJJS cases. There were two error cases in #14 and #15 in which the condition was mapped incorrectly.

#15 Other Diagnosed Condition

[0 = Does not apply]

1 = Applies

3

2

Case file review findings: 7 (12%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. 6 (12%) of the errors were DCFS and 1 (10%) were DJJS. There were two error cases reported as “applies,” but the reviewer found no information that should be mapped to this condition. There were two error cases in #14 and #15 in which the condition was mapped incorrectly.

#16 Has this child ever been adopted?

1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = Unable to Determine

4

2

Screen: SCF Case Set-up Wizard - Background; SCF Case, Adoption tab - TPR Information - Foster Child box

Frequency report (n = 3277): Yes = 130; No = 3063; Unable to determine = 84

The screen also contains a field to collect whether or not the adoption was a foreign adoption.

There is an edit in the program code that checks if the child had been previously adopted from the Utah foster care system.

Case file review findings: 3 (30%) of the DJJS records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. The responses were “unable to determine,” but the reviewer was able to determine if the youth had been previously adopted.

Post site visit analysis of the DJJS program code: This element defaults to “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

Screen: SCF Case Set-up Wizard - Background; SCF Case, Adoption tab - TPR Information, Foster Child box

Frequency report (n = 3277): Not applicable = 3116; Not reported = 33; Unable to determine = 33

The number of records reported for “unable to determine” in this element does not match the number for “unable to determine” in element #16.

The number of records reported as “no” in element #16 and the number for “not applicable” in this element do not match.

The State incorrectly maps an age greater than 12 to the AFCARS value “3.” It should be mapped to “4.”

There is no code for the AFCARS value of “5.” If the response to element #16 is “unable to determine,” then element #17 should also be “unable to determine.” The Juvenile Justice program code also needs to make the same correction for “unable to determine.”

Post site-visit findings: The State corrected the program code 1) to map missing data in element #16 to missing data in element #17; 2) to map responses of “unable to determine (3)” in #16 to “unable to determine (5) in element #17; and, 3) mapped the ages 13 or older to the value “4” for element #17.

Post site - visit analysis of the DJJS program code: If element #16 is a “no” or “unable to determine,” the program code maps a response of “not applicable.” This is incorrect.

#18 Date of First Removal from Home

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

2

3

Screen: Removal/Custody Wizard

If a child’s first placement upon entering the agency’s responsibility for care and placement is either a locked facility or a hospital, the State is not to include this child in the AFCARS reporting population until he/she is placed in a “foster care setting.” This is only true for these types of settings if it is the first placement. The State has been including these children in the population and must modify the program code to exclude these dates as removal dates. Post site-visit findings: The State modified the program code.

Case file review findings: 6 (11%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. 4 (40%) of the errors were DJJS cases. Two of the error cases appear to have typographical errors - day of 01 instead of 10 and a year of 2004 instead of 2005. The other two error cases had later dates reported to AFCARS than the dates found by the reviewers.

Post site - visit analysis of the DJJS program code: The program code is correct.

#19 Total Number of Removals from Home

2

3

The program code needs to be corrected. It should say “if the history count is null, then set count to zero.”

If a child’s first placement upon entering the agency’s responsibility for care and placement is either a locked facility or a hospital, the State is not to include this child in the AFCARS reporting population until he/she is placed in a “foster care setting.” This is only true for these types of settings if it is the first placement. The State has been including these children in the population and must modify the program code to exclude these from the total number of removals if the child never enters a foster care setting.

Post site-visit findings: The State modified the program code.

Post site visit analysis of the DJJS program code: ACF needs to discuss the program code with the DJJS staff. Based on the outcome of the discussion the rating factor for this element may change to a “2.”

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

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

3

4

The rating during the preliminary findings was based on the case file review. The final analysis of the case file findings did not indicate a significant problem with the discharge from previous removal episode dates.

Post site visit analysis of the DJJS program code: The program code is correct.

#21 Date of Latest Removal

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

2

3

If a child’s first placement upon entering the agency’s responsibility for care and placement is either a locked facility or a hospital, the State is not to include this child in the AFCARS reporting population until he/she is placed in a “foster care setting.” This is only true for these types of settings if it is the first placement. The State has been including these children in the population and must modify the program code to exclude these dates as removal dates. Post site-visit findings: The State modified the program code.

Case file review findings: 3 (30%) of the DJJS records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. Two of the errors appear to be typographical errors. In the other case, the reviewer found a date that was earlier than what was reported to AFCARS.

Post site visit analysis of the DJJS program code: The program code is correct.

#22 Date of Latest Removal Transaction Date

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

4

2

Post site visit analysis of the DJJS program code: The program code is incorrect. It takes the date for element #21 and subtracts a day. It does not appear to be a system date.

#23 Date of Placement in Current Foster Care Setting

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

2

Screen: Placement, General tab. The screen contains a column that indicates whether the placement is a “formal placement,” which is counted for AFCARS purposes. The system generates the “Y/N” response based on a stored table.

The DJJS code needs to be corrected to extract the current placement setting date that is prior to the end of the report period. (See case file review findings.)

There are instances when a child is placed in the care and placement responsibility of the agency, but the child may be on runaway status or runs away after the agency has care and placement responsibility, but before the child is taken to the foster care setting. The State currently excludes children on runaway status in this situation. The State must include those children in its responsibility for care and placement that are on “runaway” status.

Case file review findings: 7 (13%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. 5 (11%) of the errors were DCFS and 2 (20%) were DJJS. The two DJJS error cases had a placement date reported to AFCARS that occurred after the end of the report period.

Post site - visit analysis of the DJJS program code: ACF needs the DJJS staff to clarify and explain the program code.

#24 Number of Previous Placement Settings in This Episode

2

If a child’s first placement upon entering the agency’s responsibility for care and placement is either a locked facility or a hospital, the State is not to include this child in the AFCARS reporting population until he/she is placed in a “foster care setting.” This is only true for these types of settings if it is the first placement. The State has been including these children in the population. The program code must not include these in the number of placements. It should only count these placements if they are not the initial placement setting, and in the case of hospitals, if it is not an acute care stay.

The State is adding a “caretaker” (foster provider) identification number, which will improve the way placements are counted.

There are instances when a child is placed in the care and placement responsibility of the agency, but the child may be on runaway status or runs away after the agency has care and placement responsibility, but before the child is taken to the foster care setting. The State currently excludes children on runaway status in this situation. The State must include those children in its responsibility for care and placement that are on “runaway” status. The number of placements would be zero until the child was placed in a “foster care” setting.

Case file review findings: 12 (23%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. 7 (16%) of the errors were DCFS and 5 (50%) were DJJS. Two of the DCFS error cases were because the foster parents changed status (from DCFS families to being foster parents through a private agency). This was extracted as two placement settings instead of one.

Post site-visit analysis: The State needs to provide the stored procedure “pr_afcars_cnt_form_place_dt.” The State only provided a copy of the stored procedure “pr_update_formal_placement.” Also, ACF needs to discuss changes in the program code with the State; need to clarify if the changes in the program code will still count placements in a locked facility or hospital, if applicable, after the initial placement.

Post site visit analysis of the DJJS program code: ACF needs the DJJS staff to clarify and explain the program code.

#25 Manner of Removal From Home for Current placement Episode

1 = Voluntary

2 = Court Ordered

3 = Not Yet Determined

4

Post site visit analysis of the DJJS program code: The program code is correct.

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

[0-Does not Apply]

1-Applies

Screen: Case Creation, General tab

Currently, the DCFS case workers enter conditions and characteristics associated with the child and the caretaker in multiple places. The State is changing the way this information is collected. The change will incorporate the conditions associated with a child’s removal on one screen. The information will not be updated to reflect information learned after the child was removed.

Case file review findings: In general, the errors were due to items not selected that were a contributing reason for the child’s removal. All the errors were in the DCFS cases.

Post site visit analysis of the DJJS program code: The program code is correct.

#26 Physical Abuse

2

#27 Sexual Abuse

2

Case file review findings: 6 (12%) of the DCFS records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS.

#28 Neglect

2

#29 Parent Alcohol Abuse

2

Case file review findings: 6 (12%) of the DCFS records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS.

#30 Parent Drug Abuse

2

#31 Child Alcohol Abuse

2

Case file review findings: 6 (12%) of the DCFS records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS.

#32 Child Drug Abuse

2

#33 Child Disability

2

The program code for this element is incorrect. The program checks if there is a diagnosed disability. If one is found on the health screens, then this element is set to “applies.” The State is aware of this and will make the change when the modifications are implemented.

Case file review findings: 20 (100%) of the DCFS records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS.

#34 Child’s Behavior Problem

2

#35 Death of Parent

2

#36 Incarceration of Parent

2

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

2

#38 Abandonment

2

#39 Relinquishment

2

If the State adds “Safe Haven” as a condition of removal, it should be mapped to this element.

#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

3

Screen: Placement, General tab

The program code must be modified to extract the current placement setting that is prior to the end of the report period. Post site - visit analysis: The State modified the program code to extract only those placements that started prior to the end of the report period.

There are instances when a child is placed in the care and placement responsibility of the agency, but the child may be on runaway status or runs away after the agency has care and placement responsibility, but before the child is taken to the foster care setting. The State currently excludes children on runaway status in this situation. The State must include those children in its responsibility for care and placement that are on “runaway” status.

Case file review findings: 8 (14%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. 7 (15%) of the errors were DCFS and 1 (10%) was DJJS.

#42 Is Current Placement Out-of-State?

1=Yes (Out of State placement)

2=No (In-State placement)

2

3

Frequency Report: There are 40 records missing data.

The program code must be modified to look for a placement setting start date that is prior to the end of the report period.

Post site - visit analysis: The State modified the program code to extract only those placements that started prior to the end of the report period.

Post site - visit analysis of the DJJS program code: The program code appears to be correct. ACF needs the DJJS staff to send a copy of their codes, specifically the placement codes.

#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

Screen: Person

The State currently has the goals “Individualized Permanency” and “Independent Living.” Both of these goals are mapped to the AFCARS value of “emancipation.” According to State policy, “Individualized Permanency” is defined such that:

After considering reunification, legal guardianship, or placement with a fit and willing relative, the permanent plan for the child is placement in another planned permanent living arrangement. Child and Family Services must document to the court the compelling reason for the alternate plan [45 CFR 1356.21(h)(3)]. The placement must be carefully evaluated on a regular basis. When a planned long-term living arrangement is the plan of choice for the child, these additional requirements must be met:

1. Alternatives to this long-term care goal have been thoroughly explored and continue to be explored after the decision is made.

2. The child’s out-of-home caregiver receives additional training and support from workers and resource family consultants to enhance their ability to care for the special needs of the child placed in an individualized permanency placement.

3. The child and family team determines the frequency of contact between workers, the child, and the out-of-home caregiver based on their needs.

4. Regular contact is maintained with the child’s family to inform and involve the family in decisions about their child, where feasible, and to be aware of changes in the family situation that might indicate a need to re-evaluate the choice of a planned alternative living arrangement.

Since the State’s definition does not clearly state that the child is receiving services to enhance his/her self-sufficiency and independence after leaving the foster care system, the goal “Individualized Permanency” must be mapped to “Long term foster care.”

The State staff indicated that enhancements are planned for the system. Case workers will have to provide a justification for selecting the goal of “individualized permanency.” Based on the information provided by the worker, the extract code will map the goal to either “emancipation” or “long term foster care.” The State is working to provide self-sufficiency skills for these youth and are implementing initiatives under the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program. It is likely that the majority of these goals will map to “emancipation” and that “long term foster care” will apply to children with severe disabilities that will be receiving services under “adult services” after reaching the age of majority.

The program code must be modified to extract the current goal prior to the end of the report period. Post site-visit analysis: The State modified the program code to select the latest goal prior to the end of the current reporting period.

Case file review findings: 8 (14%) of the DJJS records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. 7 (70%) of the errors were DJJS cases. T here were three records with “not yet determined” reported in AFCARS. The youth had been in care for more than 60 days. In two cases the reviewers noted “reunification.”

Post site - visit analysis of the DJJS program code: The program code maps missing data to “not yet determined.” Is there a quality control edit check to verify if the response is still “not yet determined” after 60 days to have it be corrected? As an edit condition, this element should be blank if the child has been in care for more than 60 days.

#44 Caretaker Family Structure

1 = Married Couple

2 = Unmarried Couple

3 = Single Female

4 = Single Male

5 = Unable to Determine

2

4

Frequency report (n = 3277): Married couple = 1144; Unmarried couple = 323; Single Female = 1525; Single male = 217; Unable to determine = 27; Not reported = 41. The number of couples reported for this element is 1,467.

The program code also accounts for historical information collected in the legacy system.

The on-site rating for this element was incorrect.

Post site - visit analysis of the DJJS program code: The program code is correct.

#45 1 st Primary Caretaker’s Birth Year

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

2

The State maps females to the first caretaker.

The program code maps guardian to female only. The program code must be modified to map single male guardians’ date of birth to this element and to include them in the program code.

The program code also accounts for historical information collected in the legacy system.

Case file review findings: 14 (26%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. 9 (21%) of the errors were DCFS and 5 (50%) were DJJS.

Post site - visit analysis of the DJJS program code: The program code maps single females only to this element. If the response in element #44 is single male, the date of birth is mapped to element #46, not this element. Regardless of gender, if the caretaker family structure is single, then element #45 must have a date of birth and element #46 is to be blank.

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

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

2

Frequency report: There are only 1369 reported dates of birth. There should be 1467.

The program code also accounts for historical information collected in the legacy system.

Case file review findings: 16 (66%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. 15 (34%) of the errors were DCFS and 1 (10%) were DJJS.

Post site - visit analysis of the DJJS program code: The program code maps single females to element #45 and single males to this element. If the response in element #44 is single male, the date of birth must be mapped to element #46, not this element. Regardless of gender, if the caretaker family structure is single, then element #45 must have a date of birth and element #46 is to be blank.

#47 Mother’s Date of TPR

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

2

Screen: SCF Case, Adoption tab - TPR Information, Mother box

The screen includes the options “deceased date,” “filing date,” “appeal date,” and “final date.”

The program code must be modified to check for a date prior to the end of the report period.

The program code needs to be modified to check for a “deceased date.” Post site - visit analysis: The program code was modified to check first for a TPR date prior to the end of the report period. If one is not found, the program code checks for a deceased date. However, the program code does not check for the latest date if more than one is found.

Post site - visit analysis of the DJJS program code: The program code is correct.

#48 Legal or Putative Father’s TPR

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

2

Screen: SCF Case, Adoption tab - TPR Information, Father box

The program code must be modified to check for a date prior to the end of the report period.

The program code needs to be modified to check for a “deceased date.” Post site - visit analysis: The program code was modified to check first for a TPR date prior to the end of the report period. If one is not found, the program code checks for a deceased date. However, the program code does not check for the latest date if more than one is found.

Post site - visit analysis of the DJJS program code: The program code is correct.

Foster family home - parent(s) data

The State is able to track clients in contracted “umbrella” agency foster homes, but is currently unable to identify and record demographic data for these foster parents in SAFE. According to the State, this inability to capture “umbrella” agency foster parents’ demographic information is due to the lack of appropriate fields within SAFE to capture the information, the lack of access by “umbrella” agency staff, and the failure of “umbrella” agency staff to provide this information. The State needs to develop a method of identifying and recording required demographic information for contracted “umbrella” agency foster parents in the SACWIS application.

The State staff indicated that they are making this correction and the anticipated implementation date is the spring of 2006.

#49 Foster Family Structure

0 = Not Applicable

1 = Married Couple

2 = Unmarried Couple

3 = Single Female

4 = Single Male

2

Frequency report (n = 3277): Not applicable = 908; Married couple = 1420; Unmarried couple = 0; Single female = 134; Single male = 9; Not reported 806

No. of “couples” = 1420

The program code defaults missing data to “not applicable.” This must be changed to map missing data to blank. Only “non-foster home” settings should map to “not applicable.”

Case file review findings: 20 (35%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. 17 (35%) of the errors were DCFS and 3 (30%) were DJJS. There were 10 error cases in which the AFCARS data was missing, but the child was in a foster home setting. In some instances, it was a relative placement. There were seven error cases because the data reported in element #41 was incorrect. In some instances, the reviewer noted the child was at

Rise, but in a family home. The AFCARS data indicated the child was in an institution. The three error DJJS cases had missing data and the child was in a family foster home.

Post site - visit analysis of the DJJS program code: The program code maps this element to blank if the child’s placement setting is other than a foster home. This is incorrect, it should be mapped to “not applicable.”

#50 1 st Foster Caretaker’s Birth Year

2

The system does not have the ability to collect more than one race. This will eventually be fixed. This data is from the legacy system and is shared across several agencies. The child welfare agency has been working on making SAFE the primary database for demographic information.

Case file review findings: 19 (35%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. 18 (42%) of the errors were DCFS and 1 (10%) were DJJS. See the notes regarding foster parent information.

Post site - visit analysis of the DJJS program code: The program code is correct.

#51 2 nd Foster Caretaker’s Birth Year

2

The system does not have the ability to collect more than one race. This will eventually be fixed. This data is from the legacy system and is shared across several agencies. The child welfare agency has been working on making SAFE the primary database for demographic information.

Case file review findings: 19 (35%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. 18 (42%) of the errors were DCFS and 1 (10%) were DJJS. See the notes regarding foster parent information.

Post site - visit analysis of the DJJS program code: The program code is correct.

#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

2

The system does not have the ability to collect more than one race. This will eventually be fixed. This data is from the legacy system and is shared across several agencies. The child welfare agency has been working on making SAFE the primary database for demographic information.

Case file review findings: 18 (35%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. 17 (40%) of the errors were DCFS and 1 (10%) were DJJS. See the notes regarding foster parent information.

Post site - visit analysis of the DJJS program code: The program code is correct. If the child is not in a foster home, these values are left blank.

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

1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = Unable to Determine

2

The system does not have the ability to collect more than one race. This will eventually be fixed. This data is from the legacy system and is shared across several agencies. The child welfare agency has been working on making SAFE the primary database for demographic information.

Case file review findings: 20 (38%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. 17 (40%) of the errors were DCFS and 3 (30%) were DJJS. See the notes regarding foster parent information.

Post site - visit analysis of the DJJS program code: The program code is correct.

#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

2

The system does not have the ability to collect more than one race. This will eventually be fixed. This data is from the legacy system and is shared across several agencies. The child welfare agency has been working on making SAFE the primary database for demographic information.

Case file review findings: 19 (37%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. 17 (40%) of the errors were DCFS and 2 (20%) were DJJS. See the notes regarding foster parent information.

Post site - visit analysis of the DJJS program code: The program code is correct. If the child is not in a foster home, these values are left blank.

#55 2 nd Foster Caretaker’s Hispanic Origin

[0 = Not Applicable]

1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = Unable to Determine

2

The system does not have the ability to collect more than one race. This will eventually be fixed. This data is from the legacy system and is shared across several agencies. The child welfare agency has been working on making SAFE the primary database for demographic information.

Case file review findings: 20 (38%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. 17 (40%) of the errors were DCFS and 3 (30%) were DJJS. See the notes regarding foster parent information.

Post site - visit analysis of the DJJS program code: The program code is correct. If the child is not in a foster home, these values are left blank.

#56 Date of Discharge from foster care

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

4

2

Case file review findings: 3 (30%) of the DJJS records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. One of the DJJS error cases had a date of discharge that was after the end of the report period.

Post site - visit analysis of the DJJS program code: ACF also needs to discuss this section of the program code with the DJJS staff.

#57 Date of Discharge Transaction Date

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

4

2

Post site - visit analysis of the DJJS program code: ACF also needs to discuss this section of the program code with the DJJS staff. It does not appear to have a system-generated date.

#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

Screen: Case Close Wizard - Termination Information

Frequency report: There are numbers both for “not applicable” and “not reported.”

The State has “Custody to Relative/Guardian” as a reason for discharge, which is mapped to the AFCARS value of “live with other relative.” The staff indicated that the relatives may or may not get permanent legal guardianship of the child. In some cases the family is given “temporary custody.” In the situation of “temporary custody” to the relative, the correct mapping would be to the AFCARS value of “live with relative(s).” In the situation where permanent legal guardianship is given to the relative, it should be mapped to AFCARS “guardianship.” The State should footnote the number of “guardianships” that are to relatives.

The State’s value of “Adoptive Placement Disruption” is mapped to the AFCARS value “reunification.” The State staff indicated this is for the CPS cases where the program code is looking for a final placement closure reason for the outcome reason. The State needs to remove the value “4, adoptive placement disruption” from the program code.

The invalid value of “C” is a DJJS code. This needs to be corrected to extract the actual outcome reason.

Modify the program code to look for a discharge reason that is prior to the end of the report period. Post site - visit analysis: The program code was modified to extract a reason prior to the end of the report period.

Case file review findings: 2 (20%) of the DJJS records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. One of the DJJS error cases had a date of discharge that was after the end of the report period.

Post site - visit analysis of the DJJS program code: The program code is correct.

#59 Title IV-E (Foster Care)

0-Does not apply

1-Applies

4

Post site - visit analysis of the DJJS program code: ACF needs to discuss the program code for this element with the DJJS staff. Based on the discussion the rating for this element may change.

#60 Title IV-E (Adoption Subsidy)

0-Does not apply

1-Applies

4

Post site - visit analysis of the DJJS program code: ACF needs to discuss the program code for this element with the DJJS staff. Based on the discussion the rating for this element may change.

#61 Title IV-A (Aid to Families with Dependent Children)

0-Does not apply

1-Applies

4

Post site - visit analysis of the DJJS program code: ACF needs to discuss the program code for this element with the DJJS staff. Based on the discussion the rating for this element may change.

#62 Title IV-D (Child Support)

0-Does not apply

1-Applies

4

Post site - visit analysis of the DJJS program code: ACF needs to discuss the program code for this element with the DJJS staff. Based on the discussion the rating for this element may change.

#63 Title XIX (Medicaid)

0-Does not apply

1-Applies

4

Post site - visit analysis of the DJJS program code: ACF needs to discuss the program code for this element with the DJJS staff. Based on the discussion the rating for this element may change.

#64 SSI or other Social Security Act Benefits

0-Does not apply

1-Applies

4

Post site - visit analysis of the DJJS program code: ACF needs to discuss the program code for this element with the DJJS staff. Based on the discussion the rating for this element may change.

#65 None of the Above

0-Does not apply

1-Applies

2

The program code needs to also check if there are other sources (State, Federal or private) of income for the child.

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

2

3

The program code needs to check for the last full monthly payment for the current living arrangement. Post site - visit analysis: The program code was modified to extract the payment for the last calendar month

Post site - visit analysis of the DJJS program code: ACF needs to discuss the program code for this element with the DJJS staff. Based on the discussion the rating for this element may change.

#1 State FIPS Code

4

#2 Report Period End Date

4

#3 Record Number

4

#4 State Agency Involvement

1 = Yes

2 = No

4

#5 Child Date of Birth

4

#6 Child Sex

1 = Male

2 = Female

4

#7 Child Race

a = American Indian or Native

b = Asian

c = Black or African American

d = Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander

e = White

f = Unable to Determine

3

2

Frequency report (n = 160): No records reported more than one race. In the 2000 census, 2.1% (47, 195 of 2,233,169) of the general population reported being two or more races.

The State staff indicated the Hispanic population often refuses to provide race information.

Based on the frequency report, it appears there may be an underreporting of multi-racial children.

Post site - visit analysis: The State staff found an error in the program code; the code was only selecting and reporting one race. The program code was corrected to extract more than one race. However, it is now initialized to zero and this is incorrect. It must remain initialized to blank and, if no data are found, it should remain blank.

#8 Child Hispanic Origin

1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = Unable to Determine

4

#9 Has Agency Determined Special Needs?

1 = Yes

2 = No

3

Frequency report (n = 160): Yes = 141; No = 19

Element #35: Yes = 159; No = 1

This element is derived from the response to element #10. If the worker enters a special need in the basis field, this element is set to “yes.” Otherwise, it is “no.”

Case file review findings: 3 (10%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. The error cases all indicated “no” and the response for element #35 indicated a subsidy is being paid.

#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

3

Screen: SCF Case, Adoption tab - Adoption Placement/Subsidy or Case Closed Wizard - Special Needs

Frequency report (n = 160): Not applicable = 19; Race = 0; Age = 14; Sibling group = 68; Disabilities = 31; Other State defined = 28

As of October 2000, the State no longer considers race as a basis for special needs.

The State staff indicated there is a need for additional worker training. The State indicated case workers enter a response for “subsidy status,” but are not always entering a basis for special need. The staff indicated they could add a screen edit that would only enable “subsidy status,” if a basis for special need is entered.

Case file review findings: 5 (17%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS. In three of the error cases, the response was “not applicable,” but element #35 was “yes.” There were two records in which the reviewer indicated a condition of “at-risk.” The AFCARS data indicated a diagnosed “medical conditions or mental, physical or emotional disabilities.”

#11 Mental Retardation

3

2

Screen: SCF Case, Adoption tab - Adoption Placement/Subsidy

If element #10 is a “4,” then elements #11 - 15 are extracted. Otherwise, they are mapped to zero. This needs to be corrected. If element #10 is anything other than the value “4,” these elements must be blank.

#12 Visually/Hearing Impaired

3

2

#13 Physically Disabled

3

2

#14 Emotionally Disturbed

3

2

The State should remove the following from the mapping of this element:

self-mutilation; substance abuse; alcohol abuse; insomnia; drug abuse; and physical abuse. This information is pulled from a different table than the disability information for foster care. Post site - visit analysis: The State indicated they have removed these from the mapping form. The State needs to send ACF the updated reference table (tbl_asc_medical_disability) that is used to extract the information for this element.

#15 Other Diagnosed Condition

3

2

#16 Mother's Birth Year

4

#17 Father's Birth Year

4

3

Case file review findings: 4 (17%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS.

#18 Mother Married at Time of Birth

1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = Unable to Determine

2

3

Screen: SCF Case Setup Wizard - Background; SCF Case, Adoption tab - TPR Information - Mother box

If this element is blank, it defaults to “unable to determine.”

One of the options for the worker to select is “cannot determine.” The State’s definition is the same as for AFCARS (the child was abandoned).

Post site - visit analysis: The program code was modified to directly extract and map the options on the screen. The program code maps “cannot determine” to “unable to determine.” If there is no data, this element is left blank.

#19 Date of Mother's TPR

3

Screen: SCF Case, Adoption tab - TPR Information

Case file review findings: 7 (26%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS.

#20 Date of Father's TPR

3

Screen: SCF Case, Adoption tab - TPR Information

The State indicated there is a training issue regarding what date should be entered - the actual hearing date or the filing date. Also, some court orders were not clear regarding TPR effective date.

Case file review findings: 9 (39%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS.

#21 Date Adoption Legalized

3

Screen: Placement

The State indicated there is a training issue regarding what date should be entered - the actual hearing date or the date the court order was filed.

#22 Adoptive Family Structure

1 = Married Couple

2 = Unmarried Couple

3 = Single Female

4 = Single Male

4

#23 Adoptive Mother's Year of Birth

4

#24 Adoptive Father's Year of Birth

4

#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

3

2

Screen: SCF Case, Adoption tab - Adoption Placement/Subsidy or Placement

There appears to be an underreporting of multi-racial individuals. The State staff indicated additional training is needed for case workers.

Post site - visit analysis: The State staff found an error in the program code; the code was only selecting and reporting one race. The program code was corrected to extract more than one race. However, it is now initialized to zero and this is incorrect. It must remain initialized to blank and, if no data are found, it should remain blank.

#26 Adoptive Mother's Hispanic Origin

0 = Not Applicable

1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = Unable to Determine

4

#27 Adoptive Father'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

3

2

Screen: SCF Case, Adoption tab - Adoption Placement/Subsidy or Placement

Post site - visit analysis: The State staff found an error in the program code; the code was only selecting and reporting one race. The program code was corrected to extract more than one race. However, it is now initialized to zero and this is incorrect. It must remain initialized to blank and, if no data are found, it should remain blank.

#28 Adoptive Father's Hispanic Origin

0 = Not Applicable

1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = Unable to Determine

4

#29 –32

0 = Does not Apply

1 = Applies

Screen: SCF Case, Adoption tab - Adoption Placement/Subsidy or Case Close Wizard

The worker can select all applicable relationships.

The State staff indicated there needs to be additional training.

#29 Relationship of Adoptive Parent to Child - Stepparent

3

#30 Relationship of Adoptive Parent to Child - Other Relative

3

#31 Relationship of Adoptive Parent to Child - Foster Parent

3

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

3

#33 Child Was Placed from

1 = Within State

2 = Another State

3 = Another Country

2

3

This element is incorrectly hard-coded to “1.” The program code and system need to be modified in order to collect and report all of the AFCARS options.

Post site - visit analysis: The State removed the default from the program code and modified the program code. Provide the code table that contains case types. Identify the screen, and provide a screen print where this information is collected.

#34 Child Was Placed by

1 = Public Agency

2 = Private Agency

3 = Tribal Agency

4 = Independent Person

5 = Birth Parent

2

3

This element is incorrectly hard-coded to “1.”

This element is being modified July 18, 2005. The State needs to be able to collect and report the AFCARS options “private agency” and “independent person.”

Post site - visit analysis: The State removed the default from the program code and modified the program code. Provide the code table that contains case types. Identify the screen, and provide a screen print where this information is collected.

#35 Receiving Monthly Subsidy

1=Yes

2=No

4

#36 Monthly Amount

4

Case file review findings: 3 (11%) of the records analyzed did not match what was reported in AFCARS.

#37 Adoption Assistance IV-E

1=Yes

2=No

2

Screen: SCF Case, Adoption tab - Adoption Placement/Subsidy or Case Closed Wizard - Special Needs

The State’s option of “IV-E no subsidy/Medicaid” is mapped to yes. It should be mapped to “no.”