Rating Factors

AFCARS data submissions are subject to a minimal number of edit checks, as listed in Appendix E of 45 CFR Part 1355. Based on these edit checks, substantial compliance can be determined for the timely submission of the data files, the timeliness of data entry of certain data elements, and whether the data meets a 90% level of tolerance for missing data and internal consistency checks. However, "substantial" compliance does not mean a State has fully implemented the requirements in the regulations. This explains why a State formerly may have been penalty-free, but does not have accurate and reliable, quality data. For example, data cannot be assessed to determine whether the State submitted the correct foster care population required by the regulations.

Information collected from each component of the assessment review is used to rate each data element. The general requirements are assessed and rated separately using the same scale. A scale of one (does not meet the AFCARS standards) to four (fully meets the AFCARS standards) is used to assign a rating factor. The following chart lists the factors that were used for the analysis of the State's AFCARS:

Factor	Definition
1	The AFCARS requirement(s) has not been implemented in the information system. For example: The State information system does not have the capability to collect the correct information (i.e., there is no data field on the screens). There is no program logic to extract the data.
2	The technical system requirements for AFCARS reporting do not fully meet the standards. For example: The State information system has the capability (screen) to collect the data, but the program logic is incorrect -- The State uses defaults for blank information. Information is coming from the wrong place of the system. Information is located in the wrong place on the system, i.e., it should be in foster care screens, not adoption screens. The system needs modification to encompass more conditions, e.g., disability information.
3	The technical system requirements for AFCARS reporting are in place, but there are data entry problems affecting the quality of the data. The system functions as required, but-- the data are underreported due to inconsistent data entry. the data are not being entered and/or there are no supervisory controls for ensuring data entry.
4	All of the AFCARS requirements have been met. The information system is functioning as required, and the information is being accurately collected and extracted.

For data elements and general requirements that do not meet existing AFCARS standards (factors 1 through 3), the State is required to make the corrections identified by the review team. It is possible that the problem with a data element and data are due to both system issues and case worker data entry issues. In such instances, the element will be rated a "2" to denote the need for modification to the system logic. Once the corrections are made to the system, then the data will then be re-analyzed. If problems related to case worker training or data entry still exist, then a "3" will be assigned to the requirement. A finding of a factor of "4" (compliant) will not be given to the element until all system issues and/or data quality issues have been addressed.

When assessing the general requirements, all specifications must be met in order for the item to fully satisfy the requirement. If the issue is a programming logic problem, then a "2" will be assigned. If it appears the problem is due to data entry, then a "3" will be assigned to the requirement.

Some data elements are directly related to each other. When this occurs, all related elements are given the same rating factor, because incorrect programming logic could affect the related data elements.

The State is required to make the changes to the information system and/or data entry in order to be compliant with the applicable requirements and standards. Since the AFCARS data are used for several significant activities at the Federal and State level, the State must implement the AFCARS improvement plan, under Tab B of this report, as a way to improve the quality of its data.

Return to Table of Contents