Findings

Two major areas are assessed during an AFCARS assessment review: the AFCARS general requirements and the data elements. The general requirements include the population that is to be reported to AFCARS and the technical requirements for constructing a data file. The data elements are assessed to determine whether the State is meeting the AFCARS definitions for the information required, if the correct data is being entered and extracted, and the quality of the data submitted.

This section provides the major findings resulting from the review of the State's AFCARS data collection. Tab A provides detailed information on the findings for each of the foster care and adoption data elements, the general AFCARS requirements, and the case file review. The AFCARS reporting period under review was April 1, 2001 through September 30, 2001 (2001B).

This report and the matrices reflect changes made by the agency staff to the foster care and adoption program code since the on-site review and the issuance of this report. Also, as part of the post-site visit analysis there was further re-examination of the program code and notes made by the review team during the on-site review. As a result, some of the original rating factors were modified from those given at the end of the on-site review. The findings matrix in Tab A reports the previous rating with a "strike-through" mark on it, and then the new rating. The AFCARS improvement plan in Tab B contains the final rating factor. The final rating factor also takes into account the post on-site changes made by the agency staff.

Strengths

Strengths identified by the Federal review team during the review include:

A very dedicated staff and good working relationship between technical and program staff.
There were no areas found to be in full non-compliance.
A significant percentage of the foster care and adoption elements were in full compliance.
The State is in full compliance with the population and technical general requirements.

Data Element Errors

Based on the on-site findings and the post-site visit analysis, 32 percent (21) of the foster care and 22 percent (8) of the adoption data elements require system modifications. Once the program logic changes are made, the State will need to monitor caseworkers' data entry to ensure that the quality of the data continues to improve.

Changes made to the system with regard to data entry will inevitably result in improved data quality. The State's semi-annual data submission may as a result, fail to meet the missing data standard. In order to ensure that the data are complete, the agency must require workers to enter the data, and assess its validity prior to submitting it to ACF. To do so, the State may utilize the management reports created by the agency, as well as the Data Quality Utility and the Frequency Utility.

Information on Children Diagnosed with Disabilities (Foster care elements number 10 through 15)

It appears that the workers are not keeping the information on a child's disabilities up-to-date. The State staff explained that this may be due to the fact that the screen used to record this information is the initial "face sheet" screen. The caseworkers are not likely to return to this screen after a case is opened and, therefore, don't update disability information that is received at a later time.

The State has developed a plan that should address the issue of accurately reporting the disability information. It intends to add a "health history screen" to the system in the fall of 2002. In the meantime, the State should encourage supervisors to review this data and encourage workers to update it periodically.

Number of Previous Placement Settings (Foster care element number 24)

Currently, the State is including "respite settings" in the number of placements. The State needs to exclude placements that are for respite purposes. Additionally, any short-term stay that lasts for more than 24 hours in a crisis placement setting is to be included.

Circumstances associated with removal (Foster care elements number 26 through 40)

This category resulted in the majority of the rating factors of "2" given to the State. While it affects several elements, it requires only one system modification. Currently, the State's information system has the capacity to record only nine circumstances associated with removal. The information system should have the capacity to record all of the circumstances listed in the AFCARS regulation. The screen must be re-designed to allow more space for workers to record the information. Workers will need to be trained in order to ensure that all of the circumstances associated with a child's removal are entered into the system.

Primary Basis for Determining Special Needs (Adoption element number 10)

The State has programmed into the extraction code a hierarchy that determines the primary basis for determining special needs. The caseworkers are able to enter all of the codes that apply, or can leave the field blank. The response to this element in AFCARS should be based on a worker's determination of the leading barrier to the child's adoption and not a decision process that is programmed into the extraction code.

Also, the program code maps missing information for this element to "no" in the AFCARS question "has the agency determined special needs" (adoption element #9). This provides a false "no" in the data. Instead, missing information should be mapped to blank in adoption element #9. Currently, the data cannot be analyzed with confidence that the response of "no" actually means that the agency did not determine the child to be "special needs."

Data Quality

Several elements, 20 percent (13) for foster care and 19 percent (7) for adoption, are being correctly extracted by the program logic, but data quality remains an issue. Also, many of the foster care elements now have a rating factor of "3" due to the corrections made to the program. The frequencies for these elements need to be re-assessed by ACF, which will require the State to re-submit the 2001B files. The State should negotiate a re-submittal date with the Regional Office.

Also, in order to improve the quality of the data, additional training of caseworkers regarding changes in the system and of specific screens is required, as well as monitoring by supervisors to ensure accurate data entry. The State may want to consider system ticklers/edits that will remind workers to update the information at appropriate times, and review the data in the file at the time of a periodic review (see AFCARS Federal regulation at 45 CFR 1355 Appendix A, I. I. E).

Return to Table of Contents