There is a tickler to remind caseworkers of the next review.

The system saves a history of each review. A supervisor, using the “record find” on the “placement review maintenance” screen can bring up all the reviews associated with a removal episode. Also, on the “person screen” there is a “record find” to pull up all the reviews associated with the person.

The State has three types of reviews:

• 3-month review: This is just a summary letter to the judge; it does not meet the requirements for a “periodic review.”
• 6-month review: Occurs six months from the date of placement or a court hearing and involves a multi-disciplinary team (MDT). This is a mandated administrative review that looks at permanency, the plan, etc., that meets the definition contained in section 422(b)(10) of the Social Security Act.
• 12 month review: This is a permanency hearing, and occurs 12 months from the date of placement.

Beginning July 1, 2001, all 6-month reviews will be done in court.

The program code extracts the three-month review date.

The program code does not contain a parameter to prevent the extraction of dates of review from a previous removal episode.

The date of latest review should be for the current removal episode prior to the end of the current report period.

The extraction routine should be modified so it does not extract the three-month review date at this time. However, if the State changes their policy and practice so that a 3-month review meets the Federal requirements, the routine can be modified to capture the three-month review date.

Case File Review: Nineteen percent of the records reviewed did not have the correct periodic review date. Most of the dates were off by a few months. There were two records where the review date was almost a year prior to the end of the report period. It is not possible to determine how many of the dates that were submitted to AFCARS were the 3-month reviews. Some of the reviewers noted the 3-month review date that was reported to AFCARS.

Date of birth is not required. It will be entered as six blanks if missing.

WYCAPS allows for the estimation of the birth date. There is a check box to indicate that the entered birth date is an estimate. State is not using the 15th day of the month when estimating a birthdate. AFCARS requires that it be the 15th of the month.

The program code contains “unknown” as a valid code in the system. If the value is “unknown” it is moving a value to this element. State will follow-up and check to see how this is mapped.

State staff shared if a caseworker tries to enter anything other than M(ale), F(emale), or U(nknown), an edit prevents the entry of any other value.

Frequency Report: Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: Does not apply = 13.49%; Applies = 86.51%. White: Does not apply = 99.76%; Applies = 0.24%

State does not include “Native Hawaiian” on the selection list. The recommendation is to add Native Hawaiian to the “other Pacific Islander” label in the racial category drop down list box. The frequencies would indicate that “white” is mapped to “Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander” “Other” is mapped to “unable to determine.” It should be mapped to blank.

“Unable to determine” in AFCARS means that there is no one available to identify the race of the child, or an individual refuses to provide the child's race. The State believes this is how they are defining “unable to determine.”

State believes if caseworkers try to use the “other” or “unknown” the system displays a message telling them it cannot be used. However, during the test case entry the system allowed “unknown” to be entered for John Doe (an abandoned baby). The State asserts that any cases in the system designated “other” or “unknown” are old data.

State informed the team that workers are trained to ask individuals to identify their race and that they may select all races that apply.

If WYCAPS definition of “Unknown” is the same as AFCARS, State may continue to use it and map it to “Unable to Determine”, otherwise, it should be mapped to blank.

State staff discussed adding more training for workers by adding it to the CORE (child protection certification) training.

Case File Review: All of the records reviewed were marked as “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander” in AFCARS, and all responses for “white” were marked “does not apply.” There were two records that should have been reported as “American Indian or Alaskan Native.” There was one record reviewed that should have been reported with two races as “applies.”

The screen contains a checkbox, which if checked indicates “yes.” If the box is not checked the program code defaults to “no.” There is not an “unable to determine” checkbox for the caseworkers to select.

If the client refused to answer, the system will default the missing data to “no.”

The State requires a health check on a child within 30 days of entry into foster care. Case workers often do not receive a medical report from the provider.

The input screen (“special needs”) has a checkbox “none.” The program code does not look at this information. The “none” checkbox on the screen has no effect upon the deriviation of this element.

There is not an option of “not yet determined” on the input screen.

The State's definition of “no” is not the same as AFCARS. The State uses “no” to mean that an evaluation has not been conducted.

FC Element #10 is derived from elements #11-15.

Problems with the current method of special needs collection:

• It is giving a false “no.”
• Not able to distinguish whether the information entered is based on clinical diagnoses versus worker observation.
• The information for “disabilities” and “special needs” is collected on the same screen.

The AFCARS definitions for “not yet determined” and “no” are:

No - Indicates that a qualified professional has conducted a clinical assessment of the child and has determined that the child has no disabilities.
Not Yet Determined - Indicates that a clinical assessment of the child by a qualified professional has not been conducted.

State team shared that the frequencies for this element appear low and there should be responses for “not yet determined.”

Case File Review: Twenty-three percent of the records reviewed did not match the paper record. Of those reviewed, the response in AFCARS was “no” and should have been “yes.”

There are checkboxes for each listed medical problem.

The State team shared that the frequencies for elements #11-15 appear to be low and not reflective of information that they have on the population.

There is not an indicator on the screen to determine if the medical condition is “clinically diagnosed.” (This was also a SACWIS review finding, which was done in July 1999.) State must ensure that information for elements #11-15 are based on a professional's diagnosis.

State has an option “other.” This needs to be better defined. Currently, this information should be mapped to blank for AFCARS. The caseworker can use the option “other” to enter text on the screen with additional information. If there is relevant medical information included in the text, it cannot be extracted to AFCARS.

There also is a subscreen under “case plan” that workers use to record more detailed information regarding medical needs, etc., but this cannot be extracted to AFCARS.

Federal team will provide the AFCARS “disability resource” list for the State to use as a reference on additional information that can be added and how it would be mapped for AFCARS purposes.

Test Case Entry: Epilepsy was not on the list, instead “other” was checked and epilepsy was typed in. Consequently, this information was not extracted to the AFCARS file.

Case File Review: 10 records had errors.

The screen records that the child's placement is adoption, not that the child has been previously adopted.

The reason for this question is to determine if the child is entering foster care as a result of a disrupted or dissolved adoption.

Recommendations that the State may want to consider for resolving the problem:

• The State needs to add a question (perhaps on the person screen): Has this child ever been previously adopted?
• The State may want to consider including as a backup program code that will also check if the child was previously adopted through the agency.

The program code currently calculates this information. However, see notes in element #16.
This element will need to be modified to account for the change in element #16.

There is no program code that permits a response of “unable to determine.”

The program code does not examine historical information to collect the date of first removal from home. Any information prior to 10/1/1997 is ignored in the extraction routine. The State will remove that restriction and re-run the data to see if the problems are corrected. If problems still exist, the State will investigate further. There may be confusion between the terms “episode” and “placement.”

The frequency report indicates that there are 9 records with removals in 1997, and 54 records with removals in 1998. State should verify these numbers for accuracy.

Workers are able to enter old information from paper files. Therefore, the system could have the historical information available for elements #18, #19 & #20.

A question came up about information known on a child's foster care experience prior to living in Wyoming and whether the State should report that information. Response: The State should only report on incidents that occurred within Wyoming and not include information that is obtained regarding a child's previous child welfare experience.

In the test case extraction, the date of 1st removal was wrong.

Case File Review: 64.5 percent of the records reviewed had errors. In 25 records the reviewers found dates in the paper file that were off by 2 days to 1 year from what was reported in AFCARS. One record had a date of 2 years prior to the date reported to AFCARS, 5 records had dates of 3 years prior to the date in AFCARS, and 1 record had a difference of 4 years.

The frequencies indicate that 88% of the records had only one removal. However, the date of the first removal and the number of removals in the case review were wrong in a number of records.

The State staff described the process of counting the number of removals in the program code as: The routine sorts all placements for a person by placement end date and counts episodes by counting the number of groups of records with custody end dates. If there are placements beyond the final custody end date, another episode is added to the count of removals. The system does not allow caseworkers to enter new placements to an incident (i.e. removal) after the incident has ended. Every time the program code is run it calculates the number of removals; the number is not stored.

See notes in element #18 regarding pre-1997 dates.

Case File Review: Fifty-seven percent of the records reviewed did not match what was submitted to AFCARS. Ten records had two removals, and two records had three removals. (All were reported as having only 1 removal.)

See notes in element #18.

Case File Review: Seventeen percent of the records reviewed did not match what was submitted to AFCARS. Most of the AFCARS records did not include a date of discharge from a previous episode because the AFCARS record indicated only one removal.

The frequency report indicates there are 9 records with removals in 1997, and 53 records with removals in 1998. State should verify these numbers for accuracy.

See notes in element #18.

State policy: The date DFS gets care and custody of a child, DFS immediately places them in a placement. Therefore, the removal and first placement dates are the same in most cases. If the child is removed before a court order is obtained, the child's removal date starts at the time the child has been out of his/her home for more then 24 hours.

Juvenile Justice youth: If a child enters the system through juvenile justice, and is determined to be title IV-E eligible, the removal date is the date the child is placed in a community-based, title IV-E reimbursable placement. The removal episode begins when the title IV-E payment starts and the removal episode will end when the title IV-E payment stops.

Case File Review: Fifty-two percent of the records did not match the AFCARS report.

This date is system generated and non-modifiable.

The program code extracts the date of the most recent placement.

There is no edit to check if a child already has an open placement when a move to another placement occurs. (This did occur during the entry of the test case. The child had several open cases at the same time.) If there are open placements or other missing information when an incident is closed, the system requires it to be corrected.

The State had an edit check to ensure that a child could not have two open placements at the same time. However, this edit was removed three weeks prior to the site visit. Therefore, this review was conducted with data extracted when the edit check was in place. State will put the edit back in place.

Case File Review: Twenty-eight percent of the records did not match the AFCARS file.

There is a placement history screen, it shows all placements over the life of a child.

The State was not counting placements according to AFCARS standards. The following is provided as clarification regarding what should not be counted for this element:

• Trial home visits, runaway, or respite placements.
• When a placement setting changes its status (i.e., a foster home becomes a pre-adoptive home).
• If the payment changes because the level of care changes.
• If a child returns to the same placement setting from a trial home visit or runaway status.
• Short-term hospital stays. Use a rule of reason for “short-term”

If a child placement agency is an umbrella agency (has foster homes, group homes, etc.) the placement is the actual physical setting in which the child is placed.

The program code does not count all moves when a child goes between residential treatment facilities and psychiatric treatment facilities that are operated by the same corporate agency.

The program code excludes the second placement because it is a duplicate. The second placement should also be counted and extracted to the AFCARS.

Case File Review: Forty-two percent of the records did not match the AFCARS record. All of the AFCARS reports indicated there was only one placement. The number of placements ranged from 2 (9 records) to 11 (1 record). According to the State staff the placements are listed in WYCAPS, but the AFCARS extraction routine is not accurately counting the number of placements.

Protective custody in Wyoming: State law allows a 72-hour hold for law enforcement and doctors only.

The number of voluntary removals in the frequencies appears too high. This is because “protective custody” is currently mapped to “voluntary.”

Case File Review: Twenty-five percent of the records do not match the AFCARS report. Six records were reported as “voluntary,” but the reviewers reported the finding as “court ordered.” Nine were marked “voluntary” and the reviewers noted they should have been “protective custody.”

For the six removal reasons the State collects, the system has the capability to report on one or all. There are checkboxes for the worker to select the ones that apply.

The system allows the caseworkers to update this information after the removal, as more information becomes available. The initial information for #26-40 should not be updated after it is entered.

For “voluntary placements,” “circumstances associated with removal” are not entered.

This is a mandatory field when “court ordered removals” are entered.

Circumstances associated with removal should be entered regardless if it is a “voluntary” or a “court ordered” removal.

Case File Review: Twenty-five of the records did not match the AFCARS report. In general, reviewers found information for the elements that WYCAPS does not collect.

Not collected by WYCAPS on the “removal information” screen.

Case File Review: 2 records had errors.

Not collected by WYCAPS on the “removal information” screen.

Case File Review: Fifteen percent of the paper records contained this information.

See General Requirements findings.

The screen has an “adoption” option that is used to flag adopted children with post-adoption services or a subsidy. These records are ignored by the selection routine for extraction.

Program logic is inappropriately excluding “independent living” placements. State will correct.

Wyoming policy: The agency will hold a bed for runaways for 30 days. Generally, the court will have DFS retain care and custody. If the child never returns, the child will be discharged at age 18 with a reason of discharge as “emancipation.”

There is not an option to record if a child is on a “trial home visit.”

Test Case: John D., hospital setting not entered as a placement. State's law/policy: court would not have given the agency custody while child was in the hospital. Doctors can be given protective custody.

A check of the “ICPC” box on the screen indicates an out-of-state placement. Workers are to select this, not clear if it is being done correctly.

State team thought the frequencies for out-of-state placements were low.

State may want to add a question with a “yes/no” response on the screen if this is an out-of-state placement. If “yes,” add edit that “ICPC” must also be selected or completed.

Defaults to “no,” since a checkbox is used. However, since ICPC is not always used this is not appropriate.

The State will re-assess how this information will be collected.

State policy: A case plan goal must be established within 2 months of placement. Workers do not have an option to indicate that a case plan goal is “not yet established” during that time.

Missing data is mapped to “not yet established.”

State does not currently collect concurrent planning/goals. State plans to add a field to record a concurrent goal. Now worker can create as many case plans on a single day as needed. When the State implements “concurrent goal” on the system, the program logic should not include it as the primary case plan goal.

“Service referral” is mapped to “0”. This is not a valid AFCARS value and results in invalid data. State team shared this should not be selected by the worker if it is a foster care case.

The selection list includes: “family preservation,” “APS (adult protective services) legal action”, and “Complete PB” (finish probation).

Case File Review: Nineteen percent of the records did not match the AFCARS report. There are four records that were reported as a “case plan goal not yet established” and the child had been in care for more then 60 days. In one record the child had been in foster care for a year. Case plan goals were found on all records.

Frequencies are 11% for “unable to determine.”

The State's code “other” is mapped “0” and “unable to determine.”

Same sex couples should be mapped to an unmarried couple. It may be that workers are putting “other” for same sex couples.

Case File Review: 11% of the records did not match the AFCARS report.

State may want to consider standardizing who the “primary” caretaker will be in two person relationships.

Case File Review: 15% of the records did not match the AFCARS report.

Case File Review: 12.5% of the records did not match the AFCARS report.

For elements #47 and #48, six records were found to have a case plan goal of “adoption” but there were no TPR dates. Does the State allow a goal of adoption prior to obtaining termination of parental rights?

The State code “other” is mapped to “0” and “unable to determine.”

The program code extracts this information from the placement information screen instead of the person information screen. The information is entered each time by the worker, resulting in duplicative data entry.

Case File Review: 19% of the records did not match the AFCARS report.

Three records were reported as “not applicable,” but information for element #41 was reported as “family foster home.”

In the frequency report there were several records that were missing dates of birth that did not match the number of records reported for non-foster home settings.

Elements #50 - 55: For foster parents, the screen has options of "head of household 1" and "head of household 2." The caseworker must select one in order for the program code to identify information for the 1st and 2nd foster care provider. If the caseworker does not select either of these options, information is not extracted.

Case File Analysis: 4 out of the 41 (10%) cases analyzed did not match information reported in AFCARS. There were an additional 30 records that could not be fully analyzed. This is due to the missing data on the marital structure of the foster caretaker.

Case File Review: 34% of the records did not match the AFCARS report.

Post site-visit finding: Due to the number of errors identified in the case file review, the State needs to evaluate the program code to ensure correct extraction of this information.

Frequency Report: Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: Does not apply = 1.26%; Applies = 24.92%; Not reported = 73.82%. White: Does not apply = 26.18%; Applies = 0%; Not reported = 73.82%.

State does not include “Native Hawaiian” on the selection list. The recommendation is to add Native Hawaiian to the “other Pacific Islander” label in the racial category drop down list box. The frequencies appear to indicate that “white” is mapped to “Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander”

“Other” is mapped to “unable to determine.”

For adults, “unable to determine” in AFCARS means that an individual refuses to provide his/her race. The State believes this is how they are defining “unable to determine.”

State believes if caseworkers try to use the “other” or “unknown” the system displays a message telling them it cannot be used. However, during the test case entry the system allowed “unknown” to be entered for John Doe (an abandoned baby). The State asserts that any cases in the system designated “other” or “unknown” are old data.

State informed team members that workers are trained to ask individuals to identify their race.

If WYCAPS definition of “Unknown” is the same as AFCARS, State may continue to use it and map it to “Unable to Determine”, otherwise, it should be mapped to blank.

Case File Review: 71.6% of the records did not match the AFCARS report.

The screen contains a checkbox, which if checked indicates “yes.” If the box is not checked the program code defaults to “no.” There is not an “unable to determine” indicator for the caseworkers to select.

If the client refuses to answer, the system defaults the missing data to “no.”

Case File Review: 50% of the records did not match the AFCARS report.

Frequency Report: Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: Does not apply = 1.03%; Applies = 19.48%; Not reported = 79.5%. White: Does not apply = 20.50%; Applies = 0%; Not reported = 79.5%.

State does not include “Native Hawaiian” on the selection list. The recommendation is to add Native Hawaiian to the “other Pacific Islander” label in the racial category drop down list box. The frequencies would indicate that “white” is mapped to “Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander”

“Other” is mapped to “unable to determine”.

For adults, “unable to determine” in AFCARS means that an individual refuses to provide his/her race. The State believes this is how they are defining “unable to determine.”

State believes if caseworkers try to use the “other” or “unknown” the system displays a message telling them it cannot be used. However, during the test case entry the system allowed “unknown” to be entered for John Doe (an abandoned baby). The State asserts that any cases in the system designated “other” or “unknown” are old data.

State informed the team that workers are trained to ask individuals to identify their race.

If WYCAPS definition of “Unknown” is the same as AFCARS, State may continue to use it and map it to “Unable to Determine”, otherwise, it should be mapped to blank.

Case File Review: 55% of the records did not match the AFCARS report.

The screen contains a checkbox, which if checked indicates “yes.” If the box is not checked the program code defaults to “no.” There is not an “unable to determine” indicator for the caseworkers to select.

If the client refused to answer, the system will default the missing data to “no.”

Case File Review: 42.6% of the records did not match the AFCARS report.

There is a system edit that checks if there is a “date of discharge” there must be a “reason for discharge.”

The accuracy of the data for this element is affected by the way the State is handling “trial home visits.”

Case File Review: 17% of the records did not match the AFCARS report.

Foster Care payments made out of WYCAPS.

WYCAPS is used to ensure a payment was made during the 6-month period. The frequency indicates that very few cases are IV-E cases. Around 40% receive title IV-E Foster Care payments according to the State staff. The State staff will check the program logic, they believe it is wrong.

EPICS contains this information and is extracted from EPICS through an interface to WYCAPS. The State is not sure whether the frequency number is correct or incorrect.

State staff shared there is no incentive to use TANF since the payment is only $195/month for a single person. This may account for the low numbers receiving TANF.

Frequency report: “Does not apply” = 100%

The extraction routine is accurately selecting children that are “eligible” for Medicaid. However, since the frequency shows all as “does not apply” there appears to be a problem with the program code or the interface with EPICS.

This element should represent only Federal Medicaid, not State.

Frequency Report: “Does not apply” = 100%

State indicated an electronic interface does not exist to obtain the information for the element. The information is manually entered by the finance staff.

The State will re-evaluate the program logic to identify why there was a 100% rate for “does not apply.”

Date of birth is not required. It will be entered as six blanks if missing.

WYCAPS allows for the estimation of the birth date. There is a check box to indicate that the entered birth date is an estimate. State is not using the 15th day of the month when estimating a birthdate. AFCARS requires that it be the 15th of the month.

The program code contains “unknown” as a valid code in the system. If the value is “unknown” it is moving some value to this element. State to follow up and will check to see how this is mapped.

If a worker tries to enter anything other than M(ale), F(emale), or U(nknown), an edit prevents the entry of any other value.

Frequency Report: Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: Does not apply = 18.75%; Applies = 81.25%. White: Does not apply = 100%; Applies = 0%

State does not include “Native Hawaiian” on the selection list. The recommendation is to add Native Hawaiian to the “other Pacific Islander” label in the racial category drop down list box. The frequencies appear to indicate that “white” is mapped to “Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.”

“Other” is mapped to “unable to determine.”

“Unable to determine” in AFCARS means that there is no one available to identify the race of the child, or an individual refuses to provide the child's race. The State believes this is how they are defining “unable to determine.”

State believes if caseworkers try to use the “other” or “unknown” the system displays a message telling them it cannot be used. However, during the test case entry the system allowed “unknown” to be entered for John Doe (an abandoned baby). The State asserts that any cases in the system designated “other” or “unknown” are old data.

State shared that workers are trained to ask individuals to identify their race.

If WYCAPS definition of “Unknown” is the same as AFCARS, State may continue to use it and map it to “Unable to Determine”, otherwise, it should be mapped to blank.

State staff discussed adding more training for workers by adding it to the CORE (child protection certification) training.

Case File Review: 100% of the records were incorrect.

The screen contains a checkbox, which if checked indicates “yes.” If the box is not checked the program code defaults to “no.” There is not an “unable to determine” indicator for the caseworkers to select.

If the client refused to answer, the system will default the missing data to “no.”

There is a system alert to ensure this information is completed whenever a case is entered into the system.

The screen has a field for “basis for special need” with a drop down box that contains the AFCARS options of 1 through 5.

There is an edit check if the worker selects one of the medical conditions on the screen, then the caseworker is required to select medical condition as the primary basis. This is backwards. Instead, it should be that if the user selects medical condition as a basis for special needs, then one of the four medical/psychological conditions on the screen should be selected.

For elements #11 - 15, information that was selected for foster care case, can be carried forward to adoption.

There is not an indicator on the screen to determine if the medical condition is “clinically diagnosed.” (This was also a SACWIS review finding.)

Refer to foster care elements #11 - #15 for additional notes that need to be addressed, and to ensure these corrections are carried forward to the adoption file.

The frequencies indicate to the State staff that there is a problem, possibly with the extraction routine. The program code may not be picking up this date. The State team believes that about 75% of the birth dates are known. Whether it is entered is another issue, which the State is investigating. The coding should be checked to see why the data are not being picked up.

Case File Review: 75% of the records were incorrect.

See notes in element #16.

Case File Review: 37.5% of the records were incorrect.

There are two checkboxes, one for “yes” and one for “no,” on the person maintenance screen. There is an edit to prevent caseworkers from checking both responses.

The screen does not have the option “unable to determine” on the screen. This is an appropriate selection for abandoned children.

This is a mandatory field on the person screen. Coding indicates a default to “no.”

Test Case: John Doe response was a “yes,” should have been “unable to determine.”

The date is entered in the “Adoption Information” screen.

State staff shared that they know there is a delay in the entering of this information, workers are forgetting to enter the legalization information. DFS runs a report to check for missing legalization dates. The information gets entered prior to the submission of the AFCARS data file.

Recommendation: Add a flag or transaction date to indicate that the adoption has been submitted to ACF. This will ensure that the adoption does get submitted to ACF and that the record does not get submitted twice.

This information is extracted from the “adoption information” subscreen of the placement maintenance, not the person file.

The State code “other” is mapped to “0” and “unable to determine.”

Frequency Report: Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: Does not apply = 13.49%; Applies = 86.51%. White: Does not apply = 99.76%; Applies = 0.24%

State does not include “Native Hawaiian” on the selection list. The recommendation is to add Native Hawaiian to the “other Pacific Islander” label in the racial category drop down list box. The frequencies appear to indicate that “white” is mapped to “Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.”

“Other” is mapped to “unable to determine.”

“Unable to determine” in AFCARS means that there is no one available to identify the race of the child, or an individual refuses to provide the child's race. The State believes this is how they are defining “unable to determine.”

State believes if caseworkers try to use “other” or “unknown” the system displays a message telling them it cannot be used. However, during the test case entry the system allowed “unknown” to be entered for John Doe (an abandoned baby). The State asserts that any cases in the system designated “other” or “unknown” are old data.

State informed team members that workers are trained to ask individuals to identify their race.

If WYCAPS definition of “Unknown” is the same as AFCARS, State may continue to use it and map it to “Unable to Determine,” otherwise it should be mapped to blank.State staff discussed adding more training for workers by adding it to the CORE (child protection certification) training.

Case File Review: 100% of the records were incorrect.

The screen contains a checkbox, which if checked indicates “yes.” If the box is not checked the program code defaults to “no.” There is not an “unable to determine” checkbox for the caseworkers to select.

If the client refused to answer, the system will default the missing data to “no.”

Frequency Report: Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: Does not apply = 13.49%; Applies = 86.51%. White: Does not apply = 99.76%; Applies = 0.24%

State does not include “Native Hawaiian” on the selection list. The recommendation is to add Native Hawaiian to the “other Pacific Islander” label in the racial category drop down list box. The frequencies appear to indicate that “white” is mapped to “Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.”

“Other” is mapped to “unable to determine.”

“Unable to determine” in AFCARS means that there is no one available to identify the race of the child, or an individual refuses to provide the child's race. The State believes this is how they are defining “unable to determine.”

State believes that if caseworkers try to use the “other,” or “unknown” the system displays a message telling them it cannot be used. However, during the test case entry the system allowed “unknown” to be entered for John Doe (an abandoned baby). The State asserts that any cases in the system designated “other” or “unknown” are old data.

State shared that workers are trained to ask individuals to identify their race.

If WYCAPS definition of “Unknown” is the same as AFCARS, State may continue to use it and map it to “Unable to Determine,” otherwise, it should be mapped to blank.

State staff discussed adding more training for workers by adding it to the CORE (child protection certification) training.

Case File Review: 100% of the records were incorrect.

The screen contains a checkbox, which if checked indicates “yes.” If the box is not checked the program code defaults to “no.” There is not an “unable to determine” checkbox for the caseworkers to select.

If the client refused to answer, the system will default the missing data to “no.”

In situations where the adoptive parent was a foster parent and a relative the State would consider it as a relative adoption.

Recommendation: Add a selection of relative/foster parent and map it to both 30 & 31.

In situations where the adoptive parent was a foster parent and a relative the State would consider it as a relative adoption.

Recommendation: Add a selection of relative/foster parent and map it to both 30 & 31.

The State wants to confirm if the frequency on this element is correct, they believe it is slightly higher than expected. The State will follow-up on this element.

Possible problem: This may indicate that the child is IV-E foster care instead of IV-E adoption because the system is playing catch-up. State will follow-up on it.