Report to Congressional Requesters

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO 

July 2003 CHILD WELFARE

Most States Are 

Developing Statewide 

Information Systems, 

but the Reliability of 

Child Welfare Data 

Could Be Improved 

GAO-03-809 
HHS reported that 47 states are developing or operating a SACWIS, but many 

continue to face challenges developing their systems. Most state officials 

said they recognize the benefit their state will achieve by developing 

SACWIS, such as contributing to the timeliness of child abuse and neglect 

investigations; however, despite the availability of federal funds since 1994, 

states reported a median delay of 2-1⁄2 years beyond the timeframes they set 

for completion. States reported that they encountered some difficulties 

during SACWIS development, such as challenges receiving state funding and 

creating a system that reflected their work processes. In response to some of 

these challenges, HHS has provided technical assistance to help states 

develop their systems and conducted on-site reviews of SACWIS to verify 

that the systems meet federal requirements.

Despite efforts to implement comprehensive information systems, several 

factors affect the states’ ability to collect and report reliable adoption, foster 

care, and child abuse and neglect data. States responding to GAO’s survey 

and officials in the 5 states GAO visited reported that insufficient 

caseworker training and inaccurate and incomplete data entry affect the 

quality of the data reported to HHS. In addition, states reported technical 

challenges reporting data. Despite HHS’s assistance, many states report 

ongoing challenges, such as the lack of clear and documented guidance on 

how to report child welfare data. In addition, although states were mandated 

to begin reporting data to the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and 

Reporting System (AFCARS) in 1995, few reviews of states’ AFCARS 

reporting capabilities have been conducted to assist states in resolving some 

of their reporting challenges.

Some states are using a variety of practices to address the challenges 

associated with developing SACWIS and improving data reliability. For 

example, 44 states included caseworkers and other system users in the 

design and testing of SACWIS, and 28 states reported using approaches to 

help caseworkers identify and better understand the data elements that are 

required for federal reporting. 

Factors That Affect the Reliability of Data Reported to HHS 

 Which may lead to

 inaccurate measures of:

 State performance 

 on federal outcomes

 Children's 

 experiences,

 such as time 

 spent in 

 foster 

 care 

 

Information

Factors affecting data quality: 

 Inaccurate and incomplete data-

 entry by caseworkers

 Insufficient caseworker training 

 Differences between state and 

 federal data definitions 

 Lack of clear, documented 

 guidance from HHS

 Difficulty accessing technical 

 assistance from HHS

Source: GAO analysis.

Resulting in

potentially unreliable

information on abused

and neglected

children available in

federal data systems

To better monitor children and 

families served by state child 

welfare agencies, Congress 

authorized matching funds for the 

development of statewide 

automated child welfare 

information systems (SACWIS) and 

required that the Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS) 

compile information on the 

children served by state agencies. 

This report reviews (1) states’ 

experiences in developing child 

welfare information systems and 

HHS’s role in assisting in their 

development, (2) factors that affect 

the reliability of data that states 

collect and report on children 

served by their child welfare 

agencies and HHS’s role in 

ensuring the reliability of those 

data, and (3) practices that child 

welfare agencies use to overcome 

challenges associated with SACWIS 

development and data reliability. 

In order to improve the reliability 

of state-reported child welfare 

data, GAO recommends that the 

Secretary of HHS consider ways to 

enhance the guidance and 

assistance offered to states to help 

them overcome the key challenges 

in collecting and reporting child 

welfare data. In commenting on 

this report, HHS generally agreed 

with GAO’s findings and 

commented that the report 

provides a useful perspective of the 

problems states face in collecting 

data and of HHS’s effort to provide 

ongoing technical assistance to 

improve child welfare data. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-809.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Cornelia M. 

Ashby at (202) 512-8403 or 

AshbyC@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-03-809, a report to 

Congressional Requesters 

July 2003 

CHILD WELFARE

Most States Are Developing Statewide 

Information Systems, but the Reliability 

of Child Welfare Data Could Be Improved 
Page i GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 5

Most States Are Developing SACWIS, but Challenges Remain 

Despite HHS’s Oversight and Technical Assistance 10

Several Factors Affect the States’ Ability to Ensure Reliable Data 

on Children’s Experiences, and Some of HHS’s Oversight and 

Assistance Is Problematic 24

States Are Using Various Practices to Overcome System 

Development Challenges and Improve Data on Children’s 

Experiences 38

Conclusion 42

Recommendation to the Secretary of Health and Human Services 43

Agency Comments 43

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 47 

Appendix II State SACWIS Stages of Development 49 

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Health and 

Human Services 50 

Appendix IV GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments 62 

GAO Contacts 62

Staff Acknowledgments 62

Bibliography 63 

Related GAO Products 64 

Tables 

Table 1: Significant Child Welfare Information and Data Systems 6

Contents 
Page ii GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

Table 2: Number of States in Various Stages of SACWIS 

Development 12

Table 3: Selected SACWIS Child Welfare and Administrative 

Services 14

Table 4: Commonly Used SACWIS Development Participants and 

Their Level of Helpfulness 15

Table 5: State-Reported Benefits of SACWIS Development 17

Table 6: Number of Months States Delayed in SACWIS 

Development 18

Table 7: Common SACWIS Development Challenges 19

Table 8: Selected AFCARS Elements and Six States’ Levels of 

Compliance in Meeting Reporting Requirements 32

Figures 

Figure 1: Most Common Caseworker Issues That Affect Data 

Quality 26

Figure 2: Federal Practices That Affect Data Quality 35

Abbreviations 

ACF Administration for Children and Families 

ADP advance planning document 

AFCARS Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System 

CAPTA Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act 

CRSR Child and Family Services Reviews 

FFP federal financial participation 

HHS Department of Health and Human Services 

IT information technology 

NCANDS National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System 

NYTD National Youth in Transition Database 

SACWIS Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System 

VCIS Voluntary Cooperative Information System 

This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. It may contain copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. 

Permission from the copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce 

copyrighted materials separately from GAO’s product. 
Page 1 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

July 31, 2003 

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Chairman, Committee on Finance 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Tom DeLay 

Majority Leader 

House of Representatives 

Recent news reports of tragedies involving child welfare agencies across 

the country highlight the long-standing problems states have had 

monitoring children in their care. Given that hundreds of thousands of 

children are found to be victims of abuse and neglect and are estimated to 

spend some time in foster care each year, the Congress required that the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) compile information on 

the children served by state agencies and authorized federal funds to 

match those of states for use in the development of state child welfare 

information systems. Since 1994, designated federal matching funds have 

been available to states to develop and implement comprehensive case 

management systems—Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information 

Systems (SACWIS)—to manage their child welfare cases as well as to 

report child abuse and neglect, foster care, and adoption information to 

the federal government. States have the option to implement a SACWIS or 

develop different information systems without using SACWIS funds to 

support their child welfare agencies and collect information on their child 

welfare cases. Regardless of the type of system a state develops, child 

welfare caseworkers at the county or local level are the key personnel 

who collect and document information on children and families served by 

child welfare agencies, in addition to performing a wide range of services 

to protect children—such as investigating child abuse or neglect reports or 

providing support services to maintain the children in their homes. 

Currently, HHS compiles state-reported child welfare data in two 

databases: the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System 

(AFCARS) and the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System 

(NCANDS). HHS relies on the information available in its databases to 

analyze and track children’s experiences in the child welfare system, to 

determine states’ performance on federal child welfare outcome measures, 

and to report to Congress on children’s well being and child welfare 

experiences. 

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

Because of your interest in how states have developed systems to collect 

and report information on the children they serve and the reliability of that 

information, you asked us to determine (1) states’ experiences in 

developing child welfare information systems and HHS’s role in assisting 

in their development; (2) factors that affect the reliability of data that 

states collect and report on children served by their child welfare 

agencies, and HHS’s role in ensuring the reliability of those data; and 

(3) practices that child welfare agencies use to overcome challenges 

associated with SACWIS development and data reliability. 

To conduct our work, we surveyed all 50 states and the District of 

Columbia regarding their experiences in developing and using information 

systems and their ability to report data to HHS. We received responses 

from 49 states and the District of Columbia,1

 although all states did not 

respond to every question. We also reviewed a variety of HHS documents, 

including the protocol and reports for its reviews of SACWIS systems and 

states’ AFCARS reporting capabilities. In addition, we visited 5 states—

Colorado, Iowa, New York, North Carolina, and Oklahoma—to obtain firsthand information on their experiences developing SACWIS and reporting 

data to HHS. We selected these states to represent geographic diversity 

and different stages of SACWIS implementation. Finally, we interviewed 

HHS officials and child welfare and data experts and reviewed relevant 

literature. We conducted our work between June 2002 and June 2003 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. A 

more detailed discussion of our scope and methodology appears in 

appendix I. 

HHS reported that 47 states are developing or operating a SACWIS, but 

many continue to face challenges despite HHS’s oversight and technical 

assistance. Most states are using federal SACWIS funds and are in various 

stages of development. States reported in our survey that they have spent 

approximately $2.4 billion in federal, state, and local funding on SACWIS. 

Most state officials said they recognize the benefit their state will achieve 

by developing SACWIS, such as contributing to the timeliness of child 

abuse and neglect investigations; however, despite the availability of 

federal funds since 1994, many child welfare agencies lag behind the 

 1

Throughout this report, references to state survey responses include the District of 

Columbia. Forty-six of these states reported that they are developing or operating a 

SACWIS. Nevada, which HHS reported has an operational SACWIS, did not respond to our 

survey. 

Results in Brief 
Page 3 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

timeframes they set for completion, with delays ranging from 2 months to 

8 years. Forty-two of the 46 states responding to our survey that they are 

developing SACWIS reported at least some challenge obtaining state 

funding. In Iowa, for example, state officials reported that insufficient 

state funds delayed them in making the necessary modifications to meet 

federal requirements for system completion. Some states had difficulties 

developing a system that met the state child welfare agency’s needs 

statewide. For example, state officials in New York—a state where the 

counties are responsible for administering child welfare services—said 

that building a uniform system was stalled when significant frustration 

with the system’s design led some county officials to request that the state 

stop SACWIS development. In addition, 32 states reported at least some 

challenge securing information technology contractors with knowledge of 

child welfare practice to develop their SACWIS. In response to some of 

these challenges, HHS has provided technical assistance to help states 

develop their systems and conducted on-site reviews of SACWIS to verify 

that the systems meet all federal requirements. For example, at the time of 

our review, HHS had conducted on-site reviews in 26 states with 

operational SACWIS to ensure that the systems met all federal 

requirements and to offer assistance to states that faced challenges 

completing the development of their SACWIS. 

Several factors affect states’ ability to collect and report reliable data on 

children served by state child welfare agencies, and some problems exist, 

such as a lack of clear and documented guidance, with HHS’s oversight 

and technical assistance. Almost all of the states responding to our survey 

reported that insufficient caseworker training and inaccurate and 

incomplete data entry into their information system affect the quality of 

the data reported to HHS. Although most states reported these as separate 

factors, HHS and the states we visited found that insufficient training and 

inaccurate and incomplete data entry are often linked. In addition, 36 of 

the 50 states that responded to our survey reported that technical 

challenges, such as matching their state data element definitions to HHS’s 

data categories, affected the quality of the data that they report to the 

federal government. Similarly, during assessments of 6 states’ compliance 

with AFCARS reporting standards, HHS found that these issues affect data 

reliability. Despite HHS’s assistance in helping states improve their data, 

such as testing state data quality and providing the results to the states to 

aid them in resubmitting data, states report ongoing challenges. For 

example, 41 of the 50 states responding to our survey reported that a lack 

of clear and documented guidance from HHS affects the quality of the data 

they report to AFCARS, and 25 states said the lack of clear, documented 

guidance also affected the data reported to NCANDS. In addition, although 
Page 4 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

states were mandated to begin reporting AFCARS in 1995, few reviews of 

states AFCARS reporting capabilities have been conducted to assist states 

in resolving some of their challenges. 

Some states are using a variety of practices to address the challenges 

associated with developing SACWIS and improving data reliability, 

although no formal evaluations are available on their effectiveness. To 

overcome the challenge of developing a system to meet statewide needs, 

many states relied on caseworkers and other system users for input on 

design and testing of SACWIS. Few states reported that they devised 

strategies to overcome the other challenges, such as limited funding and 

finding contractors with knowledge of child welfare. However, Oklahoma 

child welfare officials—in order to maximize the limited state funding for 

maintaining their SACWIS—reported saving $1 million each year by hiring 

some of the contractors who developed their SACWIS as permanent staff. 

To improve data reliability, the 5 states we visited routinely review their 

data to identify data entry errors so that managers can ensure that the 

missing data are entered appropriately. In addition, some states reported 

that frequent use of the data, such as publishing periodic management 

reports detailing local offices’ performance on outcome measures, helps 

caseworkers understand the importance of entering timely information. 

In order to improve the reliability of state-reported child welfare data, we 

are recommending that the Secretary of HHS consider ways to enhance 

the guidance and assistance offered to states to help them overcome the 

key challenges in collecting and reporting child welfare data. In 

commenting on this report, HHS’s Administration for Children and 

Families (ACF) generally agreed with our findings and commented that 

the report provides a useful perspective of the problems states face in 

collecting data and of ACF’s effort to provide ongoing technical assistance 

to improve the quality of child welfare data. In response to our 

recommendation, ACF said that we did not recognize the long-term efforts 

it has taken to provide AFCARS and NCANDS guidance. ACF also noted 

that the data definitions need to be updated and revised and said it is 

currently in the process of revising the AFCARS regulations to further 

standardize the information states are to report—which we acknowledge 

in our report. Further, ACF added that although staff turnover in state 

child welfare agencies is a significant contributor to data quality issues, we 

did not focus on this as a significant factor. However, because we recently 

issued a detailed report on a variety of caseworker issues, we primarily 

focused in this report on the key data entry challenges caseworkers face 

and refer readers to our previous work for additional information on 

challenges related to caseworker recruitment and retention and their 
Page 5 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

affect on child welfare agencies. ACF commented that it is firmly 

committed to continue to support the states and to provide technical 

assistance and other guidance as its resources will permit. We believe that 

the recent activities to formally obtain, document, and incorporate 

feedback from the states with regard to collection and reporting adoption 

and foster care data represent are a step towards improving states’ data. 

Our recommendation encourages HHS to consider ways to enhance the 

guidance and assistance already offered to states as a step to helping them 

better comply with the reporting requirements. 

ACF’s Children’s Bureau is responsible for the administration and 

oversight of federal funding to states for child welfare services under 

Titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act. However, the monitoring of 

children served by state child welfare agencies is the responsibility of the 

state agencies that provide the services to these children and their 

families. Child welfare caseworkers at the county or local level are the key 

personnel responsible for documenting the wide range of services offered 

to children and families, such as investigations of abuse and neglect; 

treatment services offered to families to keep them intact and prevent the 

need for foster care; and arrangements made for permanent or adoptive 

placements when children must be removed from their homes. 

Caseworkers are supported by supervisors who typically assign new cases 

to workers and monitor caseworkers’ progress in achieving desired 

outcomes, analyzing and addressing problems, and making decisions 

about cases. 

A number of efforts at the national level have been taken to implement 

comprehensive data systems that capture, report, and analyze the child 

welfare information collected by the states (see table 1 for information on 

national data systems as well as information on state systems). 

Background 
Page 6 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

Table 1: Significant Child Welfare Information and Data Systems 

System History Use 

State information systems 

Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information 

System (SACWIS) 

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 

(OBRA) of 1993 authorized the use of an 

enhanced federal financial participation 

(FFP) rate of 75 percent to assist states 

develop uniform automated information 

systems—SACWIS—that support the 

administration of services offered under their 

child welfare programs.a

 The enhanced FFP 

was available initially from federal fiscal 

years 1994 through 1996 and subsequently 

extended through federal fiscal year 1997. 

After 1997, states receive a 50 percent 

match for SACWIS-related activities. 

Funding approval for SACWIS is based on 

states’ estimated costs for development and 

operation, and no time limits are placed on 

the receipt of federal funding. 

A SACWIS is designed and 

developed for use by states’ 

caseworkers and other 

personnel for the purposes of 

establishing an electronic case 

file for children and families 

served by the state child welfare 

agency. Some of the data 

captured in SACWIS are 

reported to HHS. 

National data systems 

Voluntary Cooperative Information System (VCIS) With funding from HHS, the American Public 

Welfare Association—now known as the 

American Public Human Services 

Association—established VCIS in an effort 

to compile state-specific child welfare data. 

States voluntarily reported aggregate-level 

data on the characteristics of children in 

foster care and those adopted from state 

child welfare agencies. VCIS compiled data 

between 1982 and 1994. 

The data available in VCIS was 

used to produce reports at the 

national level on the 

characteristics of children in 

foster care and those adopted 

from state child welfare 

agencies. However, the data 

reported to VCIS were 

inconsistent.b

 Following the 

implementation of AFCARS, 

states no longer reported to 

VCIS. 
Page 7 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

System History Use 

Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting 

System (AFCARS) 

In 1986, Congress added Section 479 to 

Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, which 

required HHS to establish and implement a 

mandatory foster care and adoption data 

collection system. Despite the legislative 

requirement that HHS complete final 

regulations for the system by the end of 

calendar year 1988, regulations were not 

issued until December 1993. States began 

reporting to AFCARS in 1995 on the 

demographic characteristics of adoptive and 

foster children and their parents as well as 

foster children’s type of placement and 

permanency goals. States are required to 

report 66 foster care and 37 adoption data 

elements for each child in care during 

6-month periods. Between 1998 and 

2001, states not meeting certain reporting 

standards were subject to penalties. The 

penalties were rescinded in January 2002 

following an appeal filed by 12 states. 

Some of the key uses of 

AFCARS data include: 

Calculating the national standard 

for five federal outcome 

measures—incidence of child 

abuse and/or neglect in foster 

care, foster care re-entries, 

stability of foster care 

placements, length of time to 

achieve reunification, and length 

of time to achieve adoption. 

The publication of the annual 

Child Welfare Outcomes Report. 

Determining the allocation of 

funds in the adoption incentive 

program and Chafee Foster Care 

Independence Program.c

National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System 

(NCANDS) 

In 1988, Congress amended the Child 

Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act 

(CAPTA) by directing HHS to establish a 

national data collection and analysis system 

consisting of state child abuse and neglect 

information. Walter R. McDonald & 

Associates was awarded the contract to 

compile and analyze the state-reported data. 

States began voluntarily reporting annually 

in 1990; however, the 1996 CAPTA 

amendments directed states to report 

certain data to receive CAPTA grant 

funding. States submit either child-specific 

records or aggregate-level data. In 2001—

the most recently available data from HHS—

39 states and the District of Columbia 

submitted child-specific data, which includes 

the demographics of the children and their 

perpetrators, the types of maltreatment, 

investigation or assessment findings, risk 

factors, and services provided as a result of 

the investigation or assessment. The 

remaining 11 states submitted aggregate 

data. 

Some of the key uses of 

NCANDS data include: 

Calculating the national standard 

for two federal outcome 

measures on child safety—

recurrence of maltreatment and 

incidence of child abuse and/or 

neglect in foster care. 

The publication of the annual 

Child Maltreatment Report. 

The publication of the annual 

Child Welfare Outcomes Report. 
Page 8 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

System History Use 

National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD) In response to requirements included in the 

Foster Care Independence Act of 1999, 

HHS has proposed to develop the NYTD to 

capture more detailed data than is currently 

reported to AFCARS on older foster children 

who receive independent living services. 

Such services include life-skills training in 

financial management or career planning. 

HHS reported to Congress in September 

2001 that nationwide implementation of 

NYTD was planned for October 2003, but 

recent HHS information indicates that the 

actual implementation date will likely be 

2005 or 2006. Once implemented, states will 

be required to report to NYTD. 

In response to the legislation, 

data available in the NYTD will 

be used, in part, to track (1) the 

number and characteristics of 

older youth receiving 

independent living services, 

(2) the type and quantity of 

services states provided, and 

(3) state performance on the 

outcome measures required by 

the legislation. 

Source: GAO analysis based on federal legislation, regulations, and other documents. 

a

The allowable costs under the 75 percent FFP included planning, design, development, and 

installation of a SACWIS. Other costs, such as operation of the SACWIS, were covered at 50 percent. 

b

See www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/dis/vcis/maintoc.htm for more complete details on the 

shortcomings of the data available in VCIS. 

c

The total number of finalized adoptions reported to AFCARS are used to determine the amount, if 

any, of the adoption incentive payments awarded to states. In addition, AFCARS data are used to 

determine the ratio of the number of children in foster care in each state to the total number of 

children in foster care in all states to calculate state allotments under the Chafee Foster Care 

Independence Program. 

To qualify for federal funding for SACWIS, states must prepare and submit 

an advance planning document (APD) to ACF’s Children’s Bureau, in 

which they describe the state’s plan for managing the design, development, 

implementation, and operation of a SACWIS that meets federal 

requirements and state needs in an efficient, comprehensive, and costeffective manner.2

 In addition, the state must establish SACWIS and 

program performance goals in terms of projected costs and benefits in the 

APD. States are required to submit separate APDs for the planning and 

development phases, in addition to periodic updates. 

 2

When states choose to develop information systems that include other human services, 

such as food stamps, child support enforcement, or Medicaid, states must submit APDs to 

each cognizant federal agency. In a hearing held last year before the Subcommittee on 

Technology and Procurement Policy, House Committee on Government Reform, we 

testified that the federal agencies do not have systems to monitor states requests for 

federal approval and funding through the life cycle of a state request. (See U.S. General 

Accounting Office, Human Services: Federal Approval and Funding Processes for States’ 

Information System, GAO-02-347T (Washington, D.C: July 9, 2002.)) 
Page 9 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

Since the administration and structure of state child welfare agencies vary 

across the nation, states can design their SACWIS to meet their state 

needs, as long as states meet certain federal requirements. Federal funding 

is available to states for SACWIS that 

• meet the requirements for reporting AFCARS data to HHS; 

• to the extent practicable, are capable of linking with the state data 

collection system that collects information on child abuse and neglect; 

• to the extent practicable, are capable of linking with, and retrieving 

information from, the state data collection system that collects 

information on the eligibility of individuals under Title IV-A—Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families; and 

• provides for more efficient, economical, and effective administration of 

the programs carried out under a state’s plans approved under Titles IV-B 

and IV-E of the Social Security Act. 

A SACWIS must operate uniformly as a single system in each state and 

must encompass all entities that administer programs provided under 

Titles IV-B and IV-E. In some cases, HHS will allow the statewide system 

to link to another state system to perform required functions, such as 

linking to financial systems to issue and reconcile payments to child 

welfare service providers. The state’s APD must describe how its SACWIS 

will link to other systems to meet the requirements in the SACWIS 

regulations. 

In addition to monitoring the APDs of the states that are developing 

SACWIS, HHS reviews state information systems through formal SACWIS 

assessment reviews and the Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSR)—a 

federal review process to monitor states’ compliance with child welfare 

laws and federal outcome measures. The formal SACWIS reviews are 

conducted by ACF’s Children’s Bureau to determine if a state has 

developed and implemented all components detailed in the state’s APD 

and if the system adheres to federal requirements. The CFSR assesses 

statewide information systems, along with other systemic factors, to 

determine if the state is operating a system that can readily identify the 

status, demographic characteristics, location, and goals for placement of 

every child who is in foster care. This systemic factor is reviewed in all 

states, regardless of whether the state is developing a SACWIS or the stage 

of system development. According to results from the fiscal years 2001 and 

2002 CFSRs, 4 of the 32 states in which HHS reviewed were not in 

substantial conformity on the statewide information system indicator. 

These 4 states must address how they will come into conformity with this 
Page 10 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

factor in a program improvement plan. HHS has also conducted SACWIS 

reviews in 2 of these states. 

While 47 states are developing or operating a SACWIS, many challenges 

remain despite HHS’s oversight and technical assistance. Since 1994, 

states reported that they have spent approximately $2.4 billion in federal, 

state, and local funding on SACWIS. While most state officials we 

interviewed and those responding to our survey said that they recognize 

the benefits their state will achieve by developing a statewide system, 

many states reported that the development of their SACWIS is delayed 

between 2 months and 8 years beyond the time frames the states set for 

completion, with a median delay of 2-1⁄2 years. Most states responding to 

our survey faced challenges, such as obtaining state funding and 

developing a system that met the child welfare agency’s needs statewide. 

In response to some of these challenges, HHS has provided technical 

assistance to help states develop their systems and conducted on-site 

SACWIS reviews to verify that the systems meet all federal requirements. 

Currently, 47 states are developing or operating a SACWIS and are in 

various stages of development—ranging from planning to complete. The 

states responding to our survey reported using approximately $1.3 billion 

in federal funds3

 and approximately $1.1 billion in state and local funds4 for 

their SACWIS. However, HHS estimated that it allocated approximately 

$821 million between fiscal years 1994 and 2001 in SACWIS developmental 

funds5 and $173 million between fiscal years 1999 and 2001 in SACWIS 

 3

Forty-four states provided information on the total amount of federal funds they received 

to develop and operate SACWIS. Alaska, Hawaii, Missouri, North Carolina, Texas, and 

Vermont did not report federal funding information. Nevada did not respond to our survey. 

State-reported figures may include some funding allocated in fiscal year 2003 since the 

survey was issued in October 2002 and completed as late as December 2002. 

4

Forty-four states provided information on the total amount of state funds used to develop 

and operate SACWIS. Arkansas, Hawaii, Missouri, North Carolina, Texas, and Vermont did 

not report state funding information. Nevada did not respond to our survey. State-reported 

figures may include some funding allocated in fiscal year 2003 since the survey was issued 

in October 2002 and completed as late as December 2002. 

5

This figure includes developmental funds allocated by HHS to 49 states and the District of 

Columbia. Hawaii did not take any federal money for SACWIS development. 

Most States Are 

Developing SACWIS, 

but Challenges 

Remain Despite HHS’s 

Oversight and 

Technical Assistance 

States Are Using Federal 

and State Funds and 

Various Participants to 

Develop MultiComponent 

SACWIS 
Page 11 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

operational funds.6 The total amount of federal funding provided to states 

for SACWIS is unknown because states claimed operational costs as a part 

of their Title IV-E administrative expenses prior to 1999.7

 Although the 

federal government matched state funding at an enhanced rate of 

75 percent beginning in 1994, many states did not apply for federal funding 

or begin SACWIS development until 1996 and 1997 when more than 

$467 million—the bulk of federal funds—were allocated. Most states were 

still developing their SACWIS by the time enhanced funding expired in 

1997, after which states could receive a 50 percent FFP for SACWIS 

development and operation. Although 47 states are currently developing or 

operating a SACWIS, all states except Hawaii received some federal 

SACWIS funds. For example, according to figures provided by HHS, North 

Carolina received approximately $9.6 million in developmental funds and 

North Dakota received approximately $2.4 million in developmental funds 

and $245,000 in operational funds for SACWIS, but both states 

encountered difficulties that prevented them from completing their 

systems. In these situations, HHS entered into negotiations with the states 

about the amount of money that the states must return to the federal 

government. 

In order to track states’ SACWIS development, HHS places them in six 

categories that identify their stage of development (see table 2). States are 

required to submit APD updates periodically, which inform HHS of their 

progress in developing SACWIS. See appendix II for a complete list of 

states’ phases of development. Although most states continue to advance 

in the development of their systems, some encounter problems that cause 

HHS to recategorize them into a lower stage of development. In 

Pennsylvania, for example, the child welfare agency encountered 

difficulties, such as inadequate computer software to support a 

comprehensive SACWIS, after attempting to implement its SACWIS in 

 6

This figure includes operational funds allocated to 35 states. States begin claiming 

operational costs when some or all components of their SACWIS are operating in local 

offices. Operational activities include routine maintenance, minor enhancements, and other 

changes that do not significantly increase or modify the functionality of the system. 

7

According to HHS officials, prior to fiscal year 2000, states reported SACWIS operational 

expenses as part of their Title IV-E administrative expenses because the claims sheet states 

used for reporting did not have a separate column for SACWIS operational expenditures. In 

fiscal year 2000, states were required to use a claims sheet that was reformatted to provide 

space for SACWIS operational expenditures. In addition, an HHS official explained that the 

difference between the state-reported figures and the federal figures may be due to states 

claiming some SACWIS expenses under different programs, such as Title IV-E 

administrative funds, rather than separately as SACWIS expenses. 
Page 12 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

2000. Due to these problems, the state is in the process of shutting down 

the system and has resubmitted an APD for a new system to HHS for 

review and approval for further federal funding. According to figures 

provided by HHS, Pennsylvania has received approximately $9.7 million in 

federal funding thus far. In addition, while HHS may classify a state system 

as complete following an assessment of their SACWIS, a state may make 

additional changes to the system since SACWIS, like other computer 

systems, continually evolve as technology and child welfare practices 

change. States can claim federal funding for these changes as operational 

expenses. For example, Oklahoma’s SACWIS was the first system to be 

determined complete, but it has made enhancements to its system since 

HHS found the system in compliance with federal requirements in 1998. In 

addition, Oklahoma is currently considering moving to a Web-based 

system. An HHS official reported that such changes do not need prior 

approval unless they are in excess of $5 million. 

Table 2: Number of States in Various Stages of SACWIS Development 

Stage Number of states 

Completea5 

Operationalb 24 

Partially operationalc 9 

Implementationd 2 

Planninge7 

No SACWISf 4 

Source: HHS. 

Note: Status is as of May 22, 2003. 

a

SACWIS assessment process is completed, and all functional requirements and specifications set 

forth in the APD are either included in the system or in an accepted corrective action plan. 

b

All functional requirements and specifications in APD are included in system, and system is 

functional statewide, but state has not completed SACWIS assessment or is working on other issues. 

c

State is still rolling out system to field sites or still adding functions to systems that are operational 

statewide. 

d

In active design and development, even if delayed while waiting to resolve problems such as funding. 

e

Working through options for a SACWIS. 

f

Have never pursued SACWIS funding or have abandoned plans to develop a system. 

In developing a system, states have considerable flexibility in the design of 

their SACWIS. According to HHS officials, a state should be using its 

SACWIS as a case management tool that uses automation to support the 

various aspects of state child welfare programs, such as recording child 
Page 13 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

protection, out of home care, and foster care and adoption services. To 

further assist child welfare practice, states have designed their systems to 

follow the natural flow of child welfare practice in their state and have 

added design features to help track key events during a case. For example, 

in Iowa child welfare work is divided between child abuse and neglect 

investigations and ongoing case management for children brought into the 

care of the child welfare agency. As a result, Iowa designed a SACWIS to 

reflect this work process by linking two databases—one to record child 

abuse and neglect information and one to record ongoing case records—

that share information with one another.8

 In Rhode Island, the SACWIS 

was designed to alert caseworkers if an alleged perpetrator has been the 

subject of three reports of abuse or neglect within 1 year. Regardless of 

the findings of each report, this alert notifies the caseworker to initiate an 

investigation when a third report is received. 

Since many states are in different phases of SACWIS development, their 

systems currently support to varying degrees a variety of child welfare and 

administrative components (see table 3). According to HHS, while the 

components represented in table 3 are required for a state’s SACWIS to be 

considered compliant with federal guidance—either through an interface 

or built within the system—some of the subcomponents, such as a 

function that helps caseworkers manage their caseloads, are optional. 

HHS has encouraged states to automate as many functions as possible in 

the SACWIS in an effort to cut down on the additional paperwork or 

duplicative steps inherent in manual data collection. One of these services, 

tracking independent living, is becoming more important for states as HHS 

decides how to implement the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 and 

considers the development of the NYTD.9

 Some states have already started 

collecting data on older youth and the services they receive. Currently, 

27 states reported in our survey that they are at some stage of using their 

SACWIS to track independent living services, and an additional 14 states 

plan to include this component in their system in preparation for the 

 8

Although the Iowa state officials described their SACWIS as including the child abuse and 

neglect system, HHS commented on a draft of this report that it does not view the child 

abuse and neglect system as part of the state’s SACWIS. However, HHS said that the state 

has met the SACWIS requirement in this area by building an interface between the two 

systems. 

9

The Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 increased federal support to states for 

independent living programs—programs designed to assist youth who are identified as 

likely to remain in foster care until age 18. Independent living services can include 

education or training necessary for the youth to obtain employment. 
Page 14 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

requirements. However, 21 of the 46 states reporting to our survey that 

they are developing or operating a SACWIS reported that they would have 

to make substantial changes to their SACWIS in order to capture this 

information. 

Table 3: Selected SACWIS Child Welfare and Administrative Services 

Service 

Fully or partially 

operational in SACWIS

Planned 

for SACWIS

Child Welfare Services 

Child protectiona 38 5

Out of home careb 35 8

Adoption 34 9

Independent living 27 14

Intensive home-based servicesc27 13

Administrative Services 

Workload management 32 8

IV-E eligibilityd 29 14

Foster care maintenance 

payments 28 14

Adoption assistance payments 25 17

Contract provider payment 24 15

Source: GAO survey. 

Note: Based on responses from 46 states developing or operating a SACWIS. The rows for the 

columns “fully or partially operational” and “planned” do not add to 46 because the respondents may 

have answered “not supported,” “don’t know,” or “no answer.” 

a

Child protection includes services such as intake and screening, investigation, and disposition. 

b

Out of home care includes things such as foster care, group homes, and residential placement. 

c

Intensive home-based services include efforts to avoid placing a child in foster care. 

d

IV-E funding is available for foster care, adoption, and independent living services. 

To assist with the design of their SACWIS, states relied on a number of 

different participants including internal users, such as caseworkers and 

managers, information technology (IT) staff, and contractors. Most states 

found these participants to be extremely or very helpful in the process 

(see table 4). In Oklahoma, for example, 150 child welfare staff from the 

field worked closely with the contractor in intensive work group sessions 

to design and test the system. To complement the caseworkers’ knowledge 

of child welfare practice, 43 states relied on IT staff. In Colorado, for 

example, IT staff said that during SACWIS design and development, they 

shared office space with program staff that had been assigned to help with 
Page 15 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

SACWIS development. This co-location of staff aided in the exchange of 

information pertaining to the development of the system. Finally, 42 states 

reported that they hired private contractors to conduct a large part of 

SACWIS design and development. The contractors helped states meet 

federal requirements, designed the system with state specific options, 

wrote the necessary software, tested and implemented the system, and 

trained users. 

Table 4: Commonly Used SACWIS Development Participants and Their Level of 

Helpfulness 

SACWIS development 

participant 

Number of states 

using participant 

Number of states rating participant 

as extremely or very helpful

Internal users 44 41

IT staff 43 31

Private contractors 42 37

Source: GAO survey. 

Note: Based on responses from 46 states developing or operating a SACWIS. 

At the time of our review, HHS reported that 4 states were not pursuing 

SACWIS development and most of these states reported various reasons in 

our survey for not developing a system. In Hawaii, the child welfare 

agency chose not to pursue SACWIS because it already had a statewide 

system in place that it believed was adequately meeting its needs and 

which was collecting and reporting federal child welfare data. After an 

attempt to develop a system, North Carolina cancelled its efforts because 

it could not build consensus across its 100 counties on the design of a 

uniform system. On our site visit to North Carolina, child welfare officials 

reported that they are currently working on a statewide information 

system that will encompass a number of social services, such as food 

stamps and mental health services, but an HHS official reported that North 

Carolina is not seeking federal SACWIS funding to support the 

development of this system. Vermont officials reported that they did not 

pursue SACWIS because the legislature declined to provide the matching 

state funds. In retrospect, they believe that the choice not to develop 

SACWIS was best for the state because they found the SACWIS 

requirements too restrictive to enable the state to design a system to meet 

its needs. Officials said that the state would not use a number of the 

required SACWIS components, such as developing all the required 

electronic links to other agencies’ systems, especially since the state has a 

small child welfare population. Another state—North Dakota—did not 

report in our survey the reason for stopping SACWIS development; 
Page 16 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

however, HHS officials reported that the state had attempted to develop a 

SACWIS, but faced a variety of problems, such as receiving state funding. 

While most state child welfare agency officials said they recognize the 

benefits the state will achieve by developing SACWIS, such as enhancing 

their ability to track the whereabouts of foster children, 31 state agencies 

lag behind the time frames they set for completion, with 26 states 

reporting delays ranging from 2 months to 8 years. State officials reported 

in our survey and during site visits that SACWIS has contributed to more 

efficient and effective agency functioning, which can improve states’ 

capabilities to manage their child welfare cases, including keeping track of 

where the children are living and the services they are receiving. Child 

welfare officials in Colorado reported that automation has improved 

agency functioning by making child welfare case information available 

statewide, which is especially helpful when families move from one county 

to another. In Oklahoma, caseworkers and state officials noted that they 

believe their children are safer since the implementation of SACWIS 

simply because the information on the children is easily accessible to the 

caseworkers and their supervisors. According to survey results, automated 

systems provided easier access to data and allowed caseworkers to better 

monitor children in their care, which may contribute to additional child 

welfare and administrative benefits, such as decreased incidences of child 

abuse and neglect, shortened length of time to achieve adoption, 

timeliness of payments to foster families, and timeliness of payments to 

foster facilities (see table 5). New Jersey reported in our survey that its 

goal in developing a SACWIS is to integrate the more than 40 stand-alone 

systems that currently capture information on the children served by their 

child welfare agency. By pulling all of these systems together into a 

uniform SACWIS, the state hopes to improve the recording of casework 

activities in a timely manner and to develop a tool to better target 

resources and services. Effectively integrating these systems will require 

the state to use a disciplined IT management approach that includes 

(1) detailed analyses of users’ needs and requirements, (2) a clearly 

defined strategy for addressing information needs, and (3) sufficient 

technical expertise and resources to support the effort. 

States Accrue Benefits 

from Using SACWIS, but 

Several Issues Create 

Delays in Completing 

States’ Systems 
Page 17 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

Table 5: State-Reported Benefits of SACWIS Development 

Child welfare benefits 

Number of states identifying SACWIS 

as extremely or very effective in 

achieving measure

Decreased incidence of child abuse and 

neglect 25

Shortened length of time to achieve adoption 24

Decreased recurrence of child maltreatment 23

Shortened length of time to achieve 

reunification 22

Management benefits 

Timeliness of payment to foster families 36

Timeliness of payment to foster facilities 34

Overall case management for children and 

families 33

Timeliness of child abuse and neglect 

investigations 33

Source: GAO survey. 

Note: Based on responses from 46 states developing or operating SACWIS. States not included 

answered “moderately effective,” “somewhat effective,” “not at all effective,” “not a state goal,” 

“system doesn’t support,” “don’t know,” or “no answer.” 

Despite the benefits that many states have accrued with SACWIS, 31 states 

reported in our survey that they have been delayed in system completion 

beyond their initial deadline and identified a number of challenges that 

have led to the delay (see table 6).10 Some of the common difficulties states 

reported in developing SACWIS included receiving state funding approval, 

reaching internal agreement on system development, and creating a 

system that reflects child welfare work processes and is user friendly (see 

table 7). 

 10Twelve of the 46 states reporting that they are developing or operating a SACWIS 

reported that they have not experienced delays in developing their systems. In response to 

the length of the delays reported by 26 states in our survey, ACF commented on a draft of 

this report that these states may be using different definitions in defining their delays. 

However, ACF did not provide further information on how the delays represented in this 

report differ from its perception of states’ experiences. In our survey, we asked states to 

report on the delays that exceeded the time line outlined in their initial APD. 
Page 18 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

Table 6: Number of Months States Delayed in SACWIS Development 

State Length of delay in monthsa

Alabama 36

Arkansas 6

California 36

Colorado 26

Connecticut 96

District of Columbia 36

Georgia 25

Idaho 21

Illinois 79

Indiana 6

Kansas 72

Louisiana 12

Maryland 12

Michigan 26

Minnesota 12

Mississippi 12

New Jersey 42

New Mexico 3

Ohio 36

Oregon 70

Rhode Island 14

South Carolina 47

Tennessee 36

Utah 48

Virginia 2

Washington 36

Source: GAO survey. 

Note: While 31 states reported in the survey that they have experienced a delay in SACWIS 

development, only 26 states reported the length of their delay. The survey was issued in October 

2002 and completed by states as late as December 2002. 

a

States were asked to report the number of months the delays exceeded the time line outlined in their 

APD. 
Page 19 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

Table 7: Common SACWIS Development Challenges 

SACWIS development challenges 

Number of states experiencing at 

least some challengea

Receiving state funding approval 42 

Reaching internal agreement on system 

development 41 

Creating a system that reflects work 

processes 40 

Creating a user friendly system 39 

Insufficient state funding allocation 32 

Securing contractors with knowledge of child 

welfare 32 

Source: GAO survey. 

Note: Based on responses from 46 states developing or operating a SACWIS. 

a

States were asked the extent to which certain factors were a challenge in developing SACWIS using 

the following scale: very great, great, moderate, some, or no challenge. The number of states 

reported in our analysis of challenges represents the total number of states reporting any extent the 

factor posed a challenge. States not included answered “no challenge,” “have not yet reached this 

stage,” “don’t know,” or “no answer.” 

Forty-two states reported challenges receiving funding approval, and 

32 states reported that insufficient state funding allocations for SACWIS 

development were a challenge in developing a comprehensive system. For 

example, Vermont officials reported that the state legislature declined to 

provide the matching state funds needed to secure federal funding for 

SACWIS. As a result, the state could not pursue development. In addition 

to the development challenges reported in our survey, 2 of the 5 states we 

visited reported that insufficient funding affected ongoing SACWIS 

maintenance. In Colorado, state agencies have received a series of budget 

cuts, which child welfare officials report have impacted their ability to 

respond to child welfare caseworkers’ needs for system improvements. In 

Iowa, child welfare officials reported that the state legislature 

appropriated $17,000 for state fiscal year 2002 for all child welfare 

automated systems activity, which they noted was an insufficient amount 

to maintain and upgrade systems as well as to pay staff. They reported 

that, as a result, the child welfare agency provided the information 

systems department with approximately $1 million from other parts of the 

agency’s budget. 

Despite user involvement in system design, some states still faced 

challenges trying to reach internal agreement among agency officials and 

caseworkers on the design of a system, resulting in a delay in 

development. In New York—a state where the counties are responsible for 
Page 20 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

administering child welfare services—the development of SACWIS was 

stalled when significant frustration with the system’s design led 

Commissioners from five large counties and New York City to request that 

the state stop SACWIS development until a reassessment of the design and 

plans for the implementation of the system was completed. After a 

thorough evaluation of the project, the state made changes to the project 

plan and developed statewide work groups to ensure all counties were in 

agreement with the system design. In addition, they hired a contractor to 

monitor system development and ensure that all users’ requirements are 

seriously considered. 

Similarly, despite states’ heavy reliance on contractors, many reported that 

securing contractors with knowledge of child welfare practice was a 

challenge for timely SACWIS development. Contractors are hired by the 

state for their system development knowledge but often are unfamiliar 

with child welfare policies and practices, especially since they vary from 

state to state. Officials in Colorado, for example, said they encountered 

difficulties with their contractors because of high turnover among the 

contractor staff and their lack of knowledge of child welfare policies. A 

contractor who has worked with 7 states to develop their SACWIS 

reported that contractors are asked to learn the child welfare business 

practices of a state in a short amount of time and that states cannot devote 

many resources, such as caseworkers, to help in the design process 

because caseworkers need to devote their time to providing services to 

children and families. Therefore, contractors often have to acquire 

knowledge on their own. 

Many states reported that creating a system that reflects child welfare 

work processes and is user friendly was a challenge in developing 

SACWIS. These issues were also identified in the federal reviews of states’ 

SACWIS. For example, one state explained in the SACWIS review that it 

had designed a system to meet the caseworkers’ needs and reflect the 

nature of the child welfare work processes by developing a system that 

required events to be documented as they occurred. However, this design 

limited the SACWIS’s functionality because it did not allow the 

caseworkers to go back and enter information after an event happened. 

The state explained that caseworkers do not use the system in real time, 

but provide services to the children and families and then record the 

information in the system. The state had to redesign the system to correct 

for this design flaw. In addition, the 14 states reporting that they have 

adapted a system from another state have experienced some challenge 

modifying the systems to reflect their work processes. While HHS advises 

states to consider adapting another state’s system if it requires few 
Page 21 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

changes, states report that they and their contractors were not always 

aware of the changes that would need to be made to adapt a system. 

Although Colorado and New York decided to modify another state’s 

SACWIS instead of designing a new system, child welfare officials in these 

states reported that adapting a SACWIS from another state has created 

more problems than anticipated. Colorado and New York adapted systems 

from state-administered child welfare agencies, which required extensive 

modifications to meet their needs as county-administered states. For 

example, Colorado needed a system that supported its administrative 

structure and could handle a larger number of cases. 

HHS has assisted states in a variety of ways in developing and completing 

their SACWIS.11 As a part of its regulatory responsibilities, HHS must 

review, assess, and inspect the planning, design, development, installation, 

and operation of SACWIS. In addition to reviewing and monitoring states’ 

APDs, HHS conducts on-site SACWIS reviews to comply with these 

responsibilities. HHS officials told us that these reviews are a detailed and 

thorough assessment of state systems to ensure the systems’ compliance 

with SACWIS requirements. In addition, officials reported that they 

provide verbal technical assistance during the on-site review to help states 

that do not fully conform with the applicable regulations and policies. At 

the time of our review, HHS had conducted 26 SACWIS reviews—5 of 

which were determined as meeting all the requirements and classified as 

complete. HHS officials told us that since states have the flexibility to 

build a SACWIS that meets their needs, a large portion of the formal 

reviews concentrate on ensuring that the systems conform to state 

business practices. For example, while SACWIS regulations require that a 

state report all AFCARS data from their SACWIS, one state HHS reviewed 

relied on a separate state system to report data on the children served by 

the juvenile justice agency who are eligible for IV-E foster care funds. The 

state proved it had developed an automated process to merge data from 

both systems to compile a single AFCARS report that included children 

captured in both their SACWIS and juvenile justice systems. Therefore, 

 11With regard to the budget difficulties that states reported facing, since 1994 the federal 

government has made a commitment to help states develop and maintain their SACWIS by 

matching 75 percent of states’ development funds through 1997 and providing an ongoing 

match of 50 percent of state funding for the development and maintenance of their 

systems. However, since the states’ legislatures must make the initial commitment to fund 

SACWIS, the federal government cannot assist state child welfare agencies with this 

challenge. 

HHS Provides Some 

Assistance to Help States 

Meet SACWIS 

Requirements 
Page 22 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

HHS recognized that this process best met the state’s needs and 

determined the SACWIS to be complete and meeting all requirements. 

Few systems have been determined complete after an on-site review 

because of unresolved issues, such as not being able to build links to other 

state information systems or not implementing certain eligibility 

determination functions. To help states address some of these 

development challenges, the SACWIS review team provides the state with 

recommendations for complying with SACWIS requirements. For example, 

HHS observed during a review in one state that the SACWIS was available 

statewide, but information collected in one county was not available to 

caseworkers in other counties. The federal officials offered 

recommendations to the state to meet the SACWIS requirement that all 

information be available statewide. In addition, HHS officials reported that 

once the draft report with the results of the SACWIS review are 

completed, federal staff schedule a conference call with the state officials 

to walk through the system’s deficiencies and offer guidance on how the 

state can move forward. 

HHS facilitates the sharing of information between states developing 

SACWIS through an automated system users group that allows state and 

federal officials to exchange information, ideas, and concerns. According 

to some state and HHS officials, the trust level at these meetings is very 

high, which promotes open discussions and also creates an atmosphere 

for informal dialogue with HHS. The systems users group developed out of 

another active group—the child welfare users group—when HHS solicited 

state representatives to help HHS define a model child welfare information 

system, which was later used as the basis for the SACWIS functional 

requirements after the passage of the 1993 legislation authorizing 

enhanced federal funding. State officials in Iowa and New York reported 

that the systems users group continues to play an important role in 

providing a forum for the honest exchange of information on SACWIS 

development. For example, child welfare and technical officials in New 

York said that the systems users group has been very beneficial because 

they have learned from other states’ positive and negative experiences in 

developing SACWIS, as well as the experiences unique to states with 

county-administered agencies. In addition to the users group, HHS officials 

also sponsor a listserv—an electronic mailing list—that allows state 

officials to exchange information, and a monthly conference call with state 

information technology directors. Iowa child welfare information 
Page 23 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

technology officials said that they find the monthly SACWIS telephone 

conference call helpful because project managers discuss issues such as 

promising practices and new regulations.12

Technical assistance for SACWIS development is also available to states 

through the National Resource Center for Information Technology in Child 

Welfare (Resource Center). According to survey results, 9 states said they 

used the Resource Center for assistance in developing SACWIS and 

14 states reported using it for help with SACWIS maintenance and 

improvements. According to Resource Center officials, they assist states 

with SACWIS development by helping states understand the technology 

that is available for use, providing information on the automation of child 

welfare work and converting data, and reviewing the APD documentation. 

For example, the Resource Center offered technical assistance to 

Pennsylvania to help the state decide if it should continue development of 

its current SACWIS, abandon the SACWIS project and allow the counties 

to operate individual systems, or design a different SACWIS. The Resource 

Center evaluated the current SACWIS to determine if it could capture 

information based on the SACWIS regulations and if it was user friendly 

for the caseworker. Following the Resource Center’s analysis, 

Pennsylvania decided to discontinue the existing SACWIS and develop a 

new SACWIS. When the Resource Center opened in 1999—5 years after 

many states started developing SACWIS—staff were not very familiar with 

many of the efforts states made during development. In an attempt to 

remedy this lack of knowledge on states’ issues developing SACWIS, 

Resource Center staff participated in some of the on-site SACWIS reviews 

conducted by HHS. Both HHS and Resource Center officials believe this 

exposure to the SACWIS systems enhanced the availability of technical 

assistance resources and knowledge available to the states. 

 12In commenting on a draft of this report, HHS indicated that a Web resource is available to 

states interested in learning about other states’ efforts to develop human services—child 

welfare, food stamps, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, child care, and child 

support enforcement—information systems at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/nhsitrc. 
Page 24 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

Several factors affect states’ ability to collect and report reliable13 data on 

children served by state child welfare agencies, and some problems exist, 

such as a lack of clear and documented guidance, with HHS’s oversight 

and technical assistance. Almost all of the states responding to our survey 

reported that insufficient caseworker training and inaccurate and 

incomplete data entry affect the quality of the data reported to HHS.14 In 

addition, 36 of the 5015 states that responded to our survey reported that 

technical challenges, such as matching their state data element definitions 

to HHS’s data categories, affected the quality of the data that they report to 

the federal government. For example, North Carolina officials told us that 

while state policy mandates that they count every location in which a child 

resides, including hospital stays, AFCARS regulations say that hospital 

stays and other short-term placements should not be included in the count 

of foster care placements. In cases where state policy differs from federal 

policy, state officials must carefully re-format their data in order to meet 

federal reporting requirements. Similarly, during assessments of 6 states’ 

compliance with AFCARS reporting standards, HHS found that these 

issues affect data reliability. Despite the assistance that HHS offers to 

states, such as testing state data quality and providing the results to states 

to aid them in resubmitting data, states report ongoing challenges 

receiving clear and documented guidance and accessing technical 

assistance. 

 13Data are reliable when they are complete and accurate. A subcategory of accuracy is 

consistency. Consistency refers to the need to obtain and use data that are clear and welldefined enough to yield similar results in similar analysis. See U.S. General Accounting 

Office, Assessing the Reliability of Computer-Processed Data, GAO-02-15G (Washington, 

D.C.: Sept. 2002). 

14States were asked the extent to which certain problems may decrease the quality of the 

data submitted to AFCARS and NCANDS using the following scale: very great, great, 

moderate, some, and no affect. 

15The analysis of survey responses about reporting data to HHS is based on responses from 

49 states and the District of Columbia. All states, regardless of SACWIS development, were 

asked to complete these questions. 

Several Factors Affect 

the States’ Ability to 

Ensure Reliable Data 

on Children’s 

Experiences, and 

Some of HHS’s 

Oversight and 

Assistance Is 

Problematic 
Page 25 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

Almost every state responding to our survey and all the states we visited 

reported that insufficient training for caseworkers and inaccurate and 

incomplete data entry affect the quality of the data reported to AFCARS 

and NCANDS (see fig. 1). Although most states reported these as separate 

factors, HHS and the states we visited found that insufficient training and 

inaccurate and incomplete data entry are often linked. For example, in 

official reviews of states’ information systems capability to capture data 

and report them to AFCARS, HHS advised states to offer additional 

training to caseworkers on several AFCARS data elements, such as 

recording the reasons for a child leaving foster care, to improve the 

accuracy of the data submitted. Similarly, Oklahoma reported that the 

state found that caseworkers were misinterpreting reports of policy 

violations by foster parents and inaccurately recording them as abuse or 

neglect allegations. However, state officials told us that training is typically 

one of the first programs cut when states face tight budget restrictions. 

For example, Iowa officials told us that training has been significantly 

reduced in recent years because of budget cuts and new workers may wait 

2 to 3 months before being trained how to enter data appropriately into 

their SACWIS. 

Insufficient Caseworker 

Training and Inaccurate 

and Incomplete Data Entry 

Are the Most Common 

Factors That Affect Data 

Reliability 
Page 26 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

Figure 1: Most Common Caseworker Issues That Affect Data Quality 

Notes: Based on responses from 50 states. 

The results reported in the figure are a sum of the states that reported the issue had a very great 

affect, great affect, moderate affect, or some affect on the quality of state data submitted to HHS. 

Very great and great affect responses are represented in the top section of each bar. Moderate and 

some affect responses are represented in the bottom section of each bar. States not included 

answered “no affect,” “don’t know,” or “no answer.” 

Inaccurate and incomplete data entry can also result from a number of 

other factors, such as caseworkers’ hesitation to ask families for sensitive 

information. For example, caseworkers in Oklahoma reported that they 

did not feel comfortable asking if a child’s mother was married at the time 

of birth or if a child is of Hispanic origin—both of which are required 

AFCARS data elements. In commenting on a draft of this report, Oklahoma 

added that caseworkers did not understand why the data elements were 

required and how the federal government used the information. In 

addition, Iowa state officials said that caseworkers may guess the racial 

backgrounds of children in their care or record them as unknown, 

especially when children come from mixed racial backgrounds, rather 

than asking the family for the information. HHS noted similar issues in 

States reporting at least some affect in data quality

0

10

20

30

40

50

Inaccurate data

entry by

caseworkers

Insufficient

training for

caseworkers

Incomplete data

entry by

caseworkers

AFCARS

NCANDS

Source: GAO survey.

49

45

49

42

46

43

18

31

12

33

15

34

11

31

17

29

12

31
Page 27 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

5 states that have had an AFCARS review.16 Caseworkers were 

inaccurately recording a child’s race as “unable to determine” even though 

this option should be selected only if the child’s parents or relatives 

cannot provide the information, such as when a child is abandoned.17

Caseworkers, supervisors, and managers in the 5 states we visited 

reported that additional factors, such as difficulties balancing data entry 

with the time that they spend with the families and children, contributed 

to inaccurate or incomplete data entry. In addition, our recent work on 

caseworker recruitment and retention found that caseworkers struggle to 

balance the time they spend with children and data entry, and reportedly 

spend at least 50 percent of their time documenting case records.18

Supervisors in Iowa explained that since caseworkers are responsible for 

ensuring that children and their families receive the services they need, the 

caseworkers tend to initially limit data entry to the information that is 

necessary to ensure timely payment to foster care providers, and complete 

all other data elements when the caseworkers have time. In addition, 

caseworkers in Colorado said that they are between 30 and 60 days behind 

in their data entry, so the information in the automated system may not 

accurately reflect the current circumstances of children in care. The 

caseworkers reported that they tend to concentrate only on entering data 

that will allow them to open a case in their SACWIS. HHS’s Inspector 

General recently issued a report in which more than two-thirds of the 

states reported that caseworkers’ workloads, turnover, a lack of training, 

and untimely and incomplete data entry affected the reporting of AFCARS 

data.19

 16We reviewed AFCARS reports from 6 of the 8 states assessed by HHS—Arkansas, 

Connecticut, New Mexico, Texas, Vermont, and Wyoming. HHS conducted reviews in 

Delaware and West Virginia after we completed our analysis. 

17In commenting on a draft of this report, ACF said that the finding from the AFCARS 

reviews indicates that information is often defaulted to the response “unable to determine” 

in order for the element not to fail the missing data standard, not that workers are 

recording “unknown”; however, the report findings we used in this analysis instruct states 

to fix the defaults and address caseworker practice by enhancing training on the correct 

use of “unable to determine” when noting a child’s race. 

18See U.S. General Accounting Office, Child Welfare: HHS Could Play a Greater Role in 

Helping Child Welfare Agencies Recruit and Retain Staff, GAO-03-357 (Washington, D.C.: 

Mar. 31, 2003). 

19Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, Adoption and 

Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS): Challenges and Limitations,

OEI-07-01-00660 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2003). 
Page 28 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

In addition to data quality being affected by caseworker issues, many 

states experienced technical challenges reporting their data to HHS. The 

problems reported by states are typically a result of challenges associated 

with data “mapping”—matching state data elements to the federal data 

elements. For example, 36 states reported in our survey that matching 

their state-defined data to HHS’s definitions affected the quality of the data 

reported to NCANDS and AFCARS. Similarly, 24 states reported that 

matching the more detailed data options available in their states’ 

information systems to the federal data elements affected the quality of 

the data reported to NCANDS. Twenty-nine states reported that this issue 

created challenges in reporting data to AFCARS. For example, following 

an AFCARS assessment, HHS instructed a state that collects detailed 

information on children’s disabilities, such as Downs Syndrome, Attention 

Deficit Disorder, and eating disorders, to map the information to the more 

limited options in AFCARS, such as mental retardation and emotionally 

disturbed. The Inspector General’s report found that states faced similar 

challenges mapping their data to meet the AFCARS reporting 

requirements. 

In many cases, states have to balance state policy with federal 

requirements to ensure that they are reporting accurate data to AFCARS 

and NCANDS, but are not contradicting their state policies. For example, 

Texas officials reported that although the findings of their AFCARS review 

instructed them to modify their SACWIS to collect, map, and extract data 

on guardianship placements, the state does not support guardianship 

arrangements.20 In addition, a recent report from the Child Welfare League 

of America (CWLA) found that when reporting the number of times 

children move from one foster care placement to another, states varied in 

the type of placements included in that count.21 For example, 29 percent of 

the states responding to CWLA’s survey included respite,22 25 percent 

included runaways, and 16 percent included trial home visits when 

reporting the number of placements a child had during the AFCARS report 

period. According to federal guidance, the “number of placements” 

element is meant to gather information on the number of times the child 

 20Guardianship arrangements occur when permanent legal custody of a child is awarded to 

an individual, such as a relative, but the child is not legally adopted. 

21Child Welfare League of America. National Working Group Highlights, “Placement 

Stability Measure and Diverse Out-of-Home Care Populations” (Washington, D.C., Apr. 

2002). 

22Respite care provides temporary childcare for children away from their caretakers. 

Technical Challenges, such 

as Matching State 

Definitions to Federal 

Definitions, Affect Data 

Reliability 
Page 29 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

welfare agency found it necessary to move a child while in foster care and 

that by including runaways or trial home visits, a state is inflating the 

number of moves a child experienced. However, North Carolina officials 

told us that although the federal definition for placements instructs states 

not to include such stays when counting the number of children’s foster 

care placements, the state instructs them to count each time a child is 

sleeping in a different place as a new placement. The Inspector General 

reported that the placement definitions were the most commonly cited 

source of confusion among the states surveyed.23

In addition to the challenges reported in our survey, HHS reported that 

transferring data from older data systems into SACWIS affects the quality 

of the data reported to AFCARS and NCANDS. HHS officials reported that 

they have observed that states experience the biggest change in data 

quality when they begin reporting from their SACWIS. In general, the first 

data submissions are of low quality because of the time it takes states to 

transfer data or the system re-sets the information for data elements. For 

example, in 1 state, 65 percent of the records reviewed by HHS during an 

AFCARS assessment recorded the date the children were removed from 

their homes as July 28, 1997—the date the SACWIS came on-line; however, 

the actual dates of removal for these children ranged from 1988 to 1997. 

HHS provides technical assistance for AFCARS and NCANDS reporting 

through a number of resources. HHS officials in the central office and 

NCANDS contractor staff serve as the points of contact for states to ask 

questions and seek guidance on reporting child welfare data. HHS officials 

reported that assistance is offered in a number of ways, including 

telephone and e-mail communication. The officials in 3 of the 5 states that 

we visited said that the one-on-one focused technical assistance was 

useful when provided in a timely fashion. Most state officials found the 

NCANDS data easier to report, in part because more people were available 

for consultation and they were more accessible and responsive. For 

example, states have access to four NCANDS specialists and staff in the 

contractor’s central office when they need assistance reporting child 

abuse and neglect information. However, some of the states we visited 

 23Although the findings from the Inspector General’s report and our study are more recent, 

ACF commented on a draft of this report that it issued policy clarifications regarding 

placement information on July 5, 2002. 

Although HHS Has Taken 

Steps to Help States 

Improve Their Data, Some 

Problems with Its Efforts 

Exist 
Page 30 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

reported that only one or two staff in HHS’s central office are available to 

assist with AFCARS reporting. 

In addition, the Resource Center offers states assistance with improving 

data quality; however, Resource Center staff reported that the assistance is 

geared more towards improving the limited data used in the federal review 

process to monitor states’ compliance with child welfare laws and federal 

outcome measures—CFSR—rather than all the data reported to HHS. The 

Resource Center also sponsors an annual information technology 

conference during which sessions covering all data-related issues are held, 

including practices for ensuring data quality and outcome evaluation in 

child welfare. 

In conjunction with the national data conference, the HHS officials and the 

contractors that operate NCANDS hold an annual technical assistance 

meeting for states to share ideas with one another, discuss data elements 

that pose difficulties, and explore ways to address these problems. For 

example, at a recent technical assistance meeting, approximately 43 state 

representatives attended sessions on preparing the calendar year 2002 

NCANDS data submissions and received a detailed explanation of how the 

NCANDS staff test states’ data submissions for quality. In addition, an 

NCANDS state advisory group meets annually to talk with HHS officials 

about NCANDS data and their experiences reporting data. From these 

meetings, the state advisory group proposes changes or improvements to 

NCANDS. HHS and state officials reported that this partnership has helped 

ease some of the challenges in reporting child abuse and neglect data. 

In addition to the direct assistance through consultation with HHS officials 

and the Resource Center, HHS has made available to states the software it 

uses to examine states’ AFCARS and NCANDS submissions for 

inconsistencies and invalid data. Officials in all the states we visited said 

that they regularly use this software, and an HHS official said that nearly 

every state has used the software at least once. When the data are 

submitted to HHS, they are run through the same software, and HHS 

notifies the states of areas where data are missing or inconsistent and 

allows the states to resubmit the data after errors are corrected. For 

example, HHS officials said that they worked with one state that was 

trying to determine the source of data errors in reporting to AFCARS the 

race or ethnicity of children in their care. The state was not able to 

determine the source of the problem, so an HHS official examined the 

state’s submissions and helped correct the data errors. The officials 

reported that these tests help them to identify some data quality errors, 

such as missing data, and said that they believe that, in general, data have 
Page 31 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

improved in recent years. However, they indicated that the tests cannot 

pinpoint the underlying problems contributing to these errors. 

Furthermore, one official reported that no specific efforts have been 

conducted to track the individual data elements and, therefore, HHS 

cannot report on how data quality has changed over time. The results of 

these quality tests had been the basis for penalties levied against states 

that submitted low quality AFCARS data before the penalties were 

rescinded. HHS officials reported that the penalties served as an effective 

motivation to states to correct their data. Although HHS was not able to 

report how the lack of penalties might be affecting recent data quality, an 

official reported that the agency plans to conduct this analysis in the 

future. 

In an attempt to help states comply with the reporting standards and 

address some of the factors that contribute to data quality problems, HHS 

performs comprehensive reviews of state information systems’ ability to 

capture AFCARS data to identify problems associated with data collection 

and reporting, and to ensure that the information in the automated system 

correctly reflects children’s experiences in care. The assessments include 

a technical review of the states’ computer code, a comparison of the data 

from selected cases available in the information system to the case files, 

and an improvement plan to resolve any errors. In addition, HHS officials 

offer guidance to the states on improvements that can be made to the 

information system and changes to program code used to report the 

AFCARS data. HHS conducted pilot reviews in eight states between 1996 

and 2000. By March 2003, HHS had conducted eight official reviews—even 

though states began reporting to AFCARS in 1995. According to results 

from six of the eight official AFCARS assessments we reviewed, no state 

met the reporting requirements for all AFCARS data elements. Table 8 

shows a selection of the data elements and the states’ ratings. The 

problems noted in the reviews are similar to those we heard from states 

responding to our survey and those we visited. For example, most states 
Page 32 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

received ratings of 2 or 3, indicating technical and/or data entry errors that 

affect the AFCARS data quality.24

Table 8: Selected AFCARS Elements and Six States’ Levels of Compliance in Meeting Reporting Requirements 

Data Elements 

Rating factora

(# of states)

Foster Care 

Child race 

(American Indian or Alaska native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or 

other Pacific Islander, White, unable to determine) 

2 (4 states)

3 (1 state)

4 (1 state)

Has the child been diagnosed with a disability? 

(yes, no, not yet determined) 

2 (6 states)

Mental retardation, visually/hearing impaired, physically disabled, emotionally disturbed, 

other diagnosed conditionb 

(does not apply, applies) 

2 (5 states)

3 (1 state)

Has child ever been adopted? 

(yes, no, unable to determine) 

1 (1 state)

2 (3 states)

3 (2 states)

Total number of removals from homec2 (3 states)

3 (2 states)

4 (1 state)

Date of discharge from previous episodec2 (3 states)

3 (2 states)

4 (1 state)

Date of latest removalc 2 (3 states)

3 (3 states)

Date of placement in current setting 2 (5 states)

4 (1 state)

Number of previous placement settings in this episodec 2 (6 states)

Current placement setting 

(pre-adoptive home, foster family home-relative, foster family home-nonrelative, group 

home, institution, supervised independent living, runaway, trial home visit) 

2 (4 states)

3 (1 state)

4 (1 state)

Out of state placement (yes, no) 2 (4 states)

3 (1 state)

4 (1 state)

 24A rating of 2 indicates that the state’s information system does not fully meet the 

requirements for AFCARS reporting, whereas if a state receives a 3, the information system 

requirements for AFCARS reporting are in place, but there are data entry problems 

affecting the quality of data. According to an HHS official, data elements that have a 

combination of technical and data entry problems are rated as 2 until the technical issues 

are resolved. HHS will then rate the element as a 3 until the data entry practices are 

changed. A state receives a rating of 4 if in compliance with the AFCARS requirements or a 

1 if the requirement is not addressed in the state’s information system. 
Page 33 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

Data Elements 

Rating factora

(# of states)

Most recent case plan goal 

(reunify with parents or principal care takers, live with other relative(s), adoption, long term 

foster care, emancipation, guardianship, case plan goal not yet established) 

1 (1 state)

2 (5 states)

Date of dischargec2 (2 states)

3 (2 states)

4 (2 states)

Reason for dischargec 

(not applicable, reunification with parent(s) or primary caretaker(s), living with other 

relative(s), adoption, emancipation, guardianship, transfer to another agency, runaway, 

death of child) 

2 (4 states)

3 (1 state)

4 (1 state)

Adoption 

Child race 

(American Indian or Alaska native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or 

other Pacific Islander, White, unable to determine) 

2 (4 states)

3 (1 state)

4 (1 state)

Primary basis for determining special needs 

(not applicable; racial/original background; age; membership in a sibling group; medical 

conditions or mental, physical, or emotional disabilities; other) 

2 (6 states)

Mental retardation, physically disabled, emotionally disturbedb 

(does not apply, applies) 

2 (5 states)

3 (1 state)

Visually/hearing impaired 

(does not apply, applies) 

2 (4 states)

3 (2 states)

Other diagnosed condition 

(does not apply, applies) 

2 (6 states)

Source: HHS. 

Note: Analysis based on results of AFCARS reviews in 6 states. States are rated on 66 foster care 

elements and 37 adoption elements. 

a

HHS rates each data element using a four-point scale: (1) the AFCARS requirement(s) has not been 

implemented in the information system; (2) the technical system requirements for AFCARS reporting 

do not fully meet the standards; (3) the technical system requirements for AFCARS reporting are in 

place, but there are data entry problems affecting the quality of the data; (4) all of the AFCARS 

requirements have been met. 

b

States are rated on each category. The data elements were combined for purposes of this analysis. 

c

AFCARS data element used in the CFSR. 

State officials in these 6 states reported that they found the reviews useful 

for improving their AFCARS data submissions. In particular, they valued 

the thorough review by HHS officials of the computer code states use to 

report the data. Some of these officials reported that if all states were 

reviewed, the quality of data available in AFCARS would improve 

tremendously. However, HHS officials reported that they are not 

mandated to conduct the AFCARS reviews and that priority is placed on 

other reviews, such as the CFSR and SACWIS reviews. In addition, 

officials explained that the AFCARS reviews are not conducted in states 

developing SACWIS until the systems are operational. HHS expects to 
Page 34 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

complete approximately four reviews each year depending on available 

resources and has scheduled states through 2006. Similar to the SACWIS 

reviews, HHS officials offer recommendations and technical assistance to 

states during the review on how they can improve the quality of the data 

reported to AFCARS. 

Although the states we visited appreciated some of HHS’s efforts to assist 

with improving state data quality, they and most states responding to our 

survey agreed that the assistance is not always consistent or easily 

accessible (see fig. 2). States reported similar information to the Inspector 

General—AFCARS data elements were not clearly and consistently 

defined and technical assistance is effective but difficult to access. 
Page 35 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

Figure 2: Federal Practices That Affect Data Quality 

Notes: Based on responses from 50 states. 

The results reported in the figure are a sum of the states that reported the issue had a very great 

affect, great affect, moderate affect, or some affect on the quality of state data submitted to HHS. 

Very great and great affect responses are represented in the top section of each bar. Moderate and 

some affect responses are represented in the bottom section of each bar. States not included 

answered “no affect,” “don’t know,” or “no answer.” 

The primary concerns reported by the states we visited were delays in 

receiving clear, written guidance on defining and reporting certain data 

elements and the lack of state input in suggesting changes to AFCARS. 

Despite the written guidance available to states in the form of regulations 

and an on-line policy manual, states reported that the variation in state 

policies and practices make it difficult to interpret how to apply the 

general guidance. As a result, states consult with HHS to ensure they are 

applying the regulations appropriately. However, in commenting on a draft 

of this report, officials in Oklahoma told us that a common concern among 

the states is the lack of timely response from HHS when seeking guidance 

on how to report data. In addition, officials in New York explained they 

0

10

20

30

40

50

AFCARS

NCANDS

States reporting at least some affect in data quality

Source: GAO survey.

Imprecise

definitions for

required fields

Lack of clear,

documented

guidance

Difficulty

accessing

technical

assistance

and guidance

45

35

41

25

35

17

17

28

9

26

11

30

5

20

6

29 4

13
Page 36 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

have made it a practice to check the HHS Web site on a regular basis for 

current guidance, but have not found it a useful tool, and may turn to other 

states for guidance on AFCARS reporting. In commenting on a draft of this 

report, HHS explained that it first refers states to its Web site for 

information and believes that the available guidance addresses states’ 

concerns in most instances. In addition, the states that have had an 

AFCARS review experienced delays in obtaining guidance on how to 

proceed following the on-site review. Although they found the review to be 

very helpful, some states reported that HHS officials are delayed in 

responding to their questions. For example, Texas officials reported that 

the state sought clarification on its improvement plan and submitted 

additional questions to HHS following the review; however, when we 

spoke with the state officials, they said that they had been waiting 3 

months for a response on how to proceed. An HHS official told us that 

since the review process is relatively new, the agency is still developing a 

process to respond to the states and recognizes that it has not been 

responsive to the states already reviewed. In addition, HHS is taking steps 

to gather feedback from states and other users of AFCARS data to 

determine how to improve the system to make the data more accurate and 

useable. As a part of these efforts, HHS has published a Federal Register

notice soliciting comments and held focus group meetings at national 

conferences. 

The difficulties states face in receiving federal guidance and assistance, as 

well as the other challenges they face in reporting data, may negatively 

impact the reliability of the data available in AFCARS and NCANDS. As a 

result, states are concerned that the national standards used in the CFSR 

are based on unreliable data and should not be used as a basis of 

comparison and potential financial penalty. The variation in states’ 

reporting practices may affect the validity of the measures and may place 

some states at a disadvantage. For example, the CWLA and Inspector 

General studies found that approximately half the states include the 

juvenile justice population in their AFCARS reports, while the other states 
Page 37 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

do not.25 Child welfare experts and some state officials believe that the 

states that include children served by the juvenile justice agency in their 

AFCARS report may report a higher number of re-entries into the child 

welfare system or a higher number of moves within the system when 

compared to states that do not have IV-E agreements26 with their juvenile 

justice systems.27 As a result, a state that includes such children in their 

AFCARS report are likely to fare less favorably when compared to the 

national standard than other states on two outcome measures—foster care 

re-entries and stability of foster care placements—and may face financial 

penalties associated with the CFSR. 

 25Federal guidance states that children who are (1) removed from their home and initially 

placed in a juvenile justice facility are not to be included in AFCARS reporting; (2) in a 

foster care setting who are moved to a juvenile justice facility and who are expected to be 

returned to a foster care setting should continue to be included in the AFCARS reporting 

population; and (3) in a foster care setting and are moved to a juvenile justice facility and 

who become the responsibility of another agency should not be included in the AFCARS 

reporting population. However, these studies show that the arrangements between child 

welfare and juvenile justice agencies vary, which affect the population of children reported 

to AFCARS. For example, some state child welfare agencies have responsibility for all 

children in the juvenile justice system and include these children in their AFCARS reports, 

while other states only report children who are in the custody of the juvenile justice 

system, but receiving Title IV-E funding. 

26According to HHS, state child welfare agencies can claim Title IV-E foster care 

maintenance funds for eligible children for costs incurred by juvenile justice agencies that 

have entered into an agreement with the child welfare agencies. Delinquent children served 

by these agencies who meet the Title IV-E eligibility criteria are eligible for Title IV-E foster 

care maintenance funds. States must meet all Titles IV-B and IV-E program and/or eligibility 

requirements with respect to the children who are adjudicated delinquent and are receiving 

Title IV-E funding or for children in foster care under the placement and care responsibility 

of the child welfare agency. 

27Children in the juvenile justice system may enter care because of behavior problems and 

return home when the behavior is controlled. However, the problem may arise again and 

the child could re-enter state custody. Also, the children may experience a greater number 

of placements while in foster care because of their behavior problems or a “step-down” 

approach that some states use to gradually decrease the level of security required to care 

for the children. 
Page 38 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

Some states are using a variety of practices to address the challenges 

associated with developing SACWIS and improving data reliability, 

although no formal evaluations are available on their effectiveness. To 

address the challenge of developing a system to meet statewide needs, 

states relied on caseworkers and supervisors from local offices to assist in 

the design and testing of the system. Few states reported in our survey 

strategies to overcome the other key challenges, such as limited funding 

and securing knowledgeable contractors, but some states we visited have 

devised some useful approaches. For example, Oklahoma child welfare 

officials—in order to maximize the limited state funding for maintaining 

their SACWIS—reported saving $1 million each year by hiring some of the 

contractors who developed their SACWIS as permanent staff. To improve 

data reliability, the 5 states we visited routinely review their data to 

identify data entry errors so that managers can ensure that the missing 

data are entered appropriately. In addition, some states reported that 

frequent use of the data, such as publishing periodic management reports 

detailing local offices’ performance on outcome measures, helps 

caseworkers understand the importance of entering timely information. 

To overcome development challenges, survey respondents emphasized the 

importance of including system users in the various phases of completing 

SACWIS—planning, design, development, testing, and implementation. 

Past GAO work and other research efforts have determined similar 

approaches as best practices in building information systems.28 Forty-four 

of the 46 states responding to our survey that they are developing or 

operating a SACWIS indicated that they relied on internal users, such as 

caseworkers and supervisors, in the development of their systems and 34 

of these states said that they were extremely helpful participants. The 

extent to which the users were involved in development differed across 

the states. For example, in Texas, caseworkers from all of their child 

welfare regions were recruited to provide input on design and 

development, as well as during initial testing, pilot testing, and 

implementation of the system. Arkansas reported establishing a committee 

made up of users to review the work plan and sign off on recommended 

changes. In addition, states reported that their system users served a 

 28See U.S. General Accounting Office, Executive Guide: Improving Mission Performance 

Through Strategic Information Management and Technology, GAO/AIMD-94-115

(Washington, D.C.: May 1, 1994); Center for Technology in Government, University of 

Albany, SUNY. Tying a Sensible Knot: A Practical Guide to State-Local Information 

Systems. Albany, N.Y., June 1997. 

States Are Using 

Various Practices to 

Overcome System 

Development 

Challenges and 

Improve Data on 

Children’s 

Experiences 

States Are Primarily 

Relying on SACWIS Users 

to Overcome Some of the 

Challenges to Completing 

Their Systems 
Page 39 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

number of purposes, including serving as experts on the different 

specialties within child welfare, such as child abuse, foster care, or 

adoption, and as representatives from local or county offices to assist in 

identifying the diverse approaches to capturing information across the 

state. For example, Indiana reported that caseworkers involved in SACWIS 

development represented the unique needs of the different geographical 

areas of the state and helped design a uniform statewide system to meet 

the diverse needs of large, intermediate, and small local offices. 

Ten states noted that user input should not be limited to frontline workers, 

such as caseworkers, but should include representatives from other areas 

of the agency, such as the financial staff, and other agencies that serve 

children, such as child support enforcement.29 Since many SACWIS link 

with other state information systems, states advised that developing a 

collaborative relationship with other state agencies will help the 

development of the system. While not one of the most common challenges 

reported in our survey, New Hampshire reported that one of its challenges 

with meeting its SACWIS timeframe was not working collaboratively with 

other agencies, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

(TANF)30 and child support enforcement, to develop the payment 

component of SACWIS. Similarly, we previously reported that the 

difficulty developing linkages between social services agencies limits the 

effectiveness of all the programs to serve families.31 To attempt to 

overcome this challenge, 26 of the 46 states responding to our survey that 

they are developing or operating a SACWIS indicated that they included 

external public agency users and 23 reported using representatives from 

other state agencies that serve children in developing their SACWIS. 

Indiana said that a task force made up of representatives from the TANF 

and child support enforcement agencies was developed to design the 

 29The Child Support Enforcement Program is a joint federal, state, and local partnership 

that was established in 1975 under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. Each state runs a 

child support program, which provides four major services: locating non-custodial parents, 

establishing paternity, establishing child support obligations, and collecting child support 

for families. 

30In 1996, the Congress created the block grant Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

program replacing the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and related 

welfare programs. States were given increased flexibility in designing the eligibility criteria 

and benefit rules, which require work in exchange for time-limited benefits. 

31See U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: Improving State Automated 

Systems Requires Coordinated Federal Effort, GAO/HEHS-00-48 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 

27, 2000). 
Page 40 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

linkages between the systems. In addition, Colorado officials reported that 

they are working with the Department of Youth Corrections—an agency 

that shares the SACWIS with child welfare—to ensure that the shared 

screens use the same definitions. 

In addition to seeking input from caseworkers and other system users 

while developing SACWIS, many states continue to include users as a part 

of the implementation teams, to serve as contacts in the field and provide 

ongoing assistance, and to provide input on system enhancements. 

Alabama responded in our survey that the state had “mentors” in each 

county to help caseworkers adjust to the new system. These mentors 

continue to provide ongoing support now that the system is implemented. 

Similarly, Oklahoma developed Field Implementation Teams consisting of 

one contractor and one child welfare staff person. During system 

implementation, the teams went to field offices to provide on-site 

assistance with using SACWIS and becoming accustomed with the new 

method of recording child welfare information. Furthermore, Oklahoma 

recruits experienced child welfare field staff for its SACWIS help desk 

because of their knowledge of the system and child welfare policy and 

practice. 

Although states faced other challenges in completing their SACWIS, few 

reported implementing approaches to overcome the barriers. According to 

survey results, a common problem states faced in developing SACWIS was 

receiving insufficient state funding for development. However, in our 

previous work on managing information technology, we found that the IT 

products can become obsolete in a matter of months rather than years, 

calling for more frequent investments in upgrades and enhancements.32 In 

addition, officials in Iowa told us that maintaining systems takes just as 

much money as building them. States did not report in our survey 

approaches for obtaining more funding for developing SACWIS, and few 

states reported developing strategies in an attempt to overcome the 

challenges associated with tight budgets for maintaining their systems. 

For example, Iowa officials engaged in careful planning with system users 

to ensure that they addressed the highest priorities when enhancing the 

system. In particular, the officials reported that maintaining tight control 

over the development and maintenance processes helps them avoid 

investing inordinate amounts of resources to make corrections to the 

 32See U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing Technology: Best Practices Can Improve 

Performance and Produce Results, GAO/T-AIMD-97-38 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 1997). 
Page 41 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

system. In Oklahoma, child welfare officials reported that they relied on 

the contractors who developed their SACWIS to conduct ongoing 

maintenance activities until the contract expired in 2001. At that time, the 

agency hired some of the contract staff as full-time state employees to 

continue with the maintenance activities. State officials explained that this 

approach ensured continuity of service, in addition to saving the agency 

approximately $1 million each year. Similarly, few states reported on 

approaches to overcome the challenge of finding contractors with 

knowledge of child welfare practice. However, Iowa officials explained 

that once the contract staff are hired, they are required to attend the same 

training as new caseworkers to ensure that they are familiar with the 

state’s child welfare policies and to familiarize themselves with casework 

practices. 

Twenty-eight states reported using approaches to help caseworkers 

identify the data elements that are required for federal reporting and to 

help them better understand the importance of entering timely and 

accurate data. Ten states responding to our survey reported reviewing the 

federal reporting requirements in training sessions as a promising 

approach they use to improve data quality or as a lesson learned. For 

example, Tennessee reported that the state added a component about 

AFCARS to the initial and ongoing training workers receive about using 

SACWIS. The curriculum addresses the AFCARS report in general and the 

individual data elements to help the caseworkers better understand the 

purpose of collecting the information. In Nebraska, a “desk aid” that 

explains the data elements and where and why to enter them in the system 

is available on the caseworkers’ computer desktops. In addition, New York 

has developed a step-by-step guide explaining to workers how NCANDS 

data should be entered, with references to the policy or statute requiring 

the information. 

To improve data reliability, some states have designed their information 

systems with special features to encourage caseworkers to enter the 

information. Four states responding to our survey and 3 states we visited 

designed their SACWIS with color-coded fields to draw attention to the 

data elements that caseworker are required to enter. For example, the 

AFCARS data fields in Oklahoma’s system are coded red until the data are 

entered, after which the fields change to blue. In addition, workers can 

look at a single screen in the Oklahoma system to see what AFCARS data 

elements need to be completed without having to scroll through the entire 

case record. Colorado, Iowa, New York, and Oklahoma have built into 

their systems alerts—also known as “ticklers”—to remind caseworkers 

States Use Strategies, such 

as Producing Reports That 

Identify Missing Data, in an 

Attempt to Improve the 

Reliability of the Data 

Reported to HHS 
Page 42 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

and supervisors of tasks that they need to complete. For example, in Iowa, 

alerts are sent to supervisors if a caseworker fails to enter the data 

necessary to complete a payment to a foster care provider. Whereas, in 

Oklahoma, a stoplight icon on the caseworker’s computer desktop 

reminds the worker when tasks are due. A green light indicates that 

nothing is due within 5 days; a yellow light means that something is due 

within 5 days; and a red light means that something is overdue. 

Caseworkers and supervisors in the states we visited had mixed responses 

about the usefulness and effectiveness of the alerts. Some caseworkers 

found them to be a nuisance, while other caseworkers and supervisors 

found them to be useful tools in managing workloads and prioritizing daily 

tasks. 

Six states reported that the best way to improve data quality was to use 

the data in published reports and hold the caseworkers and supervisors 

accountable for the outcomes of the children in their care. In addition, 6 

states responding to our survey reported using the data available in their 

information systems to measure state outcomes similar to the CFSR. State 

officials reported that this approach is an effective way to get local offices 

invested in the quality of the data. For example, North Carolina publishes 

monthly reports for each county comparing their performance on state 

data indicators, such as the length of time children spend in care, to 

counties of similar size and the state as a whole. County officials reported 

that these reports encourage workers to improve the quality of the data 

collected and entered into the state system since their performance is 

being widely published and compared to other counties. 

In addition, all the states we visited reported that frequent review of their 

data, such as using software from HHS to test their AFCARS and NCANDS 

data to pin-point data entry errors prior to submitting them to HHS, has 

helped improve data quality. When the states identify poor data, they alert 

the caseworkers and supervisors of needed corrections and data entry 

improvements. For example, Colorado runs these reports about 4 to 5 

times a year, with one run occurring approximately 6 weeks before each 

AFCARS submission. When the data specialists find errors, they notify the 

caseworker to clean up the data. New York officials told us that they 

incorporate the results from these tests in training if a consistent pattern 

of errors is identified. 

While most states are developing statewide information systems, 

challenges with data reliability remain. Although SACWIS development is 

delayed in many states, state officials recognize the benefits of having a 

Conclusion 
Page 43 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

uniform system that enhances the states’ ability to monitor the services 

provided and the outcomes for children in their care. Although states 

began reporting to NCANDS in1990 and were mandated to begin reporting 

to AFCARS in 1995, most states continue to face challenges providing 

complete, accurate, and consistent data to HHS. In addition, the results of 

more recent HHS efforts, such as conducting AFCARS-related focus 

groups, are unknown. Reliable data are essential to the federal 

government’s development of policies that address the needs of the 

children served by state child welfare agencies and its ability to assist 

states in improving child welfare system deficiencies. Without welldocumented, clearer guidance and the completion of more comprehensive 

reviews of states’ AFCARS reporting capabilities, states are limited in 

overcoming challenges that affect data reliability. Because these 

challenges still remain, HHS may be using some questionable data as the 

foundation for national reports and national standards for the CFSR and 

may not have a clear picture of how states meet the needs of children in 

their care. 

To improve the reliability of state-reported child welfare data, we are 

recommending that the Secretary of HHS consider, in addition to HHS’s 

recent efforts to improve AFCARS data, ways to enhance the guidance and 

assistance offered to states to help them overcome the key challenges in 

collecting and reporting child welfare data. These efforts could include a 

stronger emphasis placed on conducting AFCARS reviews and more 

timely follow-up to help states implement their improvement plans or 

identifying a useful method to provide clear and consistent guidance on 

AFCARS and NCANDS reporting. 

We obtained comments on a draft of this report from the Department of 

Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families 

(ACF). These comments are reproduced in appendix III. ACF also 

provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated when 

appropriate. 

ACF generally agreed with our findings and commented that the report 

provides a useful perspective of the problems states face in collecting data 

and of ACF’s effort to provide ongoing technical assistance to improve the 

quality of child welfare data. In response to our recommendation, ACF 

said that we categorized its efforts as “recent” and did not recognize the 

long-term efforts to provide AFCARS and NCANDS related guidance to the 

states. Although we did not discuss each effort in depth, we do mention 

Recommendation to 

the Secretary of 

Health and Human 

Services 

Agency Comments 
Page 44 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

the agency’s ongoing efforts in our report. However, we refer to the recent 

efforts in the recommendation in recognition of the agency’s current 

activities to formally obtain, document, and incorporate feedback from the 

states with regard to collecting and reporting adoption and foster care 

data. ACF also noted in its comments that the data definitions need to be 

updated and revised and said it is currently in the process of revising the 

AFCARS regulations to further standardize the information states are to 

report—which we acknowledge in our report. In addition to the steps HHS 

is taking to further improve the AFCARS data, our recommendation 

encourages HHS to consider ways to enhance the ongoing guidance and 

assistance offered to states to help them overcome the key challenges in 

collecting and reporting child welfare data. ACF requested specific 

recommendations on approaches to overcome the difficulty of collecting 

and merging information from multiple state and county programs into a 

single national database. While there may be additional methodologies 

that the agency could use to overcome such challenges, our 

recommendation focuses on improving the guidance already offered to the 

states as a step to helping them better comply with the reporting 

requirements. 

In addition, ACF added that although staff turnover in state child welfare 

agencies is a significant contributor to data quality issues, we did not focus 

on this as a significant factor. ACF also commented that it is firmly 

committed to continue to support the states and to provide technical 

assistance and other guidance as its resources will permit. However, 

because we recently issued a detailed report on a variety of caseworker 

issues,33 we primarily focused in this report on the key data entry 

challenges caseworkers face and refer readers to our previous work for 

additional information on challenges related to caseworker recruitment 

and retention and their affect on child welfare agencies. In commenting on 

our previous work prior to its release, HHS indicated that it does not have 

the authority to require states to address factors that contribute to staff 

turnover, such as high caseloads and said that it has limited resources to 

assist the states in the area of staff recruitment and retention. 

ACF commented that it provided increased funding to the National 

Resource Centers in fiscal year 2003, which they believe will improve 

 33See U.S. General Accounting Office, Child Welfare: HHS Could Play a Greater Role in 

Helping Child Welfare Agencies Recruit and Retain Staff. GAO-03-357. (Washington, D.C.: 

Mar. 31, 2003). 
Page 45 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

ACF’s ability to provide assistance to the states. After receiving the draft 

report for comment, HHS separately provided information on an 

additional service the National Resource Center for Information 

Technology in Child Welfare provides to states. In an effort to assist states 

with improving the quality of their AFCARS data, the Resource Center will 

review states’ programming code used for AFCARS data. As of June 2003, 

HHS reported that the Resource Center provided this assistance to 

Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Nevada, New Jersey, and 

Rhode Island, and 3 states—Maryland, Michigan, and Wisconsin—and the 

District of Columbia have requested the assistance. 

In response to our survey methodology, ACF requested that we explain 

why the territory of Puerto Rico was not included in the state survey. 

Although Puerto Rico receives federal child welfare funds, we traditionally 

focus on the states and therefore do not include the U.S. territories, 

including American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, in the scope of our 

reviews. 

Finally, in response to our discussion of the AFCARS review process, ACF 

provided a few clarifications. During the course of our review, an HHS 

official characterized the AFCARS review process as relatively new and 

explained that the agency is still developing a process to respond to the 

states following the completion of the on-site review. When responding to 

a draft of this report, ACF disagreed with this characterization. ACF 

commented that the review process has been in place since 1996, pointing 

to the pilot reviews as evidence that the agency has a defined process. 

However, when we requested AFCARS reports for review, HHS explained 

that the states undergoing pilot reviews would be re-reviewed and that the 

official process was formalized in 2001 with the release of an AFCARS 

review guide and the start of the official reviews. In addition, ACF 

commented that SACWIS reviews do not take priority over AFCARS 

reviews. However, officials had previously explained that although 

SACWIS and AFCARS reviews can happen at the same time, in practice, 

the AFCARS reviews are scheduled to occur in the states that are 

developing SACWIS after they have participated in a SACWIS review. 

Furthermore, ACF explained that states do not develop their improvement 

plan following the conclusion of the AFCARS review. Instead, ACF 

officials draft the plan for the state. Although state representatives had 

described a challenge in receiving timely feedback on their improvement 

plan, we have changed the language in the report to reflect ACF’s 

comment. 
Page 46 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

We also provided a copy of our draft to child welfare officials in the 5 

states we visited—Colorado, Iowa, North Carolina, New York, and 

Oklahoma. Iowa and New York had technical clarifications, which we in 

incorporated when appropriate. Oklahoma provided additional 

information, which was incorporated. Colorado had no suggested 

corrections or edits. North Carolina did not provide any comments. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its 

issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary 

of Health and Human Services, state child welfare directors, and other 

interested parties. We will make copies available to others on request. In 

addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions or wish to 

discuss this material further, please call me at (202) 512-8403 or Diana 

Pietrowiak at (202) 512-6239. Key contributors to this report are listed in 

appendix IV. 

Cornelia M. Ashby 

Director, Education, Workforce, 

 and Income Security Issues 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 47 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

To determine the progress states have made in developing Statewide 

Automated Child Welfare Information Systems (SACWIS), we surveyed all 

50 states and the District of Columbia through a Web-based survey. We 

pretested the survey instrument in Maryland and the District of Columbia. 

We received responses from 49 states and the District of Columbia. The 

state of Nevada did not respond to the survey. We discarded a question 

that asked states to report the date their advance planning document 

(APD) was approved by the Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS). Due to a technical error, the date was truncated and a valid answer 

was not stored in the responses. Of the 50 survey responses, 46 were from 

states that are pursuing SACWIS development. The 4 states not developing 

SACWIS were asked to skip sections of the survey that asked about 

SACWIS development, system modifications, and supported services and 

links. We did not independently verify the survey responses. In addition, 

we visited 5 states to obtain more detailed and qualitative information 

regarding states’ experiences developing SACWIS. We conducted site 

visits in Colorado, Iowa, New York, North Carolina, and Oklahoma. We 

selected these states to represent a range of SACWIS development stages, 

sizes of foster care populations, and geographic locations. During our site 

visits, we interviewed state and local child welfare staff, state and local 

staff that regularly exchange information with the child welfare agency, 

and private contractors. We also spoke with HHS staff in the central and 

regional offices, National Resource Center officials, contractors involved 

in SACWIS development, and child welfare experts from the Child Welfare 

League of America and the American Public Human Services Association. 

To determine how states and HHS ensure reliable data exist on children 

served by child welfare agencies we surveyed states using the abovementioned survey instrument. In addition, we interviewed state and HHS 

officials on their efforts to analyze and compile data and HHS’s role in 

providing technical assistance to states. We spoke with state officials 

during our site visits and HHS officials in the central and regional offices 

and attended the 6th National Child Welfare Data Conference. We 

obtained and reviewed available SACWIS and Adoption and Foster Care 

Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) reports. At the time of our 

review, HHS had conducted 26 SACWIS reviews. We obtained and 

reviewed 23 reports. The remaining reports were not available for review 

because HHS has not yet completed the report or shared the results with 

the state. Most of the SACWIS reports were considered drafts since many 

states are in the process of resolving issues with completing their systems. 

We reviewed AFCARS assessment reports from 6 of the 8 states assessed 

by HHS—Arkansas, Connecticut, New Mexico, Texas, Vermont, and 

Wyoming. HHS conducted reviews in Delaware and West Virginia after we 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 48 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

completed our analysis. We did not review any of the eight pilot review 

reports since these were not final reports and HHS plans to conduct 

official reviews in these states. These AFCARS assessment reports were 

analyzed to understand the breadth of on-site assistance HHS provides to 

states during the review and to identify common data collection and 

reporting difficulties among states. Finally, we talked with officials in 6 of 

the 8 states that had an AFCARS review about their experiences during the 

review and child welfare experts. 

To identify practices state and local child welfare agencies are using to 

help ensure the accuracy, timeliness, and completeness of child welfare 

data we interviewed state and local child welfare officials on our site visits 

and inquired about the practices they are employing. We also included 

questions on practices and lessons learned in our survey. In addition, we 

spoke with numerous child welfare experts, including individuals from the 

National Resource Center for Information Technology in Child Welfare, 

the Child Welfare League of America, and the American Public Human 

Services Association.1

 1

The Child Welfare League of America is an association of almost 1,200 public and private 

nonprofit agencies that assist abused and neglected children and their families with a wide 

range of services. The American Public Human Services Association is an organization of 

individuals and agencies concerned with human services, including state and local human 

service agencies and individuals who work in or otherwise have an interest in human 

service programs. 
Appendix II: State SACWIS Stages of 

Development 

Page 49 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

SACWIS stages of development 

Completed Partially operational 

Arizona Alabama 

Massachusetts Florida 

Oklahoma Illinois 

Rhode Island Mississippi 

West Virginia New York 

Oregon 

Operational South Carolina 

Arkansas Tennessee 

California Wisconsin 

Colorado 

Connecticut Implementation 

Delaware Alaska 

District of Columbia Maryland 

Idaho 

Indiana Planning 

Iowa Georgia 

Kentucky Kansas 

Maine Louisiana 

Michigan Missouri 

Minnesota New Jersey 

Montana Ohio 

Nebraska Pennsylvania 

Nevada 

New Hampshire No SACWIS 

New Mexico Hawaii 

South Dakota North Carolina 

Texas North Dakota 

Utah Vermont 

Virginia 

Washington 

Wyoming 

Source: HHS. 

Note: Status is as of May 22, 2003. 

Appendix II: State SACWIS Stages of 

Development 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services 

Page 50 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Health and Human Services 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services 

Page 51 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services 

Page 52 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services 

Page 53 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services 

Page 54 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services 

Page 55 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services 

Page 56 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services 

Page 57 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services 

Page 58 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services 

Page 59 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services 

Page 60 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services 

Page 61 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and 

Acknowledgments 

Page 62 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

Diana Pietrowiak, (202) 512-6239 

Sara L. Schibanoff, (202) 512-4176 

In addition to those named above, Leah DeWolf and Rachel Seid made key 

contributions to this report. Avrum Ashery, Patrick DiBattista, 

Barbara Johnson, Valerie Melvin, and Rebecca Shea also provided key 

technical assistance. 

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contacts 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 
Bibliography 

Page 63 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

The American Public Welfare Association. Statewide Automated Child 

Welfare Information Systems: Survey of State Progress. Washington, 

D.C., July 1997. 

The American Public Welfare Association. Child Welfare Information 

Systems: Some Concepts and Their Implications. Washington, D.C., July 

1994. 

The American Public Welfare Association. Survey of State Child Welfare 

Information Systems: Status of AFCARS and SACWIS. Washington, D.C., 

April 1995. 

Caliber Associates, Analysis of State Child Welfare Data: VCIS Survey 

Data from 1990 through 1994, May 1998, Department of Health and 

Human Services. 

Center for Technology in Government, University of Albany, SUNY. Tying 

a Sensible Knot: A Practical Guide to State-Local Information Systems. 

Albany, N.Y., June 1997. 

Child Welfare League of America. National Working Group Highlights, 

“Child Maltreatment in Foster Care: Understanding the Data.” Washington, 

D.C., October 2002. 

Child Welfare League of America. National Working Group Highlights, 

“Placement Stability Measure and Diverse Out-of-Home Care Populations.” 

Washington, D.C., April 2002. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for 

Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, 

Children’s Bureau. Child Maltreatment 2001. Washington, D.C., 2003. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for 

Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, 

Children’s Bureau. Child Welfare Outcomes 1999: Annual Report. 

Washington, D.C., n.d.. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector 

General. Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System 

(AFCARS): Challenges and Limitations. Washington, D.C., March 2003. 

Bibliography 
Related GAO Products 

Page 64 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice: Federal Agencies Could Play a 

Stronger Role in Helping States Reduce the Number of Children Placed 

Solely to Obtain Mental Health Services. GAO-03-397. Washington, D.C.: 

April 21, 2003. 

Child Welfare: HHS Could Play a Greater Role in Helping Child Welfare 

Agencies Recruit and Retain Staff. GAO-03-357. Washington, D.C.: March 

31, 2003. 

Human Services: Federal Approval and Funding Processes for States’ 

Information Systems. GAO-02-347T. Washington, D.C.: July 9, 2002. 

Foster Care: Recent Legislation Helps States Focus on Finding 

Permanent Homes for Children, but Long-Standing Barriers Remain. 

GAO-02-585. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2002. 

Human Services Integration: Results of a GAO Cosponsored Conference 

on Modernizing Information Systems. GAO-02-121. Washington, D.C.: 

January 31, 2002. 

District of Columbia Child Welfare: Long-Term Challenges to Ensuring 

Children’s Well-Being. GAO-01-191. Washington, D.C.: December 29, 2000. 

Child Welfare: New Financing and Service Strategies Hold Promise, but 

Effects Unknown. GAO/T-HEHS-00-158. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2000. 

Welfare Reform: Improving State Automated Systems Requires 

Coordinated Federal Effort. GAO/HEHS-00-48. Washington, D.C.: April 27, 

2000. 

Foster Care: States’ Early Experiences Implementing the Adoption and 

Safe Families Act. GAO/HEHS-00-1. Washington, D.C.: December 22, 1999. 

Foster Care: HHS Could Better Facilitate the Interjurisdictional 

Adoption Process. GAO/HEHS-00-12. Washington, D.C.: November 19, 

1999. 

Foster Care: Effectiveness of Independent Living Services Unknown. 

GAO/HEHS-00-13. Washington, D.C.: November 5, 1999. 

Foster Care: Kinship Care Quality and Permanency Issues. GAO/HEHS99-32. Washington, D.C.: May 6, 1999. 

Related GAO Products 
Related GAO Products 

Page 65 GAO-03-809 Child Welfare 

Juvenile Courts: Reforms Aim to Better Serve Maltreated Children. 

GAO/HEHS-99-13. Washington, D.C.: January 11, 1999. 

Child Welfare: Early Experiences Implementing a Managed Care 

Approach. GAO/HEHS-99-8. Washington, D.C.: October 21, 1998. 

Foster Care: Agencies Face Challenges Securing Stable Homes for 

Children of Substance Abusers. GAO/ HEHS-98-182. Washington, D.C.: 

September 30, 1998. 

Managing Technology: Best Practices Can Improve Performance and 

Produce Results. GAO/T-AIMD-97-38, January 31, 1997. 

Child Welfare: HHS Begins to Assume Leadership to Implement National 

and State Systems. GAO/AIMD-94-37. Washington, D.C.: June 8, 1994. 

Executive Guide: Improving Mission Performance Through Strategic 

Information Management and Technology. GAO/AIMD-94-115. May 1, 

1994. 

(130163) 
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal 

government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; 

evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily 

E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading. 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A 

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. 

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a 

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs