ab636—congratulations to the legislature, cdss, and the counties!
DESCRIPTION
- PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
AB 636
presented at the joint hearing between the
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES
and the
ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON FOSTER CARE Sacramento, CA
3/7/06
Barbara Needell, MSW, PhDCenter for Social Services ResearchUniversity of California at Berkeley
presentation prepared by Emily Putnam Hornstein, MSW, Graduate Student Researcher
The Performance Indicators Project at CSSR is supported by the California Department of Social Services
and the Stuart Foundation
AB636—Congratulations to the
Legislature, CDSS, and the Counties!
County Self Assessments, Self Improvement Plans, and Peer Quality Case Reviews all use performance measures as a foundation.
Teams formed at the local level use data to identify strengths challenges, and decide appropriate responses.
Quarterly Performance Measures are posted publicly.
Even after only two years, we can see measurable improvement.
Point in Time
Exit Cohorts
Entry Cohorts
Data
3 Views of Data
The view really matters! Age of Foster Children
(2003 first entries, 2003 exits, July 1 2004 caseload)(2003 first entries, 2003 exits, July 1 2004 caseload)
22
4 5
31 30
2422
24 24
2022
32
5
1916
0
10
20
30
40
50
<1 yr 1- 5 yrs 6- 10 yrs 11- 15 yrs 16+ yrs
%
Entries
Exits
Point in Time
Why do we use other measures in addition to
the measures used in the federal Child and Family
Services Reviews (CFSRs)?
most CFSR measures come from the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and
Reporting System (AFCARS)
The trouble with AFCARS...
AFCARS contains data on children in foster care during a federal fiscal year.
Annual databases have not, in the past, been linked to each other, which is required for entry cohort analyses.
Child welfare and probation episodes are combined.
Key indicators (e.g., sibling identifier, FFA vs. county foster homes) are absent.
All four foster care measures (National Standards for reunification, adoption, foster care reentry, and placement stability) are limited and provide incomplete and at times misleading information.
Are you getting better or worse? Data from the Multi State Data Archive
Adoption within 24 Months
State A
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Ado
pted
Federal
State
Year
Source: Chapin Hall Center for Children
To fully understand child welfare performance,
we must use longitudinal data…
data that follows children throughout their entire child welfare experiences
this is what we now have in California, what we use in AB636 (and related efforts like Family to Family), and what we post publicly and update quarterly at:
cssr.berkeley.edu/cwscmsreports
Tracking Child Welfare Outcomes Tracking Child Welfare Outcomes (AB636, Family to Family)(AB636, Family to Family)
CounterbalancedCounterbalancedIndicators ofIndicators of
SystemSystemPerformancePerformance
PermanencyPermanencyThroughThrough
Reunification,Reunification,Adoption, orAdoption, orGuardianshipGuardianship
Placement Placement StabilityStability
Reports/Investigations/Reports/Investigations/Substantiated ReportsSubstantiated Reports Home-BasedHome-Based
Services vs.Services vs.Out of HomeOut of Home
CareCare
Positive Positive AttachmentsAttachments
to Family,to Family,Friends, andFriends, andNeighborsNeighbors
Use of LeastUse of LeastRestrictiveRestrictive
Form of CareForm of Care
Reentry to CareReentry to Care
1.0%
1.4%
2.8%
3.4%
3.5%
4.5%
5.8%
6.5%
6.7%
11.5%
19.4%
29.4%
0.3%Point in Time Placement with Kin (+)
Referral Rate (- )
Reunification within 12 Months (+)
Placement with Siblings (+)
Rate of Foster Care Entry (- )
Placement Stability (+)
Recurrence of Abuse or Neglect (- )
Rate of Children in Foster Care (- )
Substantiation Rate (- )
Re- entry to Foster Care (- )
First Entry to Kin Placement (+)
First Entry to Group or Shelter (- )
Adoption within 24 Months (+)
California:AB636 Measures,
Percent IMPROVEMENT from January 2004 to January 2006
Note: (+) indicates a measure where a % increase equals improvement. (-) indicates a measure where a % decrease equals improvement.
2001-2003
California:% of Children Adopted within 24 months
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
%
Entry Cohort
+ 29.4%
5.1
6.6
2003-2005
California:First Entry Placement Type Group or Shelter
J un-05
Mar-05
Dec-04
Sep-04
J un-04
Mar-04
Dec-03
Sep-03
J un-03
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
-19.4%
19.9
16.1
34.634.5
18.416.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
J ul-03 Oct-03 J an-04 Apr-04 J ul-04 Oct-04 J an-05 Apr-05 J ul-05
%
2003-2005
California:Percentage of First Entry Placements with
Kinand
Point in Time Percentage of Children with Kin
First Entries + 11.5%
Point in Time + 0.3%
2001-2004
California:% of children reunified within 1-yr of entering care (out of all children in cohort),
% of children who re-entered within 1-yr of reunification (of those reunified within 1 yr.),
% of children still reunified 1-yr after reunification (of children in cohort, reunifications within 1 yr with no reentry)
36.335.8
- 12.5- 13.4
32.331.1
- 15
0
15
30
45
J un-01 Sep-01 Dec-01 Mar-02 J un-02 Sep-02 Dec-02 Mar-03 J un-03 Sep-03 Dec-03 Mar-04 J un-04 J un-04
Entry Cohort
Reunified
Re-entered
1-yr After Reunification
+1.4%
-6.7%
+3.9%
51.9 51.7 51.4
12.3 11.7 11.5
3.6 3.5 3.5
2.9 2.8 2.8
2002 2003 2004
2002-2004
California:Referrals, Substantiations, and Entry Rates
(per 1,000 Children)
Substantiations -6.5%
Referrals -1.0%
Re-Entries & First Entries -2.8%
First Entries -3.4%
2003-2005
California:Rate of Children in Foster Care
(per 1,000 children)
8.68.4
8.1
J uly 1, 2003 J uly 1, 2004 J uly 1, 2005
Point in Time
-5.8%Rate Per 1,000
2002-2004
California:Recurrence of Abuse/Neglect Within 12-
Months
J un- 04
Mar- 04
Dec- 03
Sep- 03
J un- 03
Mar- 03
Dec- 02
Sep- 02
J un- 02
10 11 12 13 14 15
%
-4.5%
13.2
12.6
2002-2004
California:Placement Stability at 12 months,
% of children still in 1st or 2nd placement
J un-02 Sep-02 Dec-02 Mar-03 J un-03 Sep-03 Dec-03 Mar-04 J un-0460
62
64
66
68
70
%
Entry Cohort
+ 3.5%
63.2
65.4
2003-2005
California:% of Children Placed with Siblings
J ul-03 Oct-03 J an-04 Apr-04 J ul-04 Oct-04 J an-05 Apr-05 J ul-0560
62
64
66
68
70
%
Point in Time
+ 2.8%
65.4
67.2
DATA: Friend or Foe?
Beware: • County/state rankings on individual measures• Composite scores that mask issues• Small populations• Inappropriate views
Consider: • Performance over time!!!!!• Age, gender and race/ethnicity• Interaction among outcomes (counterbalance)• Local practice and policy changes needed to impact
outcomes
