1 / 21

AB636—Congratulations to the Legislature, CDSS, and the Counties!

gwendolyn-thompson
Télécharger la présentation

AB636—Congratulations to the Legislature, CDSS, and the Counties!

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. AB 636 presented at the joint hearing between theASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICESand the ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON FOSTER CARESacramento, CA3/7/06Barbara Needell, MSW, PhDCenter for Social Services ResearchUniversity of California at Berkeleypresentation prepared by Emily Putnam Hornstein, MSW, Graduate Student ResearcherThe Performance Indicators Project at CSSR is supported by the California Department of Social Services and the Stuart Foundation

  2. 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.

  3. 3 Views of Data Data

  4. The view really matters! Age of Foster Children (2003 first entries, 2003 exits, July 1 2004 caseload) Entries Exits Point in Time %

  5. 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)

  6. 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.

  7. Are you getting better or worse? Data from the Multi State Data ArchiveAdoption within 24 Months Year Source: Chapin Hall Center for Children

  8. 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 To fully understand child welfare performance, we must use longitudinal data…

  9. Tracking Child Welfare Outcomes (AB636, Family to Family) Reports/Investigations/ Substantiated Reports Home-Based Services vs. Out of Home Care Reentry to Care Counterbalanced Indicators of System Performance Use of Least Restrictive Form of Care Permanency Through Reunification, Adoption, or Guardianship Positive Attachments to Family, Friends, and Neighbors Placement Stability

  10. 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.

  11. 2001-2003California:% of Children Adopted within 24 months 6.6 + 29.4% 5.1 Entry Cohort

  12. 2003-2005California:First Entry Placement Type Group or Shelter 19.9 -19.4% 16.1

  13. 2003-2005California:Percentage of First Entry Placements with KinandPoint in Time Percentage of Children with Kin Point in Time + 0.3% % First Entries + 11.5%

  14. 2001-2004California:% 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) 1-yr After Reunification Reunified +3.9% +1.4% Re-entered -6.7%

  15. 2002-2004California:Referrals, Substantiations, and Entry Rates (per 1,000 Children) Referrals -1.0% Substantiations -6.5% Re-Entries & First Entries -2.8% First Entries -3.4%

  16. 2003-2005California:Rate of Children in Foster Care(per 1,000 children) Rate Per 1,000 -5.8% Point in Time

  17. 2002-2004California:Recurrence of Abuse/Neglect Within 12-Months 13.2 -4.5% 12.6

  18. 2002-2004California:Placement Stability at 12 months,% of children still in 1st or 2nd placement 65.4 + 3.5% 63.2 Entry Cohort

  19. 2003-2005California:% of Children Placed with Siblings 67.2 + 2.8% 65.4 Point in Time

  20. 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 DATA: Friend or Foe?

  21. GO BEARS! Thank you for the opportunity. Barbara Needell 510.642.1893 bneedell@berkeley.edu

More Related