Cover slide: Insert your county name as well as the names of your group members here.

Does the likelihood of exiting to permanency within 12 months of entry vary by age at placement for children entering care in 2016? First, present the evidence that supports your observation. For slides that present evidence, ask the question  present the numeric evidence that answers the question (in a table or graph)  interpret the evidence in English. Be parsimonious. You don’t need a slide for every observation you made – only present the observation(s) that provide evidence to support the problem you are attempting to solve (i.e., the outcome you are attempting to improve). Statewide, among all children who entered care in 2016, just under 30 percent exited care to permanencywith one year of entry. Youth who entered care between the ages of 13 and 17 were less likely to exit within one year (19 percent) when compared to children of all other ages.

Permanency within 12 months No permanency within 12 months We observe that, statewide, children entering care as teenagers are less likely to exit to permanency within one year of entry compared to children who enter care at any other age.. We think it’s because teenagers have services needs that are delayed and prevent timely reunification. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a case record review. Cases were drawn from the population of all children who entered care in 2016. From that population, we randomly selected 10 cases of each of the following types: Age at Placement Permanency within 12 months No permanency within 12 months Under 13 10 13 to 17 Next, state your observation using the “We observe that…” format. Follow that statement with your hypothesis using the “We think it’s because…” format. Then, say what you did to test the hypothesis. If you conducted a case review, tell us the population from which you sampled as well as any subcategories of cases you reviewed. Tell us how many of each type of case you reviewed. If you conducted interviews or focus groups, tell us how many people you spoke to and who they were.

For each case reviewed, we documented the answers to the following questions: Was there evidence in the record that the youth was delayed in accessing services? Question 2? Question 3? Etc… If you conducted a case review, tell us the questions you used that exercise to answer. Similarly, if you conducted interviews or focus groups, use this space to jot down the questions you asked those people.

Was there evidence in the record that children were discharged prematurely? Number & percent of cases containing evidence of service delay Age at Placement Evidence of service delay? Number Percent Total Y N Under 13 20 5 15 100% 20% 80% No Permanency in < 12 m 10 3 8 30% Permanency < 12 m 2 7 70% 13 to 17 yrs 50% No Permanency < 12 m Permanency< 12 m Next, tell us what you learned from investigating your hypothesis. As in the slides for your observation, for slides that present evidence from your case review (or interviews, etc.): ask the question  present the numeric evidence that answers the question (in a table or graph)  interpret the evidence in English. Again, be parsimonious. You don’t need a slide for every question you asked – present the ones that are most central to your growing argument. Among the ten children who were over 13 at placement and who exited within 12 months, 20 % had records indicating services delay. Among the older children who did not exit to within one year, 8 (80%) showed evidence of services delay. In general, evidence of service delay was uncommon among younger children , whether they exited within 12 months (20%) or not (20%).

Summary We observed that children in care placed as teenagers were less likely to exit to permanency within one year than younger children. We thought it was because teenagers experienced service delays that prolonged their time in care. We conducted a case review to explore whether services delays were unique to older youth who did not exit to permanency within 12 months. Our review supported the hypothesis; teen-agers who did not achieve timely permanency were indeed more likely (80%) than teenagers who did achieve timely permanency to have records indicating service delays. Further, teen-agers with delayed permanency were more likely than younger children with delayed permanency( 30%) to have service delays indicated in the record. Finally, write a brief summary of your findings. Include: Your “I observe that…” statement, Your “I think it’s because…” statement A note about whether or not your hypothesis was supported. Your hypothesis may be supported or unsupported. Or, you may determine that you don’t have enough information to make a conclusion. Any of these results are acceptable. Be prepared to discuss where this leaves you and what you think your next steps should be.