Evaluation of Upfront Family Finding: Key Findings December, 2018

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Using Data to Plan Waiver Strategies and Drive Improvements: Key Indicators and Trends April 11, 2012.
Advertisements

California Child Welfare Indicators Project Q Slides Center for Social Services Research School of Social Welfare University of California, Berkeley.
Keeping Families Together: An evaluation of implementation and outcomes of a pilot supportive housing model for families involved with the child welfare.
Caregiver Support. Child Intervention Intake Statistics  Calgary and Area 2013:  The Region received 14,100 reports about a child or youth who may be.
Improving Outcomes for Looked After Children, Young People & Care Leavers Moray Paterson Looked After Children Policy Manager.
Child Welfare Practice Model
Trend in Use of Day Care Facilities. trends/worktrends2_3.pdf trends/worktrends2_3.pdf.
A Case Study of the Intersection Between the Child Welfare and Criminal Justice Systems Charlene Wear Simmons, Ph.D. Parental Incarceration, Termination.
Contra Costa County Disproportionality – Examples and Changes Ray Merritt; Dorothy Powell; Children and Family Services Research and Evaluation.
Review of Paper: Understanding the"Family Gap" in Pay for Women with Children Study addresses an economic/social issue using statistical analysis: While.
Prepared by American Humane Association and the California Administrative Office of the Courts.
Creating Racial Equity in Child Welfare: What Do We Know? Judith Meltzer, CSSP Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative Fall Convening November 16, 2010.
U-32 Spring 2013 NECAP Presentation March 27,
Link Between Inclusive Settings and Achievement in Urban Settings Elizabeth Cramer Florida International University.
School Minder Director Erwin McEwen Illinois Department of Children & Family Services
1 Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare Report to the Community January 13, 2006 Jan. – Dec Progress summary of 2005  Safety  Permanence  Well-Being.
Cornelia Taylor, ECO at SRI Kathy Hebbeler, ECO at SRI National Picture –Child Outcomes for Early Intervention and Preschool Special Education October,
Trends in Child Welfare Outcomes CA Blue Ribbon Commission May1, 2013 The Performance Indicators Project is a collaboration of the California Department.
Healthcare + Education = Healthy Communities: Why Schools Fit the Equation Kate Keller, MPA Senior Program Officer The Health Foundation of Greater Cincinnati.
The significance of transition planning for placement change Barbara Dirienzo, Managing Attorney-Children’s Legal Services James Carlson, Chief Operations.
Project KEEP: San Diego 1. Evidenced Based Practice  Best Research Evidence  Best Clinical Experience  Consistent with Family/Client Values  “The.
National Outcome Measures: Using Data to Show the Way Forward Second Canadian Roundtable on Child Welfare Outcomes Fred Wulczyn, Ph.D.
1 Monroe County School District Spending vs. Student Achievement John R. Dick School Board District 4.
Introduction to the Pennsylvania Kindergarten Entry Inventory.
Background Objectives Methods Study Design A program evaluation of WIHD AfterCare families utilizing data collected from self-report measures and demographic.
In Limbo Adoptive Placements and Large Sibling group adoptions
Prevalence of Adverse Childhood Experiences
Completing the circle: concurrent planning and the use of Family Finding, Blended perspective meetings, and family group decision making processes.
DECREASING READMISSION THROUGH TRANSITIONAL CARE FROM SNF TO HOME
Family and household structure
Section 5.1: Families Today
Section 5.1 Families Today Objectives
Spartanburg Family Medicine Residency
Using a Summary Score Approach to Analyze Performance Measures Over Time Charlie Ferguson, Ph.D. San Jose State University School of Social Work Demonstration.
Access to Care for Immigrant Children in California:
Elizabeth J. Greeno, PhD, LCSW-C; Richard P. Barth, PhD, MSW; Mathew C
Testing Efficiency Indicators
Webinar: The Kinship Diversion Debate
San Francisco Continuum of Care Reform Discussion
Using Longitudinal Data on Readmission Rates to Guide and Evaluate Interventions to Control Pediatric Asthma Henry J. Carretta, MPH, Virginia Commonwealth.
Care into practice: the legal framework
Cardiff Flying Start & Results Based Accountability
Section 5.1 Families Today Objectives
Adding an evidence-based family strengthening program
RAPID RESPONSE program
TITLE IV-E WAIVER SITE VISIT
Housing & Career Services Anne Lansing, Project Planner April 24, 2017
Presented by Hill Country CASA
Data Analysis AMA Collegiate Marketing Research Certificate Program.
Section 5.1 Families Today Objectives
209: Family Reunification and Case Closure in Child Sexual Abuse Cases
Children with Disabilities
Section 5.1: Families Today
Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (APPLA)
4 Domains Child Welfare, Juvenile Education and Mental/Health
A New Approach to Servicing Families
North Carolina Positive Behavior Support Initiative
Ohio Children and Youth Who Died by Suicide September 2018
First 5 Sonoma County Triple P Implementation & Evaluation
IV-E Prevention Family First Implementation & Policy Work Group
Module 4: Early Childhood (ages 0-5)
Understanding the Indicator 6 Terminology: Early Childhood Special Education Settings for Children Ages Birth-Five Hello and welcome to Understanding the.
Understanding the Indicator 6 Terminology: Early Childhood Special Education Settings for Children Ages Birth-Five Hello and welcome to Understanding the.
More Than One-Third of Women in the U. S. Skip Care Because of Cost vs
Implementing the Child Outcomes Summary Process: Challenges, strategies, and benefits July, 2011 Welcome to a presentation on implementation issues.
Tracking Adoption Rate of Children “Available for Adoption”
Understanding the Indicator 6 Terminology: Early Childhood Special Education Settings for Children Ages Birth-Five Hello and welcome to Understanding the.
African Americans and Hispanics Are More Likely to Lack a Regular Provider or Source of Care; Hispanics Are Least Likely to Have a Medical Home Percent.
In 2010, 10,208,400 children and youth called Canada home
Implementing the Child Outcomes Summary Process: Challenges, strategies, and benefits July, 2011 Welcome to a presentation on implementation issues.
Presentation transcript:

Evaluation of Upfront Family Finding: Key Findings December, 2018

Key Program Findings Implemented as intended, office culture shifted—more positive perception of relatives as resources. Relatives were interested in supporting children across all ages, although relatives’ willingness to take placement decreased as the child’s age increased.  

Key Program Findings NREFMs* had a higher likelihood of offering support, presumably because they are already involved in the child’s life. More maternal than paternal relatives were identified. *For the purposes of this study, placements with NREFMs were counted as relative placements and the term “relative” in this presentation includes both kin and NREFMs, unless NREFMs are explicitly identified.

Key Program Findings On average, 17 relatives were found for children new to out-of-home care. 60 percent of children had at least one relative interested in providing a placement. 80 percent of children had at least one relative interested in visits or phone calls.  

Key Outcome Findings UFF increased the probability of relative placement. Both pilot offices—one with a history of high rates of relative placement and one more closely aligned with other local offices—achieved gains in relative placement. The increase in the probability of relative placement was true for all newly detained children as well as for children not initially placed with relatives (although the increase did not reach statistical significance among the subsample of those not initially placed with relatives).  

Key Outcome Findings All newly detained children   All newly detained children Newly detained children not initially placed with relatives Pilot offices vs. comparison offices Relative placement Increase None Reunification Relative placement disruption (to any placement) Relative placement disruption (to a non-relative placement) This slide shows statistically significant findings from the outcome study (p<.05). Trends in relative placement for children not initially placed with relatives were positive, but did not reach standard levels of statistical significance Evaluation findings regarding relative placement disruption and reunification were not consistent across offices and subpopulations of children

Questions? Kate Welti kwelti@childtrends.org Karin Malm kmalm@childtrends.org