CQI in Idaho August 20, 2013 Presenters: Debra Alsaker-Burke, Statewide Child Protection Manager, Idaho Supreme Court Sarah Siron, Mgmt. Analyst, Sr. for Child Welfare, Department of Health and Welfare Dr. Gene Flango, National Center for State Courts Lisa Portune, National Center for State Courts Di Graski, NRCCWDT

Serendipity: The occurrence and development of events by chance in a happy or beneficial way. 2

The Opportunity 3 Advancing Justice Idaho, in consultation with the NCSC, embraced the High-Performing Courts Framework. Improved administration of justice Mobilizing people to address challenges Focused AOC and state courts on the use of data to measure and manage court performance. Concurrently, the decision was made to move from current ISTARS platform to a new, web-based case management system.

Judicial Districts and Child Welfare Regions 4 1.6M Residents 428,000 Child Residents Statewide Systems: 44 Counties 7 Judicial Districts 7 Child Welfare Regions 3 “Hubs” Technology: ISTARS = Idaho Statewide Trial Court Automated Records System iCARE = IDHW Statewide Information Management System

2012 Child Welfare Data 1,289 Children in Foster Care 562 Families Served In-Home 739 Child Protection cases filed in FY Adoptions 5

Technology Structure Idaho Courts and Child Welfare have statewide data systems SACWIS System moved to web-based iCARE Courts in process of transitioning to statewide web- based data platform Department of Juvenile Corrections and Medicaid have statewide data systems State Department of Education does not have a statewide system, but can collect statewide data. 6

Current Data Sharing Child Welfare supervisors have access to Idaho Supreme Court Data Repository Unique child identifier matching Adopted children case closure for Child Protection cases Courts share, on a daily basis, data with Department of Juvenile Corrections Ad hoc reports from Child Welfare 7

First Step: How are we doing? 8 January – May 2012: Assistance from NCSC Survey judges Focus on case management needs What judges like/don’t like about current reports Ideas for improvement Magistrate’s Institute Engaging the Judges: Alicia Davis presentation on need for data to “tell the courts’ story” Judges approve Advancing Justice child protection time standards

Time Standards 9 Time Standards for Child Protection Cases: Adjudicatory Hearing: 90% w/in 30 days; 98% w/in 60 days (measured from filing of petition to completion of hearing) 1 st Permanency Hearing: 98% w/in 365 days (measured from filing of petition to completion of hearing) Subsequent Permanency Hearings: 98% w/in 365 days (measured from the earlier of the date of the previous permanency hearing or the last date on which the previous permanency hearing would have been timely heard, to completion of hearing). Termination of Parental Rights: 90% w/in 150 days; 98% w/in 180 days (measured from order approving TPR/adoption as permanency goal to order granting or denying TPR)

Step Two: What Are Our Data Needs Going Forward? January 2013: In consultation with NCSC, representatives from the Court, Dept. of Health and Welfare (Child Welfare and Medicaid), Dept. of Juvenile Corrections, County Probation, and Dept. of Education Courts first asked group about their data needs from ISTARS Group developed a list of data measures and subset that all agencies need 10

Measures for CIP Grant Time to First Permanency Hearing (4G) Time to all Subsequent Permanency Hearings Time to Permanent Placement (4A) Time to Termination of Parental Rights Petition (4H) Time to Termination of Parental Rights (4I) 11

Courts and Child Welfare Joint Measures Toolkit Measures: % of children who are abused or neglected within 12 months after case closure. % of children who return to foster care pursuant to court order within 12 and 24 months of case closure following adoption or placement with a legal guardian. % of cases for which there is documentation that written notice was given to parties in advance of every hearing. % of cases for which there is documentation that written notice was given to foster parents in advance of every hearing. 12

Courts and Child Welfare Joint Measures Educational Well-Being Measures: % of children under court jurisdiction who did not have a school change when they had a change in living placement. Median number of school transfers while under court jurisdiction. Median number of school days between the last day attended at old school to first day attended at new school. % of school-aged children performing at or above grade level at case closure. 13

Courts and Child Welfare Joint Measures Physical and Emotional Well-Being Measures: % of children and youth under court jurisdiction that received a mental health screening within 30 days of first hearing. % of court-ordered child or youth mental health assessments that occur within 60 days of order. % of children placed with at least one but not all siblings who are also under court jurisdiction. % of youth who have a court-approved transition plan within 90 days prior to aging out of care. 14

Courts and Child Welfare Joint Measures Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) Measures: % of ICWA compliant placements. 15

Step Three: Business Process Mapping May 2013: NCSC and NRCCWDT (Di Graski) facilitated business process mapping for Courts and IDHW Confirmed the selected toolkit measures Identified points in process where data could/should be exchanged Highlighted additional data needs and elements Memorialized decisions made 16

Process Map 17

Data Elements 18

Who Will Use the Data? Judges – case management Child Welfare Stakeholders (Quarterly HUB Meetings) Identify opportunities for system growth Measure success System administrators: Trial Court Administrators Child Protection Committee Child Protection Advisory Team (CPAT) Administrative Conference Justice Partners: Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (FACS) Department of Juvenile Corrections State Department of Education 19

How Will Data be Shared? Juvenile Information Sharing Project Global Reference Architecture 20

Next Steps? Multi-agency work group will refine data needs (Fall 2013) Business process mapping: DJC/Courts and DJC/IDHW (Fall 2013) Multi-agency group will develop a strategic plan for sharing data (Fall 2013) Differentiated case management ( ) Design process for child protection in new court CMS (2014) Juvenile Current Legal Status Pilot Project (Completed August, 2014) 21

Questions? Debra Alsaker-Burke Sarah Siron