CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Making the Most of Your Composite Computational Spreadsheet: Tools from California.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

California Child Welfare Indicators Project Q Slides Center for Social Services Research School of Social Welfare University of California, Berkeley.

Advertisements

CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Data Use vs. Misuse: The challenging nature of publicly available data Emily.

CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Ethnic/Racial Disproportionality and Disparity: A National Perspective Barbara.

CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Child Welfare in California: 1. A Quick Tour of the Data 2. A Racial Equity Lens.

CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Child Welfare: Ethnic/Racial Disproportionality and Disparity Barbara Needell,

CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Data 201: The Empirical Data Strikes Back* Emily Putnam-Hornstein, MSW Center.

California’s Child Welfare Outcomes & Accountability System: Using Performance Measures to Encourage Improvement Barbara Needell, MSW, PhD Center for.

CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley CFSR2 Data Indicators: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Center for Social Services.

The C-CFSR or Some of My Best Friends are Outcome Measures National Resource Center for Child Welfare Data and Technology 8th National Child Welfare Data.

An overview of basic California foster care data Joe Magruder, MSW Center for Social Services Research School of Social Welfare University of California.

CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Data Are Your Friends: California’s Child Welfare Outcomes and Accountability.

CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Child Welfare: Ethnic/Racial Disproportionality and Disparity Barbara Needell,

Building a Better Child Welfare System for Fresno's Children: Using Data as Our Foundation (and Friend!) Daniel Webster, MSW PhD Center for Social Services.

Increasing Child Welfare Permanency Options: The Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payment Program Daniel Webster, MSW, PhD University of California, Berkeley.

CWS Outcomes System Update: (data through April 1, 2008 ) Racial/Ethnic Disparities (data for CY 2007) Center for Social Services Research University of.

California Child Welfare Outcomes and Accountability Legislation: Evolving Toward System Improvement with Longitudinal Data & Analysis Panel on Increasing.

The California Child Welfare System: Data Snapshot Barbara Needell, MSW, PhD Emily Putnam Hornstein, MSW Joseph Magruder, MSW Center for Social Services.

Data 101: Numbers, Graphs, and More Numbers

CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley CFSR2 National Standard/Composite Scores Center for Social Services Research.

CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Child Welfare in California: Ethnic/Racial Disproportionality and Disparity Barbara.

CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Prepared for The California Disproportionality Project Center for Social Services.

Program Staff Presentation 1 Program Staff Presentation.

Taking Research to Practice: Rethinking Outcomes and Performance Measures for the Child and Family Service Reviews John D. Fluke, Child Protection Research.

CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Race/Ethnic Disparities in Child Welfare New Research Synthesis from Fluke et.

CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Foster Care in California: What the Data Tells Us Barbara Needell, MSW, PhD Emily.

CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley California’s Child Welfare System: Using Data from CWS/CMS Barbara Needell, MSW,

CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Black/White and Black/Hispanic Racial Disparity in Child Welfare: Controlling.

PATERNITY ESTABLISHMENT AMONG CHILDREN REPORTED TO CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES Joseph Magruder, PhD Emily Putnam-Hornstein, PhD Wendy Wiegmann, MSW Barbara.

CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Pro Bono Publico: Avoiding Child Welfare Data Abuse Panel on Meaningful Measurement.

CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley The Child and Family Services Review Composite Scores: A “Great Start” Barbara.

Safety and Permanence in Child Welfare Second Canadian Roundtable on Child Welfare Outcomes October 8-9, 2009 Montreal, Canada Barbara Needell, MSW, PhD.

AB 636 Mental Health/CWS Partnership Sacramento, CA 3/17/06 Barbara Needell, MSW, PhD Center for Social Services Research University of California at Berkeley.

Child Welfare in North Carolina: Ethnic and Racial Disproportionality and Disparity by D. F. Duncan UNC-CH School of Social Work June 10, 2009.

1 G-FORCE MEETING Division of Family & Children Services September 25, 2009.

CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Child Welfare: Ethnic/Racial Disproportionality and Disparity Barbara Needell,

Indicating Success in Public Child Welfare Child Outcomes, System Performance and the CFSR Process Susan Smith and Lisa Tuttle Casey Family Programs July.

CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Predictors of Child Welfare Contact Between Birth and Age Five: An Examination.

CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley California’s Child Welfare System: A Data Snapshot Barbara Needell, MSW, PhD.

CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley California’s Child Welfare System: Using Data from CWS/CMS Barbara Needell, MSW,

Child Welfare Administrative Data: The UCB Performance Indicators Project cssr.berkeley.edu/CWSCMSReports Barbara Needell, MSW, PhD Center for Social Services.

Presentation originally created by William C Dawson & Amy C Nuñez The Performance Indicators Project & the Administrative Office of the Courts: Toward.

County of __________ Welcome to our System Improvement Planning Process! Facilitated by:

CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts Children’s Roundtable Summit.

CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Safety and Permanence in Child Welfare Second Canadian Roundtable on Child Welfare.

When permanency remains elusive: A longitudinal examination of the early foster care experiences of youth at risk of emancipating Joe Magruder, MSW Emily.

Trends in Child Welfare Outcomes CA Blue Ribbon Commission May1, 2013 The Performance Indicators Project is a collaboration of the California Department.

CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley CFSR2 Data Indicators: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Center for Social Services.

California Child Welfare Indicators Project YOUTH IN EXTENDED FOSTER CARE Center for Social Services Research School of Social Welfare University of California,

CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley California’s Child Welfare Performance Indicators Project: “irresistible information”

Supervisor Core Training: Managing for Results Original presentation was created for Version 1.0 by Daniel Webster, Barbara Needell, Wendy Piccus, Aron.

Overview of California’s Child Welfare Indicator Data Barbara Needell, MSW, PhD Center for Social Services Research School of Social Welfare University.

CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley California’s Child Welfare System: Data Trends & Child Outcomes Center for Social.

The Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) February 2008 Update.

AB 636 presented at the joint hearing between the ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES and the ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON FOSTER CARE Sacramento, CA.

Increasing Permanency Options in Child Welfare: The Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payment (Kin-GAP) Program Daniel Webster Joseph Magruder University.

RELATIVE GUARDIANSHIPS: INCREASED OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINED PERMANENCY Joseph Magruder, PhD University of California, Berkeley Daniel Webster, PhD University.

CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Applying Data for System Improvement: Probation Agency Staff Daniel Webster,

Changing the Outcome: Achieving and Sustaining a Safe Reduction in Foster Care: A Policy Institute November 4-6, 2009 Tampa, FL Setting the Course: Unpacking.

Daniel Webster Joseph Magruder University of California, Berkeley

Changing the Outcome: Achieving and Sustaining a Safe Reduction in Foster Care: A Policy Institute November 4-6, 2009 Tampa, FL Addressing Disproportionality.

Kinship Foster Care in California Testimony to Assembly Select Committee on Foster Care Sacramento, CA 2/15/06 Barbara Needell, MSW, PhD Center for Social.

CCWIP Data Analysis Training Using the CCWIP Website to Answer Questions about Key Child Welfare Outcomes Wendy Wiegmann CCWIP January 19, 2016.

Everything you always wanted to know about S. - urvival Curves (

Presenters University of California at Berkeley Center for Social Services Research Barbara Needell, MSW, PhD Principal Investigator

Center for Social Services Research

Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts Children’s Roundtable Summit November 21, 2009 Making Data Informed Decisions (Ramblings from the Left.

Foster Care in California: What we Know from CWS/CMS Barbara Needell, MSW, PhD Center for Social Services Research University of California at Berkeley.

BARBARA NEEDELL, MSW, PhD

CFSR2 Data Indicators: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Using the CCWIP Data Portal

Presentation transcript:

CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Making the Most of Your Composite Computational Spreadsheet: Tools from California Linda Hockman Debbie Williams California Department of Social Services William Dawson Barbara Needell Daniel Webster Center for Social Services Research, UC Berkeley The Performance Indicators Project is a collaboration of the California Department of Social Services and the University of California at Berkeley, and is supported by the California Department of Social Services and the Stuart Foundation

Safety S1.1 (%) S2.1 (%) Permanency Composite 1: Reunification Composite 2: Adoption Composite 3: Long-Term Composite 4: Stability C1.1 (%) C1.2 (m) C1.3 (%) C1.4 (%) C2.1 (%) C2.2 (m) C2.3 (%) C2.4 (%) C2.5 (%) C3.1 (%) C3.2 (%) C3.3 (%) C4.1 (%) C4.2 (%) C4.3 (%) Component A Component B Component A Component B Component C Component A Component B To calculate county-level performance for a given year, the inputs are county-level performance for the 17 federal measures The denominator provides the count of children in care during the year (at the county level)

Composite Calculations In our presentation of state and county composite estimates, we have automated the process to allow us to calculate estimates across all available time periods and to update and extend the estimates as new data become available each quarter. Based on the Excel tool, there are six steps in the calculation of the composites at the state level. –Calculations are made at the county level to determine the state composite scores. –The screen captures use C1 Alameda County as an example. –Cells with dashed borders contain calculation under discussion.

Steps… (1)Standardize performance scores to produce 'computed standardized scores‘

(1)Standardize performance scores to produce 'computed standardized scores'

Steps… (1)Standardize performance scores to produce 'computed standardized scores‘ (2)Sum weighted 'computed standardized scores' to produce 'computed component derived scores'

(2) Sum weighted 'computed standardized scores' to produce 'computed component derived scores'

Steps… (1)Standardize performance scores to produce 'computed standardized scores‘ (2)Sum weighted 'computed standardized scores' to produce 'computed component derived scores' (3)Average 'computed component derived scores' to produce 'unweighted county composite scores‘

(3) Average 'computed component derived scores' to produce 'unweighted county composite scores'

Steps… (1)Standardize performance scores to produce 'computed standardized scores‘ (2)Sum weighted 'computed standardized scores' to produce 'computed component derived scores' (3)Average 'computed component derived scores' to produce 'unweighted county composite scores‘ (4)STATE ONLY: Multiply 'unweighted county composite scores' by 'children served by county' to produce 'weighted county composite scores' (for all ‘included’ counties)

(4)STATE ONLY: Multiply 'unweighted county composite scores' by 'children served by county' to produce 'weighted county composite scores' (for all ‘included’ counties) For the estimation of composite scores at the county level, we skip steps (4) and (5).

Steps… (1)Standardize performance scores to produce 'computed standardized scores‘ (2)Sum weighted 'computed standardized scores' to produce 'computed component derived scores' (3)Average 'computed component derived scores' to produce 'unweighted county composite scores‘ (4)STATE ONLY: Multiply 'unweighted county composite scores' by 'children served by county' to produce 'weighted county composite scores' (for all ‘included’ counties) (5)STATE ONLY: Divide the sum of 'weighted county composite scores' by the sum of 'children served by counties' to produce 'computed state composite score‘

(5) STATE ONLY: Divide the sum of 'weighted county composite scores' by the sum of 'children served by counties' to produce 'computed state composite score'

Steps… (1)Standardize performance scores to produce 'computed standardized scores‘ (2)Sum weighted 'computed standardized scores' to produce 'computed component derived scores' (3)Average 'computed component derived scores' to produce 'unweighted county composite scores‘ (4)STATE ONLY: Multiply 'unweighted county composite scores' by 'children served by county' to produce 'weighted county composite scores' (for all ‘included’ counties) (5)STATE ONLY: Divide the sum of 'weighted county composite scores' by the sum of 'children served by counties' to produce 'computed state composite score‘ (6)(a) STATE: Scale 'computed state composite score' to produce 'computed scaled state composite score'.

(6)(a) STATE: Scale 'computed state composite score' to produce 'computed scaled state composite score'.

Steps… (1)Standardize performance scores to produce 'computed standardized scores‘ (2)Sum weighted 'computed standardized scores' to produce 'computed component derived scores' (3)Average 'computed component derived scores' to produce 'unweighted county composite scores‘ (4)STATE ONLY: Multiply 'unweighted county composite scores' by 'children served by county' to produce 'weighted county composite scores' (for all ‘included’ counties) (5)STATE ONLY: Divide the sum of 'weighted county composite scores' by the sum of 'children served by counties' to produce 'computed state composite score‘ (6)(a) STATE: Scale 'computed state composite score' to produce 'computed scaled state composite score'. (6)(b) COUNTY: For the estimation of composite scores at the county level— having skipped steps (4) and (5) —we scale the 'unweighted county composite scores'. This calculation is added to the federal spreadsheet.

(6)(b) COUNTY: For the estimation of composite scores at the county level—having skipped steps (4) and (5) —we scale the 'unweighted county composite scores'. This calculation is added to the federal spreadsheet.

(6)(b) COUNTY (continued): For small counties, this approach sometimes produces composite scores 150; we present these as 50 and 150 respectively. If performance is not available (0 denominator) for one or more measures for a county, a composite score is not calculated (“N.A.”).

Measure Contributions to Composites Reunification Within 12 Months (Exit Cohort) Median Time To Reunification (Exit Cohort) Reentry Following Reunification (Exit Cohort) Reunification Within 12 Months (Entry Cohort) Note: Measures may not sum to exactly 100% due to rounding.

Measure Contributions to Composites Adoption Within 24 Months (Exit Cohort) Median Time To Adoption (Exit Cohort) Adoption Within 12 Months (17 Months In Care) Legally Free Within 6 Months (17 Months In Care) Adoption Within 12 Months (Legally Free) Note: Measures may not sum to exactly 100% due to rounding.

Measure Contributions to Composites Exits to Permanency (24 Months In Care) Exits to Permanency (Legally Free At Exit) In Care 3 Years Or Longer (Emancipated/Age 18) Note: Measures may not sum to exactly 100% due to rounding.

Measure Contributions to Composites Placement Stability (8 Days To 12 Months In Care) Placement Stability (12 To 24 Months In Care) Placement Stability (At Least 24 Months In Care) Note: Measures may not sum to exactly 100% due to rounding.

Measure Contributions to Composites Note: Measures may not sum to exactly 100% due to rounding.

Additional Documentation Measure Contributions Estimate of Statewide Composites County Composite Formula

Composite Viewer (Alameda)

Composite Planner (Alameda)

CSSR.BERKELEY.EDU/UCB_CHILDWELFARE Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman, K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Winn, A., Lou, C., & Peng, C. (2009). Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved April 1, 2009, from University of California at Berkeley Center for Social Services Research website. URL: Barbara Needell Slides developed by Emily Putnam-Hornstein