Program Staff Presentation 1 Program Staff Presentation.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Implications of CFSR 3 for IVE Programs
Advertisements

1 Circuit 10 – Central Region CBC Performance and Quality Improvement Meeting Scheduled for Wednesday, August 20 th, 2014 at 10 a.m. Data for Week Ended.
Using Data to Plan Waiver Strategies and Drive Improvements: Key Indicators and Trends April 11, 2012.
Community Based Care in Florida and the IV-E Waiver.
Subsidized Guardianship Permanency Initiative. SG Introduction Focuses on improving permanency outcomes for children in out-of-home care through a comprehensive.
Foster Care Reentry after Reunification – Reentry in One or Two years – what’s the difference? Terry V. Shaw, MSW Daniel Webster, PhD University of California,
Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs). 2 Child Welfare Final Rule (excerpt from Executive Summary) The child and family services reviews … [focus]
1 FCI Jumpstart to the Toolkit Measures Sophia Gatowski, Ph.D. National Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges Andy Barclay,
California Department of Social Services Program Improvement Plan
4/15/2017 CFSR 2016 Children & Families Services Review (CFSR) Presented By: Alba Quiroz Garcia, CDSS July 31, 2014 Material from the May 2014 Administration.
Child Welfare Services Family centered services to achieve well- being through ensuring self-sufficiency, support, safety, and permanence. Dual tracks-
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.
1 Child and Family Services Review Program Improvement Plan Kick-Off Division/Staff Name Date (7/30/07)
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Data Are Your Friends: California’s Child Welfare Outcomes and Accountability.
1 Lessons Learned about the Service Array from the First Round of Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs) The Service Array Process National Child Welfare.
1 THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW (CFSR) PRACTICE PRINCIPLES: Critical Principles for Assessing and Enhancing the Service Array The Service Array.
1 CFSR STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT LESSONS LEARNED (State) CFSR Kick Off (Date)
Findings From the Initial Child and Family Service Reviews
Identifying the Underlying Factors Related to Placement Stability in Florida Penelope (Penny) L. Maza, Ph.D. Consultant National Resource Center for Child.
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Making the Most of Your Composite Computational Spreadsheet: Tools from California.
Taking Research to Practice: Rethinking Outcomes and Performance Measures for the Child and Family Service Reviews John D. Fluke, Child Protection Research.
Minnesota Child Welfare Program Goals Safety Permanency Well-Being.
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley The Child and Family Services Review Composite Scores: A “Great Start” Barbara.
VISITATION 1. Competencies  SW Ability to complete visitation plans that underscore the importance of arranging and maintaining immediate, frequent,
May 18, MiTEAM Is Michigan’s guide to how staff, children, families, stakeholders and community partners work together to achieve outcomes that.
Oregon’s Community-Involved Approach to Differential Response Implementation.
Measuring a Collaborative Effort a Child Welfare – Drug & Alcohol Family Preservation example Family Design Resources, Inc.  Fawn Davies  Deborah W.
Systems Change to Achieve Permanency Mountains and Plains Child Welfare Implementation Center Arlington, Texas April 15, 2009.
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.
DIVISION OF FAMILY & CHILDREN SERVICES G-FORCE MEETING May 2009.
A New Narrative for Child Welfare February 16, 2011 Bryan Samuels, Commissioner Administration on Children, Youth & Families.
1 G-FORCE MEETING Division of Family & Children Services September 25, 2009.
Basics of Performance Measurement Presented by Mark Hardin National Child Welfare Legal Resource Center on Legal and Judicial Issues ABA Center on Children.
Data Quality Initiative-Update May 14, Data Quality Initiative The eWiSACWIS Data Quality Initiative will support counties, the BMCW and the Special.
Training Agenda Continuous Quality Improvement Section Federal CFSR Oklahoma CFSR Oklahoma Program Improvement Plan (PIP) CFSR/Case Review Instrument.
Family Care Community Partnerships (FCCP) Selected Logic Model Outcomes in the System of Care CY14 1 st and 2 nd Quarters Rhode Island Department of Children,
940: Concurrent Planning for Resource Parents. The Pennsylvania Child Welfare Resource Center Learning Objectives Participants will be able to: Define.
SSIS as a Case Management Tool Nan Beman Anne Broskoff.
1 Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare Report to the Community January 13, 2006 Jan. – Dec Progress summary of 2005  Safety  Permanence  Well-Being.
DIAKON Lutheran Social Ministries/Family Design Resources Tools That Work Conference 11/03 Implementing Best Practice Standards in Permanency Planning.
1 Quality Counts: Helping Improve Outcomes for Pennsylvania’s Children & Families September 22, 2008.
Family Care Community Partnerships (FCCP) Selected Logic Model Outcomes in the System of Care CY15 1 st and 2 nd Quarters Rhode Island Department of Children,
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.
Tehama Linkages Commitment Presented by LaDeena Coates, Employment & Training Worker, II Richard Phillips, Social Worker, II.
Family Care Community Partnerships (FCCP) Selected Logic Model Outcomes in the System of Care CY14 3 rd and 4 th Quarters Rhode Island Department of Children,
1 CPA PROVIDER G-FORCE MEETING January 12, Agenda Maltreatment in Care Permanency Continuum Permanency Status Exercise for February DFCS Data.
SAFE AND THRIVING FOREVER FAMILIES SOONER Division of Family & Children Services G-Force Meeting June 25, 2009.
1 CHILDREN SAFE AND THRIVING WITH FOREVER FAMILIES, SOONER DIVISION OF FAMILY & CHILDREN SERVICES Isabel Blanco, Deputy Director of Field Operations September.
State of Florida Child and Family Services Review -- April 1 through September 30 Summary Briefing.
The Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) February 2008 Update.
1 DHS Board Meeting Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program Overview Mark Washington Division of Family and Children Services August 18, 2010.
Georgia DFCS Outcome- Based Permanency Initiative A Proposal to Introduce Performance- Based Contracting and Partner for CFSR Success.
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Applying Data for System Improvement: Probation Agency Staff Daniel Webster,
Improving the Lives of Mariposa County’s Children and Families System Improvement Plan October 2008 Update.
Child and Family Services Reviews Onsite Review Instrument.
1 1 Child Welfare Policy and Practice for Supervisors.
1 Department of Human Services (DHS)/Child Welfare Services (CWS) Branch Child & Family Services Review (CFSR) & Program Improvement Plan (PIP)
STRONG FAMILIES SELF- SUFFICENT STABLE RELIANT SUPPORTIVE.
Office of Children's Services
CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEWS (CFSRs)
CCWIP Data Analysis Training Using the CCWIP Website to Understand County Performance on CFSR 3 Measures Wendy Wiegmann CCWIP May 1, 2017.
CCWIP Data Analysis Training Using the CCWIP Website to Answer Questions about Key Child Welfare Outcomes Wendy Wiegmann CCWIP January 19, 2016.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services January 23, 2015
GOT PERMANENCE? DIVISION OF FAMILY & CHILDREN SERVICES G-FORCE MEETING
4 Domains Child Welfare, Juvenile Education and Mental/Health
Pathways to Permanency: Safety, Permanency and Well-Being
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services December 19, 2014
BARBARA NEEDELL, MSW, PhD
CFSR2 Data Indicators: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Georgia DFCS Performance-Based Contracting
Presentation transcript:

Program Staff Presentation 1 Program Staff Presentation

Program Staff Presentation 2 Program Staff Presentation The philosophy, outcomes, and processes are essentially the same: Maintain the momentum! Child Safety Child Permanency Child and Family Well-Being CFSR... A beginning, not just an event!

Program Staff Presentation 3 Program Staff Presentation Reviews promote principles of: Family centered practice Community based services Strengthened parental capacity Individualized services Collaboration and partnership building Guiding Principles

Program Staff Presentation 4 Program Staff Presentation Safety Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect. Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate. Permanency Children have permanency and stability in their living arrangements. The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children. Child and Family Well-Being Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children's needs. Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs. Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs. CFSR: Seven Outcomes

Program Staff Presentation 5 Program Staff Presentation Statewide information system Case review system Quality assurance program Staff and provider training Service array Agency responsiveness to the community Foster and adoptive parent licensing, recruitment and retention CFSR 1 & 2: Seven Systematic Factors CFSR: Seven Systematic Factors

Program Staff Presentation 6 Program Staff Presentation The Child and Family Services Review “Connecting All The Pieces” AFCARS Statewide Assessment Assessment On-SiteReview NCANDS State Data Profile Program Improvement Plan

Program Staff Presentation 7 Program Staff Presentation State Data Profile State Data Profiles are provided by the Children’s Bureau using the following data sets submitted by the State and are designed to show the State’s performance for the period under review and for previous years: AFCARS – Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System NCANDS – National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System

Program Staff Presentation 8 Program Staff Presentation National Standards for the CFSR Data Indicators State AFCARS and NCANDS data were used to establish the national standards. Those measures and composites for which national standards have been developed are referred to as Data Indicators.

Program Staff Presentation 9 Program Staff Presentation Data Indicators in the CFSR

Program Staff Presentation 10 Program Staff Presentation The two outcomes that have data indicators are: Safety 1: Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect. Permanency 1: Children have permanency and stability in their living arrangements. Measuring CFSR Outcomes

Program Staff Presentation 11 Program Staff Presentation Safety Related Data Indicators Of all children who were victims of substantiated or indicated abuse or neglect during the first 6 months of the 12-month target period, what percentage did not experience a recurrence of maltreatment within 6 months? This data indicator is calculated strictly from information submitted by the State via the NCANDS data child file (unless an approved alternate source of data is used). Safety Indicator 1: Absence of Recurrence of Maltreatment National Standard = 94.6%

Program Staff Presentation 12 Program Staff Presentation Safety Related Data Indicators Of all children in foster care during the 12-month target period, what percentage were not maltreated by a foster parent or facility staff member? This data indicator is calculated using NCANDS (or an approved alternate data source) and AFCARS data. NCANDS data produce the numerator (count of children maltreated in foster care) while AFCARS data produce the denominator (number of children served by the foster care system). Safety Indicator 2: Absence of Abuse and Neglect in Foster Care National Standard = 99.68%

Program Staff Presentation 13 Program Staff Presentation Fifteen Individual Measures in the Four Permanency Data Indicators (Refer to Data Indicators Handout)

Program Staff Presentation 14 Program Staff Presentation Basic CFSR Terminology-Data Composites Individual Measure: A specific statement that addresses a desired outcome within a given composite (for example, the percentage of reunifications occurring in less than 12 months) Component: A primary part of a composite that may include one or more measures Composite: A data indicator that incorporates State performance on multiple permanency-related individual measures

Program Staff Presentation 15 Program Staff Presentation Basic CFSR Terminology Familiar Examples of Composite Scores Course Grade: Each component of a course grade may have a different “weight.” For example: Test score = 60% Term paper = 25% Class participation = 10% Homework assignments = 5% SAT score: An SAT score represents performance on several subject areas: Critical Reading (Verbal) – Includes passage reading, sentence completion, etc. Mathematics – Includes algebra, geometry, etc. Writing – Includes multiple choice questions and a writing sample

Program Staff Presentation 16 Program Staff Presentation Data Composite Are more comprehensive, more stable, and more reliable Measure a wider range of children’s experiences Cover more of the State’s child welfare population Provide a balanced view of a State’s performance Why Data Composites for CFSR Permanency Outcomes?

Program Staff Presentation 17 Program Staff Presentation The Children’s Bureau explored multiple measures of an outcome such as permanency and stability of living situation. Principal Components Analysis (PCA) was used to: Reduce the number of individual measures to those that best determine the outcome Identify the measures that go together Determine the contribution of each measure to the whole (i.e., weights) - this is how weighting for each measure is determined Counties were used to calculate the composite scores because PCA requires a minimum of 500 units for analysis How Composites Were Developed

Program Staff Presentation 18 Program Staff Presentation CFSR Data Composites Composites Component AComponent B Measure 1 Measure 2 Measure 3 AFCARS Data Element “The Building Blocks” AFCARS Data Element

Program Staff Presentation 19 Program Staff Presentation Small Counties Rolled-up as Needed The Administration for Children and Families combined counties together as needed so that each unit of analysis included at least 50 children served by the foster care system during the period under review. The roll up assignments are completed and will not change. States will be able to identify counties that were rolled up into county groups.

Program Staff Presentation 20 Program Staff Presentation From AFCARS data, the 15 individual permanency measures are calculated by county or county group. The standardized scores are calculated. The standardized scores and weighting from the PCA are used to compute the component scores. The component scores are averaged to produce the un- weighted county composite scores. How Composite Scores are Calculated

Program Staff Presentation 21 Program Staff Presentation The un-weighted county composite scores are multiplied by the number of children in counties to compute the weighted county composite score. The weighted composites are summed and then divided by the total number of children to produce the State composite. The State composite is transformed to a scaled State composite within a range of More detailed information on how composites are calculated is available from the NRC-CWDT. How Composite Scores are Calculated (continued) The national standard for each of the composites was calculated using 2004 data and will not change during Round 2 of the CFSR.

Program Staff Presentation 22 Program Staff Presentation Calculating Each Measure

Program Staff Presentation 23 Program Staff Presentation Composite 1: Timeliness and Permanency of Reunification* National Standard = or higher *includes discharges to “reunification” and “living with other relative”

Program Staff Presentation 24 Program Staff Presentation All measures in this component: Only include children who remained in care for 8 days or longer (8-day rule). Include the “trial home visit adjustment.” This is applicable to children who were discharged from care to “Reunification” or “Live with Relative” whose final placement was “Trial Home Visit” that lasted at least 30 days. In these instances, time in care is defined as the number of days between the latest removal and the date of the child’s placement in the trial home visit, plus 30 days. Composite 1 Timeliness and Permanency of Reunification Component A – Timeliness of Reunification

Program Staff Presentation 25 Program Staff Presentation Measure 1: Of all children discharged from foster care to reunification in the target 12-month period, what percent were reunified in less than 12 months from the date of latest removal from home? Measure 2: Of all children discharged from foster care to reunification in the target 12-month period, what was the median length of stay (in months) from the date of the latest removal from home until the date of discharge to reunification? Measure 3: Of all children who entered foster care for the first time in the 6-month period just prior to the target 12-month period, what percent were discharged from foster care to reunification in less than 12 months from the date of latest removal from home? Composite 1 Timeliness and Permanency of Reunification Component A – Timeliness of Reunification

Program Staff Presentation 26 Program Staff Presentation Composite 1 Timeliness and Permanency of Reunification Component B – Permanency of Reunification Measure 1: Of all children who were discharged from foster care to reunification in the 12-month period prior to the target 12-month period, what percent re-entered foster care in less than 12 months from the date of discharge?

Program Staff Presentation 27 Program Staff Presentation County Un-Weighted Composite Score: Components A+B / 2 Measure 1 % of exits in less than 12 months Measure 2 Median length of stay Measure 3 % of entry cohort reunified in less than 12 months Measure % of exits reunified that reenter in 12 months Component B: Permanency (50%) Component A: Timeliness (50%) Composite 1: Timeliness & Permanency of Reunification County Weighted Composite Score Weight (# of children served in county FC) x Score State Composite Score County weighted scores summed and divided by total number of children served in FC

Program Staff Presentation 28 Program Staff Presentation Timeliness and Permanency of Reunification MEASURENational Median National 25 th / 75 th Percentile % exiting in less than 12 months of entry 66.9%75.2% (75 th Percentile) Of children exiting FC, median number of months in foster care Lower score is preferable in this measure 6.5 months5.4 months (25 th Percentile) Of children entering FC for the 1st time, % exiting in less than 12 months 39.4%48.4% (75 th Percentile) % reentering within 12 months of discharge Lower score is preferable in this measure 15.0%9.9% (25 th Percentile) National Standards for composites are established at the 75th percentile as adjusted for sampling error. There are no standards for individual measures. For measures where a higher score is preferable, the 75th percentile is provided; for measures where a lower score is preferable, the 25th percentile is provided.

Program Staff Presentation 29 Program Staff Presentation Composite 2: Timeliness of Adoptions National Standard = or higher

Program Staff Presentation 30 Program Staff Presentation Composite 2 Timeliness of Adoptions Component A – Timeliness of Adoptions of Children Exiting Foster Care Of all children who were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption during the 12-month target period: Measure 1: What percent were discharged in less than 24 months from the date of the latest removal from home? Measure 2: What was the median length of stay in foster care in months from the date of latest removal from home to the date of discharge to adoption?

Program Staff Presentation 31 Program Staff Presentation Composite 2 Timeliness of Adoptions Component B – Progress toward adoption for children who have been in care for 17 months or longer Measure 1: Of all children in foster care on the first day of the 12-month target period who were in foster care for 17 continuous months or longer, what percent were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption by the last day of the 12 month target period? (denominator excludes children who, by last day of the target period, are discharged to reunification, live with relative or guardianship) Measure 2: Of all children in foster care on the first day of the 12-month target period who were in foster care for 17 continuous months or longer, and were not legally free for adoption prior to that day, what percent became legally free for adoption during the first 6-months of the 12-month target period? (denominator excludes children who, during the 6 month period, are discharged to reunification, live with relative or guardianship)

Program Staff Presentation 32 Program Staff Presentation Composite 2 Timeliness of Adoptions Component C – Timeliness of adoptions for children who are legally free for adoption Measure: Of all children who became legally free for adoption during the 12 months prior to the target 12-month period, what percent were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in less than 12 months from the date of becoming legally free?

Program Staff Presentation 33 Program Staff Presentation Timeliness of Adoptions MEASURENational MedianNational 25 th / 75 th Percentile % exiting to adoption in 24 months from most recent entry 26.8%36.6% (75 th Percentile) Median length of stay to adoption. Lower score is preferable in this measure 32.4 months27.3 months (25 th Percentile) % Finalized adoption in 1 yr after 17 months in care20.2%22.7% (75 th Percentile) % Became legally free for adoption in 6 months after 17 months in care 8.8%10.9% (75 th Percentile) % Adopted within 12 months of becoming legally free 45.8%53.7% (75 th Percentile) National Standards for composites are established at the 75th percentile as adjusted for sampling error. There are no standards for individual measures. For measures where a higher score is preferable, the 75th percentile is provided; for measures where a lower score is preferable, the 25th percentile is provided.

Program Staff Presentation 34 Program Staff Presentation Composite 3: Achieving Permanency for Children in Foster Care for Long Periods of Time National Standard = or higher

Program Staff Presentation 35 Program Staff Presentation Composite 3 Achieving Permanency for Children in Foster Care Component A: Achieving permanency for children in foster care for extended periods of time Measure 1: Of all children who were in foster care for 24 months or longer on the first day of the 12-month target period, what percent were discharged to a permanent home by the last day of the 12-month period and prior to their 18th birthday? (discharge reason of adoption, reunification, living with other relative, or guardianship) Measure 2: Of all children who were discharged from foster care during the 12-month target period, and who were legally free for adoption (i.e., there is a parental rights termination date for both parents) at the time of discharge, what percent were discharged to a permanent home prior to their 18th birthday?

Program Staff Presentation 36 Program Staff Presentation Composite 3 Achieving Permanency for Children in Foster Care Component B – Children growing up in foster care Measure: Of all children who either (1) were, prior to age 18, discharged from foster care during the 12-month target period with a discharge reason of emancipation, or (2) reached their 18th birthday while in foster care but had not yet been discharged from foster care, what percent were in foster care for 3 years or longer?

Program Staff Presentation 37 Program Staff Presentation Achieving Permanency for Children in Foster Care MEASURENational MedianNational 25 th / 75 th Percentile % in care for 24 months or longer exiting to permanent home in 12 months (less than 18 years old) 25.0%29.1% (75 th Percentile) % legally free children exiting to a permanent home before age %98.0% (75 th Percentile) % exiting to emancipation in care for 3 years or more Lower score is preferable in this measure 47.8%37.5% (25 th Percentile) National Standards for composites are established at the 75th percentile as adjusted for sampling error. There are no standards for individual measures. For measures where a higher score is preferable, the 75th percentile is provided; for measures where a lower score is preferable, the 25th percentile is provided.

Program Staff Presentation 38 Program Staff Presentation Composite 4: Placement Stability National Standard = or higher

Program Staff Presentation 39 Program Staff Presentation Composite 4 Placement Stability (Composite 4 has no components) Measure 1: Of all children who were served in foster care during the 12-month target period, and who were in foster care for at least 8 days but less than 12 months, what percent had two or fewer placement settings? Measure 2: Of all children who were served in foster care during the 12-month target period, and who were in foster care for at least 12 months but less than 24 months, what percent had two or fewer placement settings? Measure 3: Of all children who were served in foster care during the 12-month target period, and who were in foster care for at least 24 months, what percent had two or fewer placement settings?

Program Staff Presentation 40 Program Staff Presentation Placement Stability for Children Equals 2 or Fewer Placements For all measures in Composite 4, a higher score is preferable. There are no standards for individual measures. National Standards for the composites are established at the 75th percentile as adjusted for sampling error. MEASURENational MedianNational 75 th Percentile % in care 8 days to 12 months with 2 or fewer placements 83.3%86.0% % in care for 12 to 24 months with 2 or fewer placements 59.9%65.4% % in care for 24 months or more with 2 or fewer placements 33.9%41.8%

Program Staff Presentation 41 Program Staff Presentation Keeping Your Eyes on the Prize Composites = Setting State Goals The prize: Achieving the best possible outcomes for all our children!

Program Staff Presentation 42 Program Staff Presentation For more information: Children’s Bureau web site: NRC-CWDT contact information: NRC-OI contact information: