1. 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

2. http://www.nrccwdt.org/resources/cfsr/data_tools.html

3. 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)

4. 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.

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

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

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

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

9. 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‘

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

11. 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)

12. (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).

13. 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‘

14. (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'

15. 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'.

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

17. 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.

18. (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.

19. (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.”).

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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.

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

28. Additional Documentation Measure Contributions Estimate of Statewide Composites County Composite Formula

29. Composite Viewer (Alameda)

30. Composite Planner (Alameda)

31. 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 bneedell@berkeley.edu 510-290-6334 Slides developed by Emily Putnam-Hornstein