1. 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 The Performance Indicators Project at CSSR is supported by the California Department of Social Services and the Stuart Foundation

2. AB636—Up and Running County Self Assessments, Self Improvement Plans, and Peer Quality Case Reviews all use performance measures as a foundation. Teams formed at the local level use data to identify strengths challenges, and decide appropriate responses. Quarterly Performance Measures are posted publicly. Even after only two years, we can see measurable improvement.

3. Entry Cohorts Exit Cohorts Point in Time Data 3 Views of Data

4. AB 636  California Child Welfare System Improvement and Accountability Act (AB636) became law in 2001 and went into effect in January 2004 Includes federal measures, but also uses fully longitudinal data to provide additional measures needed to understand performance (e.g., entry cohort measures) Mirrors Family to Family Outcomes Retains key process measures (e.g., child visits, time to investigation) Began with county self assessments and System Improvement Plans (SIPS) that identified key challenges and strengths Peer Quality Case Reviews (PQCRs) are being conducted in each county to dig deeper into specific issues

5. To fully understand child welfare performance, we must use longitudinal data… --data that follows children throughout their entire child welfare experiences --this is what we now have in California, what we use in AB636 (and related efforts like Family to Family), and what we post publicly and update quarterly. Most of the National Standards (federal measures) are from datasets that only contain one year ‘s information at a time, and are not linked across years--cannot measure using entry view Child welfare/mental health linked administrative data analyses should encompass all 3 views

6. Tracking Child Welfare Outcomes Tracking Child Welfare Outcomes (AB636, Family to Family) (AB636, Family to Family) Counterbalanced Indicators of SystemPerformance PermanencyThroughReunification, Adoption, or Guardianship PlacementStability Reports/Investigations/ Substantiated Reports Home-Based Services vs. Out of Home Care Positive Attachments to Family, Friends, and Neighbors Use of Least Restrictive Form of Care Reentry to Care

7. AB636 Current Measures Rates per 1,000 child population-- Reports, Substantiated Reports, First Entries to Foster Care, Point in time In Care Recurrence of Maltreatment (1A and 1B) Rate of Child Abuse and/or Neglect in Foster Care (1C) Recurrence of Abuse/Neglect Where Children Were Not Removed (2A) Child Abuse and Neglect Referrals by Time-to-Investigation (2B) Monthly Social Worker Visits with Children (2C) Length of Time to Exit Foster Care to Reunification (3E and 3A) Length of Time to Exit Foster Care to Adoption (3D and 3A) Multiple Foster Care Placements (3B and 3C) Rate of Foster Care Re-Entry (3F and 3G) Siblings Placed Together in Foster Care (4A) Foster Care Placement in Least Restrictive Settings (4B) ICWA Placement Preferences (4E) Independent Living Program (8A)

8. California: AB636 Measures, Percent IMPROVEMENT from January 2004 to January 2006 Note: (+) indicates a measure where a % increase equals improvement. (-) indicates a measure where a % decrease equals improvement.

9. DATA: Friend or Foe? Beware:  County/state rankings on individual measures Composite scores that mask issues Small populations Inappropriate views Consider: Performance over time!!!!! Age, gender and race/ethnicity Interaction among outcomes (counterbalance) Local practice and policy changes needed to impact outcomes

10. GO BEARS! Barbara Needell 510.642.1893 bneedell@berkeley.edu