1. 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 University of California at Berkeley July 2007 The Performance Indicators Project at CSSR is supported by the California Department of Social Services and the Stuart Foundation Presentation developed by Emily Putnam-Hornstein, MSW

2. Tracking Child Welfare Outcomes Counterbalanced Indicators of SystemPerformance PermanencyThroughReunification, Adoption, or Guardianship Length of Stay Stability of Care Rate of Referrals/ Substantiated Referrals Home-Based Services vs. Out of Home Care Positive Attachments to Family, Friends, and Neighbors Use of Least Restrictive Form of Care Source: Usher, C.L., Wildfire, J.B., Gogan, H.C. & Brown, E.L. (2002). Measuring Outcomes in Child Welfare. Chapel Hill: Jordan Institute for Families, Reentry to Care

3. CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Entry Cohorts Exit Cohorts Point in Time Data 3 Key Samples of Data

4. CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley 1/1/2005 1/1/2006 Point in Time Measures Can be Misleading: Example: How long do children stay in foster care? Source: Aron Shlonsky, University of Toronto (formerly at CSSR) 7/1/05

5. CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley % Entries California Example: Age of Children in Foster Care (2003 first entries, 2003 exits, July 1 2004 caseload)

6. CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley % Entries Exits California Example: Age of Children in Foster Care (2003 first entries, 2003 exits, July 1 2004 caseload)

7. CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley % Entries Exits Point in Time California Example: Age of Children in Foster Care (2003 first entries, 2003 exits, July 1 2004 caseload)

8. CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Outcomes, outcomes, everywhere Government Performance Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) Annual Outcomes Report to Congress mandated by Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997 Statewide Data Indicators in Child and Family Services Reviews -- a subset of the Annual Outcomes—from National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) and Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) Round 1 of CFSR FFY 2001-2004 (CA 2002) Round 2 of CFSR FFY 2007-2010 (CA 2008)

9. CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Purpose of CFSRs To assess State conformance with title IV-B and IV-E State plan requirements such that: The State is achieving desired outcomes for children and families in the areas of safety, permanency, and well-being (7 outcomes) The State system is functioning at a level that promotes achievement of the identified outcomes (7 systemic factors)

10. CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley CFSR Review Process  Statewide Assessment  Onsite Review  Determination of substantial conformity  Program Improvement Plans

11. CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley CA CWS Outcomes System Round 1 of the CFSRs –2 of the “outcomes” = 6 items (2 for safety, 4 for permanency) –National Standards attached: based on the 75 th %tile of reporting states –States failing to meet a given standard had to include that item in their Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs) Round 2 of the CFSRs –Also comprised of 6 items with standards attached –BUT…this time the permanency standards are comprised of 15 different measures distilled into four composites –TOTAL of 17 FEDERAL MEASURES

12. CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Making the Most of CFSR Scores… Each state will be provided with a data profile that includes percentages for each measure within each composite. The data comes from submissions to NCANDS and AFCARS. In California, we at CSSR collaborate with CDSS to replicate each of the measures and composite scores and report/update online quarterly. The focus must be on performance on INDIVIDUAL MEASURES (with age, race, gender, etc breakouts), and an understanding of how that performance contributes to National Standard Performance. More importantly, we must work to understand how performance on individual measures really relates to safety and permanence, what else we need to measure, and what we need to do to improve.

13. CA CWS Outcomes System California Child Welfare System Improvement and Accountability Act (AB636) became law in 2001 and went into effect in January 2004—quarterly outcomes reports at state and county level. –Includes federal measures, –Provides additional measures needed to understand performance (e.g., % of siblings placed together). –We have eliminated some of the original ab636 measures and have included all new federal measures. –We are working on additional measures of well-being. 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

14. CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley California: AB636 UCB Measures, Percent IMPROVEMENT January 2004 compared to January 2007 Note: (+) indicates a measure where a % increase equals improvement. (-) indicates a measure where a % decrease equals improvement. indicates a measure where performance declined. State Measure Federal Measure

15. CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley 2002-2006 California: Referrals, Substantiations & Entry Rates (per 1,000 Children) Referral Rates Substantiation Rates Entry Rates

16. CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley 1998 to December 2006 California: First Entries by First Placement Type (children in care for 8 or more days) 19981999200420052001200220032000 Group/Shelter Kinship FFA Foster TOTAL 2006

17. CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley 1998 to January 2007 California: Foster Care Caseload by Placement Type 19981999200420052001200220032000 Group/Shelter Kinship FFA Foster TOTAL 20062007

18. CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley 2006 California: Ethnicity and Path through the Child Welfare System (Missing Values Excluded from % Calculations)

19. CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley 2006 California: Ethnicity and Path through the Child Welfare System (Missing Values Excluded from % Calculations)

20. CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley 2006 California: Ethnicity and Path through the Child Welfare System (Missing Values Excluded from % Calculations)

21. CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley 2006 California: Ethnicity and Path through the Child Welfare System (Missing Values Excluded from % Calculations)

22. CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley 2006 California: Ethnicity and Path through the Child Welfare System (Missing Values Excluded from % Calculations)

23. CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley 2006 California: Referrals per 1,000 by Age and Ethnicity *Series Total

24. CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley 2006 California: Substantiated Referrals per 1,000 by Age and Ethnicity *Series Total

25. CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley 2006 California: Entries to Foster Care per 1,000 by Age and Ethnicity *Series Total

26. CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley 2006 California: Children in Foster Care per 1,000 by Age and Ethnicity *Series Total

27. CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Public Data: Putting it All Out There PROS: –Greater performance accountability –Community awareness and involvement, encourages public-private partnerships –Ability to track improvement over time, identify areas where programmatic adjustments are needed - County/County and County/State collaboration CONS: –Potential for misuse, misinterpretation, and misrepresentation –Available to those with agendas or looking to create a sensational headline –Misunderstood data can lead to the wrong policy decisions –“Torture numbers, and they’ll confess to anything” Gregg Easterbrook

28. CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley DATA ABUSE will not help end CHILD ABUSE Beware:  County/state rankings on individual measures Composite scores that mask issues Small populations Inappropriate views Logical “flipping” Consider: Performance over time Age, gender and race/ethnicity Interaction among outcomes (counterbalance) Local practice and policy changes needed to impact outcomes

29. CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley CSSR.BERKELEY.EDU/UCB_CHILDWELFARE Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Shaw, T., Dawson, W., Piccus, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Conley, A., Smith, J., Dunn, A., Frerer, K., & Putnam Hornstein, E., (2007). Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved [month day, year], from University of California at Berkeley Center for Social Services Research website. URL: Barbara Needell bneedell@berkeley.edu 510.642.1893 510.290.6334 (pcs)