AB636—Congratulations to the Legislature, CDSS, and the Counties!

AB 636

presented at the joint hearing between the

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES

and the

ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON FOSTER CARE Sacramento, CA

3/7/06

Barbara Needell, MSW, PhDCenter for Social Services ResearchUniversity of California at Berkeley

presentation prepared by Emily Putnam Hornstein, MSW, Graduate Student Researcher

The Performance Indicators Project at CSSR is supported by the California Department of Social Services

and the Stuart Foundation

AB636—Congratulations to the

Legislature, CDSS, and the Counties!

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.

Point in Time

Exit Cohorts

Entry Cohorts

Data

3 Views of Data

The view really matters! Age of Foster Children

(2003 first entries, 2003 exits, July 1 2004 caseload)(2003 first entries, 2003 exits, July 1 2004 caseload)

22

4 5

31 30

2422

24 24

2022

32

5

1916

0

10

20

30

40

50

<1 yr 1- 5 yrs 6- 10 yrs 11- 15 yrs 16+ yrs

%

Entries

Exits

Point in Time

Why do we use other measures in addition to

the measures used in the federal Child and Family

Services Reviews (CFSRs)?

most CFSR measures come from the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and

Reporting System (AFCARS)

The trouble with AFCARS...

AFCARS contains data on children in foster care during a federal fiscal year.

Annual databases have not, in the past, been linked to each other, which is required for entry cohort analyses.

Child welfare and probation episodes are combined.

Key indicators (e.g., sibling identifier, FFA vs. county foster homes) are absent.

All four foster care measures (National Standards for reunification, adoption, foster care reentry, and placement stability) are limited and provide incomplete and at times misleading information.

Are you getting better or worse? Data from the Multi State Data Archive

Adoption within 24 Months

State A

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

Ado

pted

Federal

State

Year

Source: Chapin Hall Center for Children

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 at:

cssr.berkeley.edu/cwscmsreports

Tracking Child Welfare Outcomes Tracking Child Welfare Outcomes (AB636, Family to Family)(AB636, Family to Family)

CounterbalancedCounterbalancedIndicators ofIndicators of

SystemSystemPerformancePerformance

PermanencyPermanencyThroughThrough

Reunification,Reunification,Adoption, orAdoption, orGuardianshipGuardianship

Placement Placement StabilityStability

Reports/Investigations/Reports/Investigations/Substantiated ReportsSubstantiated Reports Home-BasedHome-Based

Services vs.Services vs.Out of HomeOut of Home

CareCare

Positive Positive AttachmentsAttachments

to Family,to Family,Friends, andFriends, andNeighborsNeighbors

Use of LeastUse of LeastRestrictiveRestrictive

Form of CareForm of Care

Reentry to CareReentry to Care

1.0%

1.4%

2.8%

3.4%

3.5%

4.5%

5.8%

6.5%

6.7%

11.5%

19.4%

29.4%

0.3%Point in Time Placement with Kin (+)

Referral Rate (- )

Reunification within 12 Months (+)

Placement with Siblings (+)

Rate of Foster Care Entry (- )

Placement Stability (+)

Recurrence of Abuse or Neglect (- )

Rate of Children in Foster Care (- )

Substantiation Rate (- )

Re- entry to Foster Care (- )

First Entry to Kin Placement (+)

First Entry to Group or Shelter (- )

Adoption within 24 Months (+)

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.

2001-2003

California:% of Children Adopted within 24 months

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

%

Entry Cohort

+ 29.4%

5.1

6.6

2003-2005

California:First Entry Placement Type Group or Shelter

J un-05

Mar-05

Dec-04

Sep-04

J un-04

Mar-04

Dec-03

Sep-03

J un-03

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

-19.4%

19.9

16.1

34.634.5

18.416.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

J ul-03 Oct-03 J an-04 Apr-04 J ul-04 Oct-04 J an-05 Apr-05 J ul-05

%

2003-2005

California:Percentage of First Entry Placements with

Kinand

Point in Time Percentage of Children with Kin

First Entries + 11.5%

Point in Time + 0.3%

2001-2004

California:% of children reunified within 1-yr of entering care (out of all children in cohort),

% of children who re-entered within 1-yr of reunification (of those reunified within 1 yr.),

% of children still reunified 1-yr after reunification (of children in cohort, reunifications within 1 yr with no reentry)

36.335.8

- 12.5- 13.4

32.331.1

- 15

0

15

30

45

J un-01 Sep-01 Dec-01 Mar-02 J un-02 Sep-02 Dec-02 Mar-03 J un-03 Sep-03 Dec-03 Mar-04 J un-04 J un-04

Entry Cohort

Reunified

Re-entered

1-yr After Reunification

+1.4%

-6.7%

+3.9%

51.9 51.7 51.4

12.3 11.7 11.5

3.6 3.5 3.5

2.9 2.8 2.8

2002 2003 2004

2002-2004

California:Referrals, Substantiations, and Entry Rates

(per 1,000 Children)

Substantiations -6.5%

Referrals -1.0%

Re-Entries & First Entries -2.8%

First Entries -3.4%

2003-2005

California:Rate of Children in Foster Care

(per 1,000 children)

8.68.4

8.1

J uly 1, 2003 J uly 1, 2004 J uly 1, 2005

Point in Time

-5.8%Rate Per 1,000

2002-2004

California:Recurrence of Abuse/Neglect Within 12-

Months

J un- 04

Mar- 04

Dec- 03

Sep- 03

J un- 03

Mar- 03

Dec- 02

Sep- 02

J un- 02

10 11 12 13 14 15

%

-4.5%

13.2

12.6

2002-2004

California:Placement Stability at 12 months,

% of children still in 1st or 2nd placement

J un-02 Sep-02 Dec-02 Mar-03 J un-03 Sep-03 Dec-03 Mar-04 J un-0460

62

64

66

68

70

%

Entry Cohort

+ 3.5%

63.2

65.4

2003-2005

California:% of Children Placed with Siblings

J ul-03 Oct-03 J an-04 Apr-04 J ul-04 Oct-04 J an-05 Apr-05 J ul-0560

62

64

66

68

70

%

Point in Time

+ 2.8%

65.4

67.2

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

GO BEARS!

Thank you for the opportunity.Barbara Needell

510.642.1893bneedell@berkeley.edu