Susan Smith and Lisa Tuttle Casey Family Programs July 29, 2011
28
Indicating Success in Public Child Welfare Child Outcomes, System Performance and the CFSR Process Susan Smith and Lisa Tuttle Casey Family Programs July 29, 2011
description
Indicating Success in Public Child Welfare Child Outcomes, System Performance and the CFSR Process. Susan Smith and Lisa Tuttle Casey Family Programs July 29, 2011. Monitoring the Vision: Casey’s Dashboard . Goal : Every child deserves a safe, permanent home - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Susan Smith and Lisa Tuttle Casey Family Programs July 29, 2011
Indicating Success in Public Child Welfare Child Outcomes, System Performance and the CFSR Process
Susan Smith and Lisa TuttleCasey Family Programs
July 29, 2011
Monitoring the Vision:Casey’s Dashboard
• Goal: Every child deserves a safe, permanent home
• Vision: Reduce the children in the United States in foster care in half by the year 2020
• In 2005 there were ½ million children; moving to ¼ million by 2020
• Monitor: Key performance indicators at a national level
• Evaluate: Work and efforts at the state and county level
Long term trends in entries & exits
Data notes: For years before 2000, data are averaged across a two-year period. Data for 1995 and before should not be compared to data from 1996 and beyond. Data on entries and exits not available for 1995-1997. Data from 1982-1989 retrieved from the American Public Welfare Association/Voluntary Cooperative Information System (VCIS). Data from 1990-1994 based on the VCIS and retrieved from the Children’s Bureau website. Data from 1995-1998 retrieved from CWLA/NDAS. Data from 1999-20010 based on AFCARS.
1982-83
1984-85
1986-87
1988-89
1990-91
1992-93
1994-95
1996-97
1998-99
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
In Care Entries Exits
Trends In Out-of-Home Care:
Slides prepared by Data Advocacy, 7/25/11Data source: AFCARS
FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY100
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
In Care Entries Exits
National Entry Rates, FY09 - improved overall entry rate
Slides prepared by Data Advocacy, 7/25/11Data source: AFCARS
WY WV IA RIAR KY CO AK HI
MT MA VT TN WA CA WINat'
l MICT ID MS UT GA DE TX IL PR
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
3.4
6
National Foster Care Trends
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
<1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Total Children In Care, by Age
FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09
U.S. Foster Care Systemhighly simplified
CHILD IN a bunch of stuff
happensCHILD OUT
*adapted from Lyle, G. L., & Barker, M.A. (1998) Patterns & Spells: New approaches to conceptualizing children’s out of home placement experiences. Chicago: American Evaluation Association Annual Conference
But is the child safe? (Whether in foster care or at home)
And what is the child’s level of well-being?
BackgroundChild and Family Services Reviews (CFSR)
• Goal: Improve the performance of state child welfare systems
• Timeline: 1994 Federal government mandate to review and evaluate state foster care and adoption services
• Children’s Bureau of the Administration on Children and Families (ACF) administers the process
• Purpose of CFSRs: To ensure states are in “substantial conformity” with Titles IV-B and IV-E Federal Funding, within the domains of safety, permanence, and well-being.
Outcome Measures:What we have What we need
Permanency
• C1.1• C1.2• C1.3• C1.4
Adoption
• C2.1• C2.2• C2.3• C2.4• C2.5
Long-Stayers
• C3.1• C3.2• C3.3
Placement Stability
• C4.1• C4.2• C4.3
valid
reliable
comprehensible
= a good measure
Outcome Measures
Data should be gathered and analyzed in a manner that facilitates understanding of how one area of practice affects another
Acknowledgement to Emily Putnam-Hornstein and Barbara Needell, University of California, Berkeley, for the slide content.
Proposed Measures – outcome measures required
Maltreatment Recurrence
Entry to Care
Abusein Care
Placement Stability
Lengthof Stay
Exits to Permanency
Maintenance of Permanence
Additional Measures –
optionalIGNORE THIS
LEVEL
Reportingrate
Responserate
investigation rate
case opening rate
victimization rate
re-reporting rate
in-home services
exits from in-home services
re-reports post in-home
services
adoption disruption
Proposed Measures
process measures - required
Worker-ChildVisits
Timeliness ofInvestigations
Proposed Measures
well-being measures
IGNORE THIS LEVEL
medical evaluation
dental evaluation
mental health screening
school enrollment
status at / after emancipation
Data-sharing / interoperability [near-term goal]
Outcome Measures….
birthhome
visiting
family supports
referral entry
family preservation
Measures of primary and secondary prevention services?
Data-sharing / Interoperability
• Longer-term vision
social services data concerning vulnerable children and families
current
fully linked and integrated (real-
time) administrative data
systems for the coordinated delivery and evaluation of
services
future
National Dashboard
Efforts, Approaches, Outcomes
State Comparisons
State Detail in National View
State and County Level
Interactive Dashboard by State
Casey Direct Service Targets
Office numbers and targets
Conclusions• Child welfare needs to be considered an integrated
system of child safety and well-being, not a foster care program
• The Federal role is to assure accountability and compliance, which includes child safety
• Innovations in states and agencies lead the way in integrating and translating data into information about what works
QUESTIONS?
