Transcript Document
Juvenile Dependency Drug Court Performance Measures Presented by Amy C Nuñez, Sonya Tafoya & Anthony Villanueva What are Performance Measures? “concerned with the results of the services governments deliver, and help provide a basis for assessing the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of those services” - Government Accounting Standards Board The Balanced Scorecard, the Beginning: • Robert Kaplan & David Norton & Metric Driven Incentives (MDI’s) • Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 Balanced Scorecard – Private Perspectives Some examples of traditional metrics & what it strives to answer Perspectives Financial (Accounting Return On Investment Statistics) Cash Flow Internal Business Processes (Manufacturing Statistics) “How do we appear on paper?” Duplicate activities across functions Process alignment (is the right process in the right department?) Learning & Growth Is there the correct level of expertise for the job? (Organizational Employee turnover Management Statistics) “How do customers see us?” “What must we excel at?” Customer (Sales & Quality performance for customer Marketing Statistics) Customer retention rate “Can we continue to improve and create value?” Balanced Scorecard – Dependency Drug Court Perspective Some examples of metrics used & what it strives to answer Perspectives Effectiveness Return On Investment Recidivism Efficiency Timeliness Case processing “How do we appear on paper?” “How long does it take to get a client into treatment?” Productivity Number of clients served “How many clients did we serve?” Customer Quality performance for public / stakeholders Satisfaction Public satisfaction rate “Is this program effectively addressing your family needs?” Implementing Dependency Court Performance Measures • National development • Agreed upon domains • BRC Data Subcommittee • Codified in California Rule of Court 5.505 Domains of Measurement • Hearing Timeliness • Due process • Child Safety (shared) • Child Permanency (shared) • Child and Family Well-being Pilot Court Achievements • Received and fulfilled terms of State Court Improvement ProgramData Analysis Grant • Documented system codes and usage conventions • Created entry and exit cohort data extracts Pilot Court Achievements • Produced subset of performance measures • Identified necessary technical changes to case management systems that will increase the capacity to produce measures • Entering second grant period Pilot Progress by Measurement Domain • Timeliness measures coincide well with court calendaring data. • Safety, Permanency, Child Well- being data more complete in CWS/CMS • Due process require more analysis Focus on Subset of Hearing Types Detention Jurisdictional Disposition al Six Month Review 12 Month Permanency Planning 18 Month Permanency Selection and Implementation (366.26) Post Permanency Hearing (366.3) Timeliness: Jurisdictional Hearings (Detained) Historical Framework • 2006: CFCC defines CCMS needs (in Family, Juvenile & Collaborative Justice) • 2008: State Justice Institute awards grant to AOC SJI Grant • Develop Dependency Drug Court Performance Measures • Pilot test them in two courts • Finalize & Disseminate Established an Advisory Team • Representatives from various relevant fields: • Courts • California Drug Court Coordinators’ Work Group • Alcohol and Drug Programs • Department of Social Services • National Center for State Courts • Held in-person and conference call meetings • Reviewed documents & provided guidance and recommendations AOC Pilot Test • Occurred in two counties • Tested feasibility of data collection and data relevance • Used same time frame, varying results Pilot Test Goals • Test as many variables as possible, from as many NCSC domains • Identify data sources • Synchronize data sets • Determine data usefulness • Identify alternative variables Findings • Collaboration is key to successful data gathering & data meaningfulness • Establish data sharing protocols & policy Findings • Quality control mechanisms need to be built in: • Regular data check-ins • Protocols addressing data discrepancy • Ensures data definitions are clear and consistent Key Points to Remember about Performance Measures in DDC • Most helpful data elements (universal) • Use of cohort data • Starting data collection County was unable to capture child welfare data see alternative below Other useful documents: • Center for Families, Children & the Courts, Administrative Office of the Courts – Judicial Council of California (2010). Development of Dependency Drug Court Performance Measures, Final Report. • Center for Families, Children & the Courts, Administrative Office of the Courts – Judicial Council of California (2008.) Implementation Guide to Juvenile Dependency Court Performance Measures. Available at: www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/pdffiles/Combined-impguide010709.pdf • Child Welfare Dynamic Report System. (2009). California data. 2007–2009. A collaboration of the California Department of Social Services and the University of California, Berkeley. From: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare/Ccfsr.aspx • National Center for State Courts (2005). CourTools. Giving Courts the Tools to • Rubio, J.D., D.M., Cheesman, Ph.D., F., and Federspiel J.D., W. (2008). Performance Measure Success. Trial Court Performance Measures. Available at: www.courtools.org Measurement of Drug Courts: The State of the Art. National Center for State Courts. Statewide Technical Assistance Bulletin, Volume 6. Contact Information • Amy C Nuñez, 415-865-7564 email: [email protected] • Sonya Tafoya, 415-865-8973 email: [email protected] • Anthony Villanueva, 415-865-8857 email: [email protected]