Transcript Are We Counting Everything that Counts?

“Not everything that can be counted
counts, and not everything that
counts can be counted.”
Albert Einstein
Overview of Today
• Introductions of the presenters:
Theresa Costello, NRCCPS, Director
 Janet Ciarico, Consultant, NRC-CWDT
 Kim Wieczorek, SD SACWIS Project Director
 Pamela Bennett, NRCCPS Sr. Staff Associate,
Former SD Ongoing Program Specialist

Some context for the discussion:
 Decision points in the case process
 Terminology
 Impressions regarding some things that are NOT routinely counted in
many states
 Reality check: what difference does that make?
• Ways to move incrementally towards counting the things that count
 South Dakota’s experiences
 Group discussion about moving away from a “wish list”

Decisions Made during the Investigation
Decisions Made Post-Investigation
Some Basic Premises
Things We Know to Track
• Substantiation relates to
whether some type of
maltreatment already has
happened.
• Timely initial contact helps
demonstrate we are
expending the right
amount of effort to respond
to allegations.
Things We Don’t Always Track
• SAFETY is about the concern
that in the near future a child
will be severely harmed
because the situation at home
is so out of control.
• Accurately IDENTIFYING
SAFETY THREATS and
RESPONDING to SAFETY
THREATS WITH SUFFICIENT
SAFETY PLANS are the
fundamental reasons why
public child welfare agencies
exist.
Terms
• Threats to a child’s safety can play out right in front of you:
Immediate or Present Danger.
• Threats to a child’s safety can exist, but can be harder to discern
without more information. The child is in Impending Danger.
• There may be no maltreatment (unsubstantiated), yet public child
welfare needs to develop and implement a response due to Present or
Impending Danger. The child is unsafe.
• When a child is unsafe, an analysis must determine what the
sufficient response (correct level of intrusiveness) is. A SAFETY PLAN
is developed to control the threats. The Safety Plan may be in home
(the child continues to reside with the caregivers/parents) or out of
home (the child lives elsewhere).
Some of the Things We Count
• Number of reports
• Number of substantiated investigations
• Number of initial contacts made within timeframe
• Number of children placed in foster care
• Number of investigations closed
• Number of investigations opened for services
• Number of permanency plan reviews
• Length of stay in foster care
• Number of disrupted placements
• Number of re-referrals
What Often Isn’t Counted?
• How many children at the onset of the investigation
were in immediate danger?
• How many times was an immediate safety plan
implemented in order to carry on with the rest of the
investigation?
• How many of those children were moved “voluntarily”
to a relative’s home?
What Often Isn’t Counted?
• How many of those children are still at the relative’s
home by the end of the investigation?
• How many children are deemed safe/unsafe by the end
of the investigation?
• How many cases are opened for services with an inhome safety plan?
• How many cases are opened for services with an outof-home safety plan (including a “voluntary”
placement with a relative)?
Lack of Management Reports Obscures
Practice Trends Like:
• At initial contact, the CPS worker tells the family that the child needs to stay
elsewhere. The family agrees, believing finding a relative for the child is a
better alternative than court and/or foster care. The child goes to a relative’s
home “voluntarily.” All contact between the parents and the child must be
supervised by the relative.
• The case may then be closed for all services. In some states it may stay open.
In many states the case is perceived as an “in-home” or “intact” case—not
subject to permanency timeframes, hearings, etc.
• Hundreds of thousands of children are in these kinds of “placements,” with
little or no tracking mechanisms. Studies show that when cases do remain
open, kin receive fewer services, have less contact with workers. (Geen,
Urban Institute, Dubowitz, Berrick)
Lack of Data Slows Analysis:
Was a Fatality Part of a Systemic Practice
Problem?
A 3-year-old child was killed while under the protection of a
safety plan. Family members do not agree with the agency
that there was a stipulation that the child have no contact
with the father. Family members were genuinely surprised
that the child was deemed “unsafe” by the agency, since the
case was unsubstantiated and court was not involved. No
information about the safety plan related to the start and end
dates, the people/service providers involved, or the conditions
set forth were available.
Data Influences Planning
• Would it help in resource planning to know how many cases
each year had certain types of safety threats identified?
• Would it help prevent placement or reunify more quickly if
data were known regarding what kinds of services were
deemed necessary (but unavailable) for an in-home safety
plan to be sufficient?
• Would the community have a better understanding of CPS
families and agency needs if data could show that 37% of
unsubstantiated cases also had a finding that the children
were nonetheless unsafe?
Work Together to Plan and
Implement Program Changes
• Program and systems staff should work together as
a team from the planning stages.
• Working toward a common goal builds a positive
working relationship.
• Communication between all parties is key.
• Maintain a common understanding of language and
definitions.
Data Considerations
• Make a data plan based on updated goals.
• Consider the data most useful to track and achieve your goals.
• Consider data that will be useful at all levels:
 To assist staff in meeting new agency goals.
 For the agency to assess new goals.
• Consider the data you already have in your system:
 How existing data can be used.
 How program changes may affect existing data collected.
• Consider new data items that are needed to track and meet your
goals.
Consult with Other Jurisdictions
• Find out how other states and jurisdictions are
addressing the same issues.
• What type of process did they develop?
• What type of system changes did they implement?
• How are they tracking and assessing safety goals?
• What can you learn from their experiences?
How Does an Agency Begin to Count
the Things That Count?
South Dakota Timeline
Safety Change in Practice (1998)
SACWIS Conversion (1998-2002)
SACWIS IFA Screen Changes (2001)
SACWIS Reporting Changes (2001 – 2002)
Ongoing Services – change in practice
• (2005 – 2007)
PCA Workgroup – reviewed reports together
• (2007 – 2008)
Example
Present Danger Response
Protective Plan – Agency/family response to children in present danger that
does not involve custody removal. (This is often a number not counted in
SACWIS or agencies. Consider this from the child’s view.)
2009 – 6.3%
2010 – 6.4%
2011 – 6.1%
Example
Impending Safety Responses
•
•
•
•
Children Placed Out of Home Through Court Jurisdiction (42.0%)
In-Home Safety Plan (27.1%)
Maltreating Parent Left (4.2%)
Non-maltreating Parent Can/Will Protect (26.7%)
Example
2009 Substantiated 22.87%
Cases with children unsafe 26.0%
2010 Substantiated 22.02%
Cases with children unsafe 26.1%
Milestones for Progress
• Recognition that only counting SACWIS federal
requirements did not tell the agency all they needed
to know
• SACWIS evolution to provide program the outcomes
they required to judge practice and model fidelity
• Ongoing program and system collaboration
Benefits
• Increases accountabilities
• Increases transparencies (more focused and less
“story” based)
• System ownership
• System integration in practice model
• Analysis of practice leading to strategic planning
For technical assistance on this topic
National Resource Center for Child Welfare Data and Technology
https://www.nrccwdt.org
Debbie Milner
[email protected]
National Resource Center for Child Protective Services
http://nrccps.org
Theresa Costello
[email protected]