Transcript Slide 1

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
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
Tracking Child Welfare Outcomes
Rate of Referrals/
Substantiated Referrals
Reentry to Care
Permanency
Through
Reunification,
Adoption, or
Guardianship
Counterbalanced
Indicators of
System
Performance
Length
of Stay
Stability
of Care
Home-Based
Services vs.
Out of Home
Care
Use of Least
Restrictive
Form of Care
Positive
Attachments
to Family,
Friends, and
Neighbors
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,
3 Key Samples of Data
Entry
Cohorts
Data
Point
in Time
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
Exit
Cohorts
Point in Time Measures Can be Misleading:
Example: How long do children stay in foster care?
1/1/2005
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
7/1/05
1/1/2006
Source: Aron Shlonsky, University of Toronto (formerly at CSSR)
California Example:
Age of Children in Foster Care
(2003 first entries, 2003 exits, July 1 2004 caseload)
50
45
Entries
40
35
31
30
%
25
22
22
20
20
15
10
5
5
0
<1 yr
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
1-5 yrs
6-10 yrs
11-15 yrs
16+ yrs
California Example:
Age of Children in Foster Care
(2003 first entries, 2003 exits, July 1 2004 caseload)
50
45
Entries
40
Exits
35
31 30
30
%
25
25
22
22
20
20
22
19
15
10
5
5
4
0
<1 yr
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
1-5 yrs
6-10 yrs
11-15 yrs
16+ yrs
California Example:
Age of Children in Foster Care
(2003 first entries, 2003 exits, July 1 2004 caseload)
50
45
Entries
40
Exits
35
30
%
25
33
31 30
23
22
22
25 24
20
20
Point in Time
22
19
15
15
10
5
4
5
5
0
<1 yr
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
1-5 yrs
6-10 yrs
11-15 yrs
16+ yrs
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)
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)
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
The State system is
functioning at a level that
promotes achievement of
the identified outcomes
(7 systemic factors)
CFSR Review Process

Statewide Assessment

Onsite Review

Determination of substantial conformity

Program Improvement Plans
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 75th %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
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.
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
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
California:
AB636 UCB Measures,
Percent IMPROVEMENT
January 2004 compared to January 2007
Adopted w/in 24m (cohort) (+)
36.7%
Initial Placement w/Kin (+)
28.3%
Adopted w/in 24m (+)
22.2%
Recurrence of M altreatment (-)
21.1%
Initial Placement Group/Shelter (-)
18.5%
Rate of Children in Foster Care (-)
11.4%
Placement with All Siblings (+)
9.9%
Recurrence w/in 12m of Subst. (-)
9.1%
Reunified w/in 12m (cohort) (+)
7.5%
Recurrence w/in 12m (-)
7.4%
Substantiated Referral Rate (-)
7.2%
Reunified w/in 12m (+)
7.1%
Re-Entries to Foster Care (-)
5.3%
Re-Entries w/in 12m (cohort) (-)
5.1%
1-2 Placements (at 12m, cohort) (+)
4.9%
Placement with Siblings (+)
3.3%
Referral Rate (-)
3.2%
1-2 Placements w/in 12m (+)
Rate of First Entry to Foster Care (-)
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
1.6%
-3.2%
State Measure
Federal Measure
Note: (+) indicates a measure where a % increase equals improvement.
(-) indicates a measure where a % decrease equals improvement.
indicates a measure where performance declined.
2002-2006
California:
Referrals, Substantiations & Entry Rates
(per 1,000 Children)
51.8
12.3
51.6
51.2
11.7
11.6
50.1
11.4
50.0
11.1
4.2
4.1
4.0
4.2
4.1
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
Referral Rates
Substantiation
Rates
Entry Rates
1998 to December 2006
California:
First Entries by First Placement Type
(children in care for 8 or more days)
12,000
30,000
10,000
TOTAL
25,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
Kinship
20,000
Group/Shelter
15,000
FFA
10,000
2,000
0
5,000
1998
1999
2000
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
2001
2002
2003
Entry Year
2004
2005
2006
0
TOTAL Frequency
Placement Frequency
Foster
1998 to January 2007
California:
Foster Care Caseload by Placement Type
60,000
120,000
40,000
100,000
TOTAL
Kinship
80,000
30,000
20,000
60,000
FFA
40,000
Foster
10,000
0
20,000
Group/Shelter
1998
1999
2000 2001 2002
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
2003
Point in Time
2004
2005 2006 2007
0
TOTAL Frequency
Placement Frequency
50,000
2006
California:
Ethnicity and Path through the Child Welfare System
(Missing Values Excluded from % Calculations)
100%
3.3
9.8
0.8
Other
80%
60%
48.1
40%
20%
0%
Native
American
Asian/PI
Hispanic
30.8
White
7.2
Black
Population
(9,664,747)
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)
100%
3.3
9.8
0.8
3.9
0.9
Other
80%
50.2
60%
48.1
Native
American
Asian/PI
40%
Hispanic
29.7
20%
0%
White
30.8
7.2
Population
(9,664,747)
15.4
Referrals
(438,666)
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
Black
2006
California:
Ethnicity and Path through the Child Welfare System
(Missing Values Excluded from % Calculations)
100%
3.3
9.8
0.8
3.9
0.9
4.0
1.1
Other
80%
50.2
60%
51.4
48.1
Asian/PI
40%
Hispanic
29.7
20%
0%
Native
American
28.5
White
30.8
7.2
Population
(9,664,747)
15.4
14.9
Referrals
(438,666)
Substantiations
(102,365)
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
Black
2006
California:
Ethnicity and Path through the Child Welfare System
(Missing Values Excluded from % Calculations)
100%
3.3
9.8
0.8
3.9
0.9
4.0
1.1
3.3
1.4
Other
80%
50.2
60%
51.4
48.1
48.1
Asian/PI
40%
Hispanic
29.7
20%
0%
Native
American
28.5
28.2
White
30.8
7.2
Population
(9,664,747)
15.4
14.9
19.0
Referrals
(438,666)
Substantiations
(102,365)
Entries
(39,646)
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
Black
2006
California:
Ethnicity and Path through the Child Welfare System
(Missing Values Excluded from % Calculations)
100%
3.30
9.8
0.8
3.9
0.9
4.0
1.1
3.3
80%
50.2
60%
51.4
48.1
Other
42.4
26.2
28.5
Population
(9,664,747)
Native
American
Hispanic
28.2
White
30.8
7.2
1.4
Asian/PI
29.7
0%
2.3
48.1
40%
20%
1.4
15.4
14.9
19.0
Referrals
(438,666)
Substantiations
(102,365)
Entries
(39,646)
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
27.7
Black
In Care
(74,634)
2006
California:
Referrals per 1,000
by Age and Ethnicity
150
103
110 96
87
90
78
64
52
73
47
54 52
37
48
45
40
28
37
Black
(97.2*)
*Series Total
Native
American
(46.8*)
54
46
47
44
53
37
53
50 42
46
20
38
18
ALL
(50.0*)
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
15
White
(43.8*)
Hispanic
(47.4*)
Asian/PI
(17.8*)
18 14
<1 yr
1-2 yrs
3-5 yrs
6-10 yrs
11-15 yrs
16-17 yrs
21
2006
California:
Substantiated Referrals per 1,000
by Age and Ethnicity
62
44
27
22
24
26
24
18
18
9
9
5
Black
(22.0*)
*Series Total
Native
American
(13.9*)
22
12
13
13
24
11
11
(11.1*)
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
11
12
9
7
ALL
10
10
(9.8*)
12
9
10
6
White
12
7
4
3
Hispanic
(11.3*)
Asian/PI
(4.3*)
5
4
<1 yr
1-2 yrs
3-5 yrs
6-10 yrs
11-15 yrs
16-17 yrs
5
2006
California:
Entries to Foster Care per 1,000
by Age and Ethnicity
39
27
14
13
12
9
9
5
4
3
Black
(10.8*)
*Series Total
12
6
7
3
Native
American
(6.9*)
13
12 9
3
4
5
4
4
3
3
3
2
ALL
(4.1*)
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
White
(3.8*)
4
2
Hispanic
(4.1*)
5
4
5
2
<1 yr
1-2 yrs
1
3-5 yrs
1
6-10 yrs
1
11-15 yrs
16-17 yrs
Asian/PI
(1.4*)
1
2006
California:
Children in Foster Care per 1,000
by Age and Ethnicity
40
35
27
24
24 24
18 16 16
12
12
11
8
9
8
7
7
7
(29.8*)
*Series Total
American
(12.9*)
ALL
(7.7*)
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
White
(6.6*)
8
7 5
7
Native
8
6
8
Black
8
7
6
7
(6.8*)
Asian/PI
(1.8*)
2
2
3
<1 yr
1-2 yrs
1
3-5 yrs
6-10 yrs
11-15 yrs
16-17 yrs
2
2
Hispanic
7
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
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
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
Barbara Needell
[email protected]
510.642.1893
510.290.6334 (pcs)
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: <http://cssr.berkeley.edu/UCB_CHILDWELFARE/>
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley