1. The C-CFSR or Some of My Best Friends are Outcome Measures National Resource Center for Child Welfare Data and Technology 8th National Child Welfare Data Conference July 20, 2005 Barbara Needell, MSW, PhD Center for Social Services Research University of California at Berkeley The Performance Indicators Project is funded by the California Department of Social Services and the Stuart Foundation

2. Measuring Child Welfare Outcomes Child InChild Out A bunch of stuff happens *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

3. u Government Performance Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) u Annual Outcomes Report to Congress mandated by Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997 u 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) u California Child Welfare System Improvement and Accountability Act (AB636) became law in 2001 and went into effect in January 2004 Outcomes, outcomes, everywhere

4. Quarterly distribution of county specific outcome indicators data Includes national standards (from AFCARS), but also draws heavily on previous work done by CWDA and UCB using entry cohort measures Mirrors Family to Family Outcomes Retains key process measures (e.g., child visits, time to investigation)

5. Statewide Data Indicators from AFCARS u Stability Of Foster Care Placement u Length Of Time To Reunification u Foster Care Re-entries u Length Of Time To Adoption

6. Why do we use entry cohort measures in addition to measures from AFCARS?

7. Who is in AFCARS?  AFCARS contains data on children in foster care during a federal fiscal year  Each reporting period’s submission is a separate dataset. Reporting periods are linked together by the Children’s Bureau to form the annual databases. ANNUAL DATABASES ARE NOT LINKED TO EACH OTHER.

8. 11/0211/0311/04 Data snapshots can be biased Source: Aron Shlonsky, University of Toronto (formerly at CSSR)

9. California EXAMPLE: Age of Foster Children (2003 first entries, 2003 exits, July 1 2004 caseload)

10. Federal—Of all children who were adopted during the year, what % had been in care for less than 24 months?(national standard = 32%) State enriched—Of all children entering care for the first time, what % are adopted in less than 24 months? (we do not have state standards)

11. 32% National Standard Baseline 100 kids adopted, 33 within 24 months=33% substantial conformity achieved Two pronged approach—faster adoption for 100 new entries (50% adopted within 24 months), additional adoptions for 100 kids in long term care 2 years later 200 kids adopted, 50 within 24 months=25% substantial conformity NOT achieved

12. Are you getting better or worse? Data from the Multi State Data Archive Adoption within 24 Months year Source: Chapin Hall Center for Children

13. Why don’t we have state standards ?

14. The Cycle of Experiences in the Child Welfare System The Cycle of Experiences in the Child Welfare System Counterbalanced Indicators of SystemPerformance PermanencyThroughReunification, Adoption, or Guardianship Length Of Stay Stability Of Care Rate of Referrals/ Substantiated Referrals Home-Based Services vs. Out-of-HomeCare Positive Attachments To Family, Friends, and Neighbors Use of Least Restrictive Form of Care 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, Reentry to Care

15. Lack of understanding about the limitations of the national standards, and pressure to achieve “substantial conformity” (pass), could drive changes in policy and practice that may not be best for children and families.

16. Components Quarterly distribution of county specific outcome indicators data County Self Assessment Peer Quality Case Review County Self Improvement Plan Continuous monitoring of outcomes

17. AB636=State / County Partnership Shifts focus from process measured compliance to outcome based review system, but requires linking outcomes to related processes. Data are our friends, not our dictators. Requires county collaboration with community partners (SIPs signed by Boards of Supervisors). Promotes sharing of promising practices among counties.

18. UCB Website cssr.berkeley.edu (Child Welfare Services Reports) includes age, ethnicity, gender breakouts kin vs non-kin for all AB636 measures and more use “Datadude” to examine performance over time

19. State Websites http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/cdssweb/ (Child Welfare Systems Improvements) http://www.childsworld.ca.gov/CDSSCounty_1954.htm (AB636 Quarterly Reports) http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/cdssweb/ http://www.childsworld.ca.gov/CDSSCounty_1954.htm

20. Go Bears! bneedell@berkeley.edu 510 642 1893