1. The New Data Frontier Central California Area Social Services Consortium (CCASSC) and the Fresno County Experience The Administrative Use of Data to Promote an Agency Culture of Data Driven CWS Practice and Service Delivery

2. 2 Presenters Salvador Montana, Ph.D. Terry Luna, CWS/CMS Project Coordinator Chris Cole, MSW David Plassman, M.Div. Salvador Montana, Ph.D. Terry Luna, CWS/CMS Project Coordinator Chris Cole, MSW David Plassman, M.Div.

3. 3 Administrative Data Administrative data evolution Challenges and opportunities Policy and practice Accountability and outcomes Data-based organizational change Administrative data evolution Challenges and opportunities Policy and practice Accountability and outcomes Data-based organizational change

4. 4 Data Dark Ages Pre-2001: Culture of agency was not prepared to use data: To guide practice To support program planning To evaluate improvement needs To implement strategies Limited awareness Dependent on individuals Problem-oriented response Pre-2001: Culture of agency was not prepared to use data: To guide practice To support program planning To evaluate improvement needs To implement strategies Limited awareness Dependent on individuals Problem-oriented response

5. 5 Data Dark Ages 2001-2003: Data was previously used for funding streams and caseload counts; not used specifically for practice Supervisors used data for caseload management 2001-2003: Data was previously used for funding streams and caseload counts; not used specifically for practice Supervisors used data for caseload management

6. 6 Data Dark Ages Systemic Limitations: CWS/CMS not created with capacity for supervisors to complete assessments of worker performance Limited understanding of the relationship between various data sources Systemic Limitations: CWS/CMS not created with capacity for supervisors to complete assessments of worker performance Limited understanding of the relationship between various data sources

7. 7 The New Data Frontier Family to Family Initiative Self Evaluation Team AB636 System Improvement Plan Partnership with CSUF/Academy, collaborative efforts Family to Family Initiative Self Evaluation Team AB636 System Improvement Plan Partnership with CSUF/Academy, collaborative efforts

8. 8 The New Data Frontier Transparency of the data; public availability Philosophy of the agency (use of data) and relationship to community Data discussion as a tool to guide practice Potential sources and use of data Transparency of the data; public availability Philosophy of the agency (use of data) and relationship to community Data discussion as a tool to guide practice Potential sources and use of data

9. 9 Examples of Practice 10-Day Emergency Response rates Disproportionality rates 10-Day Emergency Response rates Disproportionality rates

10. 10 10-Day Emergency Response Self Assessment 2004 – Identified 10-day timeliness/responsiveness as opposed to ’backlog of referrals’, (quantitative to qualitative response) 2-hour and 10-day response comparison Self Assessment 2004 – Identified 10-day timeliness/responsiveness as opposed to ’backlog of referrals’, (quantitative to qualitative response) 2-hour and 10-day response comparison

11. 11 2B. Percent of Child Abuse/Neglect Referrals with a Timely Response 2 Hour and 10-Day Response Compliance

12. 12 2B. Percent of Child Abuse/Neglect Referrals with a Timely Response 2 Hour and 10-Day Response Compliance

13. 13 2B. Percent of Child Abuse/Neglect Referrals With a Timely Response 2 Hour and 10-Day Response Compliance

14. 14 10-Day Emergency Response Self Assessment 2004 – Identified 10-day timeliness/responsiveness as opposed to ’backlog of referrals’, (quantitative to qualitative response) 2-hour and 10-day response comparison Implication to risk/services Experience of community/family/child; legitimacy, credibility, trustworthiness, confidence Development of SIP from Self Assessment that included discussion with line staff and supervision Self Assessment 2004 – Identified 10-day timeliness/responsiveness as opposed to ’backlog of referrals’, (quantitative to qualitative response) 2-hour and 10-day response comparison Implication to risk/services Experience of community/family/child; legitimacy, credibility, trustworthiness, confidence Development of SIP from Self Assessment that included discussion with line staff and supervision

15. 15 SIP Goals Improvement Goal 1.0 Referrals received by Careline staff while on the Hotline are completed in a timely manner Improvement Goal 2.0 The time is decreased between the receipt of SCARS (Suspected Child Abuse Report) or Police Reports and the generating of referrals in CWS/CMS Improvement Goal 3.0 Emergency Response staff is allocated sufficiently to respond to all appropriate referrals in a timely manner Additional Intervention Allocation of resources to clean up backlog Improvement Goal 1.0 Referrals received by Careline staff while on the Hotline are completed in a timely manner Improvement Goal 2.0 The time is decreased between the receipt of SCARS (Suspected Child Abuse Report) or Police Reports and the generating of referrals in CWS/CMS Improvement Goal 3.0 Emergency Response staff is allocated sufficiently to respond to all appropriate referrals in a timely manner Additional Intervention Allocation of resources to clean up backlog

16. 16 2B. Percent of Child Abuse/Neglect Referrals With a Timely Response 2 Hour and 10-Day Response Compliance

17. 17 2B. Percent of Child Abuse/Neglect Referrals With a Timely Response 2 Hour and 10-Day Response Compliance

18. 18 2B. Percent of Child Abuse/Neglect Referrals With a Timely Response 2 Hour and 10-Day Response Compliance

19. 19 Data Renaissance Stakeholder engagement New reflections and perspectives on data Sophistication and maturity in the use of data Stakeholder engagement New reflections and perspectives on data Sophistication and maturity in the use of data

20. 20 Disproportionality (Fairness and Equity) Family to Family Disproportionality Task Group Membership 2007 System Improvement Plan Family to Family Disproportionality Task Group Membership 2007 System Improvement Plan

21. 21 2000 Fresno County Child Population, Referrals, Substantiations, First Entries to Care, Entries and In Care by Ethnicity PopulationReferralsSubstantiationsFirst EntryEntriesIn Care 0.82% 10.42% 53.56% 27.42% 5.68% 1.13% 6.26% 52.59% 24.67% 12.58% 1.61% 4.51% 54.56% 24.15% 14.49% 2.77% 2.02% 52.84% 24.46% 17.78% 2.29% 2.39% 51.49% 25.80% 17.93% 1.88% 2.12% 46.73% 25.30% 23.94%

22. 22 2001 Fresno County Child Population, Referrals, Substantiations, First Entries to Care, Entries and In Care by Ethnicity PopulationReferralsSubstantiationsFirst EntryEntriesIn Care 0.95% 10.12% 54.67% 26.27% 5.82% 1.14% 4.88% 52.79% 24.24% 12.18% 1.00% 4.13% 56.02% 22.75% 14.00% 1.21% 2.29% 58.30% 23.48% 14.57% 1.26% 1.89% 55.93% 25.60% 15.22% 1.96% 2.26% 48.57% 23.68% 23.53%

23. 23 2002 Fresno County Child Population, Referrals, Substantiations, First Entries to Care, Entries and In Care by Ethnicity PopulationReferralsSubstantiationsFirst EntryEntriesIn Care 1.09% 9.84% 55.79% 25.02% 5.97% 1.01% 5.12% 54.18% 22.50% 12.27% 1.32% 3.77% 55.83% 23.15% 14.24% 0.29% 2.47% 60.12% 19.36% 17.76% 0.46% 2.09% 58.47% 21.58% 17.40% 1.93% 1.78% 51.26% 21.92% 23.11%

24. 24 2003 Fresno County Child Population, Referrals, Substantiations, First Entries to Care, Entries and In Care by Ethnicity PopulationReferralsSubstantiationsFirst EntryEntriesIn Care 1.29% 9.50% 57.33% 23.46% 6.14% 0.90% 5.52% 54.42% 21.65% 12.31% 1.32% 4.04% 58.84% 21.72% 12.31% 0.67% 4.00% 55.83% 28.67% 10.83% 0.66% 3.85% 57.16% 26.93% 11.94% 1.60% 1.93% 52.89% 21.10% 22.47%

25. 25 Disproportionality (Fairness and Equity) Increased staff awareness to fairness and equity Team Decision Making meetings Increased staff awareness to fairness and equity Team Decision Making meetings

26. 26 2004 Fresno County Child Population, Referrals, Substantiations, First Entries to Care, Entries and In Care by Ethnicity PopulationReferralsSubstantiationsFirst EntryEntriesIn Care 1.32% 9.21% 58.40% 22.65% 6.18% 1.18% 5.35% 56.93% 20.47% 11.39% 2.14% 3.24% 57.89% 22.42% 12.67% 3.22% 60.61% 19.45% 13.34% 3.74% 56.42% 21.52% 14.44% 1.49% 2.50% 54.19% 21.05% 20.76%

27. 27 2005 Fresno County Child Population, Referrals, Substantiations, First Entries to Care, Entries and In Care by Ethnicity PopulationReferralsSubstantiationsFirst EntryEntriesIn Care 1.35% 8.94% 59.45% 21.82% 6.21% 1.60% 4.45% 56.22% 20.23% 11.67% 3.94% 3.81% 63.36% 16.11% 10.90% 11.97% 3.17% 63.20% 11.62% 10.40% 12.76% 3.15% 60.21% 13.36% 10.51% 2.72% 2.91% 54.85% 20.08% 19.43%

28. 28 2006 Fresno County Child Population, Referrals, Substantiations, First Entries to Care, Entries and In Care by Ethnicity PopulationReferralsSubstantiationsFirst EntryEntriesIn Care 1.38% 8.68% 60.54% 20.98% 6.22% 1.88% 4.94% 60.99% 19.80% 12.39% 5.74% 3.94% 67.56% 12.91% 9.85% 9.93% 5.14% 66.61% 11.47% 6.85% 5.29% 2.56% 56.18% 18.07% 17.90%

29. 29 Representation of Black Children in Fresno County’s Child Welfare System 2000 to 2006

30. 30 Representation of Black Children in Fresno County’s Child Welfare System 2000 to 2006

31. 31 Representation of Black Children in Fresno County’s Child Welfare System 2000 to 2006

32. 32 Representation of Black Children in Fresno County’s Child Welfare System 2000 to 2006

33. 33 Representation of Black Children in Fresno County’s Child Welfare System 2000 to 2006

34. 34 Representation of Black Children in Fresno County’s Child Welfare System 2000 to 2006

35. 35 Representation of Black Children in Fresno County’s Child Welfare System 2000 to 2006

36. 36 Disproportionality (Fairness and Equity) Increased staff awareness to fairness and equity Team Decision Making meetings Increased staff awareness to fairness and equity Team Decision Making meetings Community representatives Relationship to SIP (added value of data) Collaboratives-Cultural brokers Community representatives Relationship to SIP (added value of data) Collaboratives-Cultural brokers

37. 37 Shift in Culture Improvement Goal 1.0 A deeper and fuller understanding of the statistical indications of disproportionality is developed and shared by the Department of Children and Family Services and its partners. Improvement Goal 2.0 Firewalls for key decision points to identify and/or eliminate inappropriate bias in decision making are developed. Improvement Goal 3.0 Staff are able to more comfortably approach issues of bias that may impact their or the Department of Children and Family Services’ practice. Improvement Goal 1.0 A deeper and fuller understanding of the statistical indications of disproportionality is developed and shared by the Department of Children and Family Services and its partners. Improvement Goal 2.0 Firewalls for key decision points to identify and/or eliminate inappropriate bias in decision making are developed. Improvement Goal 3.0 Staff are able to more comfortably approach issues of bias that may impact their or the Department of Children and Family Services’ practice.

38. 38 SIP Goals Improvement Goal 4.0 Community members and agencies are partners with the Department of Children and Family Services in increasing awareness of the issues surrounding fairness and equity as well as creating strategies and resources to support equal treatment. Improvement Goal 5.0 (Probation) A deeper and fuller understanding of the statistical indications of disproportionality is developed and shared by the Probation Department as a foundation for improvement. Improvement Goal 4.0 Community members and agencies are partners with the Department of Children and Family Services in increasing awareness of the issues surrounding fairness and equity as well as creating strategies and resources to support equal treatment. Improvement Goal 5.0 (Probation) A deeper and fuller understanding of the statistical indications of disproportionality is developed and shared by the Probation Department as a foundation for improvement.

39. 39 Agency Capacity Agency sustainability Creation of evaluator position Ongoing efforts Inclusion of Quality Control, Training, IT unit, University, Academy Agency sustainability Creation of evaluator position Ongoing efforts Inclusion of Quality Control, Training, IT unit, University, Academy

40. 40 The “Hub”

41. 41 The “Hub”