1. AB 636 presented at the joint hearing between the ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES and the ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON FOSTER CARE Sacramento, CA 3/7/06 Barbara Needell, MSW, PhD Center for Social Services Research University of California at Berkeley presentation prepared by Emily Putnam Hornstein, MSW, Graduate Student Researcher The Performance Indicators Project at CSSR is supported by the California Department of Social Services and the Stuart Foundation

2. AB636—Congratulations to the Legislature, CDSS, and the Counties! County Self Assessments, Self Improvement Plans, and Peer Quality Case Reviews all use performance measures as a foundation. Teams formed at the local level use data to identify strengths challenges, and decide appropriate responses. Quarterly Performance Measures are posted publicly. Even after only two years, we can see measurable improvement.

3. Entry Cohorts Exit Cohorts Point in Time Data 3 Views of Data

4. The view really matters! Age of Foster Children (2003 first entries, 2003 exits, July 1 2004 caseload) % Entries Exits Point in Time

5. 1/1/20051/1/2006 Point in Time Measures Can be Misleading: Example: How long do children stay in foster care? Source: Aron Shlonsky, University of Toronto (formerly at CSSR) 7/1/05

6. AB 636  California Child Welfare System Improvement and Accountability Act (AB636) became law in 2001 and went into effect in January 2004 Includes federal measures , but also uses fully longitudinal data to provide additional measures needed to understand performance (e.g., entry cohort measures) 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

7. Why do we use other measures in addition to the measures used in the federal Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs)? most CFSR measures come from the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS)

8. The trouble with AFCARS...  AFCARS contains data on children in foster care during a federal fiscal year.  Annual databases have not, in the past, been linked to each other, which is required for entry cohort analyses.  Child welfare and probation episodes are combined.  Key indicators (e.g., sibling identifier, FFA vs. county foster homes) are absent.  All four foster care measures (National Standards for reunification, adoption, foster care reentry, and placement stability) are limited and provide incomplete and at times misleading information.

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

10. To fully understand child welfare performance, we must use longitudinal data…  data that follows children throughout their entire child welfare experiences  this is what we now have in California, what we use in AB636 (and related efforts like Family to Family), and what we post publicly and update quarterly at: cssr.berkeley.edu/cwscmsreports

11. Tracking Child Welfare Outcomes Tracking Child Welfare Outcomes (AB636, Family to Family) (AB636, Family to Family) Counterbalanced Indicators of SystemPerformance PermanencyThroughReunification, Adoption, or Guardianship PlacementStability Reports/Investigations/ Substantiated Reports Home-Based Services vs. Out of Home Care Positive Attachments to Family, Friends, and Neighbors Use of Least Restrictive Form of Care Reentry to Care

12. California: AB636 Measures, Percent IMPROVEMENT from January 2004 to January 2006 Note: (+) indicates a measure where a % increase equals improvement. (-) indicates a measure where a % decrease equals improvement.

13. 2001-2003 California: % of Children Adopted within 24 months Entry Cohort + 29.4% 5.1 6.6

14. 2003-2005 California: First Entry Placement Type Group or Shelter -19.4% 19.9 16.1

15. % 2003-2005 California: Percentage of First Entry Placements with Kin and Point in Time Percentage of Children with Kin First Entries + 11.5% Point in Time + 0.3%

16. 2001-2004 California: % of children reunified within 1-yr of entering care (out of all children in cohort), % of children who re-entered within 1-yr of reunification (of those reunified within 1 yr.), % of children still reunified 1-yr after reunification (of children in cohort, reunifications within 1 yr with no reentry) Reunified Re-entered 1-yr After Reunification +1.4% -6.7% +3.9%

17. 2002-2004 California: Referrals, Substantiations, and Entry Rates (per 1,000 Children) Substantiations -6.5% Referrals -1.0% Re-Entries & First Entries -2.8% First Entries -3.4%

18. 2003-2005 California: Rate of Children in Foster Care (per 1,000 children) Point in Time -5.8% Rate Per 1,000

19. 2002-2004 California: Recurrence of Abuse/Neglect Within 12-Months -4.5% 13.2 12.6

20. 2002-2004 California: Placement Stability at 12 months, % of children still in 1 st or 2 nd placement Entry Cohort + 3.5% 63.2 65.4

21. 2003-2005 California: % of Children Placed with Siblings Point in Time + 2.8% 65.4 67.2

22. DATA: Friend or Foe? Beware:  County/state rankings on individual measures Composite scores that mask issues Small populations Inappropriate views Consider: Performance over time!!!!! Age, gender and race/ethnicity Interaction among outcomes (counterbalance) Local practice and policy changes needed to impact outcomes

23. GO BEARS! Thank you for the opportunity. Barbara Needell 510.642.1893 bneedell@berkeley.edu