Identifying the Underlying Factors Related to Placement Stability in Florida Penelope (Penny) L. Maza, Ph.D. Consultant National Resource Center for Child.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Implications of CFSR 3 for IVE Programs
Advertisements

Data, Now What? Skills for Analyzing and Interpreting Data
Using Data to Plan Waiver Strategies and Drive Improvements: Key Indicators and Trends April 11, 2012.
Community Based Care in Florida and the IV-E Waiver.
California Department of Social Services Children’s Services Operations and Evaluation PRESENTED TO THE CHILD WELFARE COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 12, 2012 REVISED.
Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs). 2 Child Welfare Final Rule (excerpt from Executive Summary) The child and family services reviews … [focus]
Treatment Plans and Administrative Case Reviews In a Nutshell.
Decision Making in Child Protection. The Overlap of Welfare, CPS and Foster Care Welfare Families Families served by CPS Foster Care.
School Stability and Transportation Coordination for Children in Out of Home Placement Philadelphia Department of Human Services and School District of.
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Data 201: The Empirical Data Strikes Back* Emily Putnam-Hornstein, MSW Center.
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley CFSR2 Data Indicators: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Center for Social Services.
1 Lessons Learned about the Service Array from the First Round of Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs) The Service Array Process National Child Welfare.
Findings From the Initial Child and Family Service Reviews
Early Childhood Outcomes Center Using the Child Outcomes Summary Form February 2007.
Shared Family Care: An Innovative Model for Supporting & Restoring Families through Community Partnerships Amy Price, Associate Director National Abandoned.
Inspiration  Ideas  Improvement Practice Improvement Unit District Practice Improvement Specialists District Automation Liaisons Inspiration An agent.
1 Strengthening Child Welfare Supervision as a Key Practice Change Strategy Unit I: Helping Child Welfare Leaders Re-conceptualize Supervision.
Recruiting Foster Families A Summary of the Department of Health and Human Services OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT May, 2002 National Resource Center.
Program Staff Presentation 1 Program Staff Presentation.
Taking Research to Practice: Rethinking Outcomes and Performance Measures for the Child and Family Service Reviews John D. Fluke, Child Protection Research.
Mission: Protect the Vulnerable, Promote Strong and Economically Self- Sufficient Families, and Advance Personal and Family Recovery and Resiliency. Charlie.
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley The Child and Family Services Review Composite Scores: A “Great Start” Barbara.
The Current Status of States' Early Childhood Outcome Measurement Systems Kathy Hebbeler, SRI International Lynne Kahn, FPG Child Dev Inst October 17,
Partnering with Local Programs to Interpret and Use Outcomes Data Delaware’s Part B 619 Program September 20, 2011 Verna Thompson & Tony Ruggiero Delaware.
Contra Costa County Disproportionality – Examples and Changes Ray Merritt; Dorothy Powell; Children and Family Services Research and Evaluation.
Measuring a Collaborative Effort a Child Welfare – Drug & Alcohol Family Preservation example Family Design Resources, Inc.  Fawn Davies  Deborah W.
AB 636 Mental Health/CWS Partnership Sacramento, CA 3/17/06 Barbara Needell, MSW, PhD Center for Social Services Research University of California at Berkeley.
Memo Series Overview  Requirements  Frequently Asked Questions  Reports  Reporting to the Federal Government Did Wisconsin Make the target.
DIVISION OF FAMILY & CHILDREN SERVICES G-FORCE MEETING May 2009.
A New Narrative for Child Welfare February 16, 2011 Bryan Samuels, Commissioner Administration on Children, Youth & Families.
1 G-FORCE MEETING Division of Family & Children Services September 25, 2009.
Kathleen McNaught, Project Director ABA Center on Children and the Law National Resource Center on Legal and Judicial Issues Legal Center for Foster Care.
Delaware Birth to Three Early Intervention System Evaluation: Child Outcomes July 15, 2004 Conference Call Series: Measuring Child Outcomes “Examples of.
Data Quality Initiative-Update May 14, Data Quality Initiative The eWiSACWIS Data Quality Initiative will support counties, the BMCW and the Special.
Department of Children and Families - Fiscal Update WHSFMA Conference May 7, 2014 John Tuohy, DCF Regional Operations David Harkins, Title IV-E Coordinator.
SSIS as a Case Management Tool Nan Beman Anne Broskoff.
NC Child Welfare Data State Fiscal Year 2012 (7/1/11-6/30/12) 132,031 unique children were assessed for reports of child abuse, neglect & dependency Approximately.
Making CWLA Work for You Presentation to CWLA Southern Region and Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children Membership October 5, 2006 Atlanta,
Subjects of Maltreatment Reports April 2011 through March 2012.
DIAKON Lutheran Social Ministries/Family Design Resources Tools That Work Conference 11/03 Implementing Best Practice Standards in Permanency Planning.
1 Quality Counts: Helping Improve Outcomes for Pennsylvania’s Children & Families September 22, 2008.
Medical Homes For Children in Foster Care: A Proposal for CCNC Consideration Proposal collaboratively developed by: NC Pediatric Society Foundation & Benchmarks.
PREVIEW: STATE CHILD OUTCOMES DATA QUALITY PROFILES National Webinar February 2014.
When permanency remains elusive: A longitudinal examination of the early foster care experiences of youth at risk of emancipating Joe Magruder, MSW Emily.
Intersection of Fostering Connections and McKinney-Vento What is the connection? How do we connect? Susie Greenfelder, Education Planner MI Department.
SAFE AND THRIVING FOREVER FAMILIES SOONER Division of Family & Children Services G-Force Meeting June 25, 2009.
 Child in need of Protection or Services (CHIPS) › Reasonable efforts to reunite › Timelines › Permanency petition  Egregious harm › Can move right.
Why Collect Outcome Data? Early Childhood Outcomes Center.
1 CHILDREN SAFE AND THRIVING WITH FOREVER FAMILIES, SOONER DIVISION OF FAMILY & CHILDREN SERVICES Isabel Blanco, Deputy Director of Field Operations September.
ADOPTION ASSISTANCE ANALYSIS October 13, COMPARISON OF PERCENT OF CHILDREN ELIGIBLE FOR ADOPTION BY CURRENT, PROPOSED AND ALTERNATE CRITERIA SFY.
The Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) February 2008 Update.
AB 636 presented at the joint hearing between the ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES and the ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON FOSTER CARE Sacramento, CA.
Delaware Department of Health and Social Services Division of Developmental Disabilities Services Joint Finance Committee Hearing Fiscal Year 2013 Jane.
703: Data, Outcomes and Practice: Connecting the Dots CWTP Leadership Academy Conference September 29, The Pennsylvania Child Welfare Training Program.
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Applying Data for System Improvement: Probation Agency Staff Daniel Webster,
Using NAPLAN to track educational attainment for children in out of home care.
Briefing on the proposed amendment to section 186 (1) Portfolio Committee on Social Development 20 April
Child and Family Services Reviews Onsite Review Instrument.
School Stability and Transportation Coordination for Children in Out of Home Placement Philadelphia Department of Human Services and School District of.
National State Auditors Association
Group Care in Florida’s Child Welfare System
Ken Larimore, Ph.D., LISW-S
CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEWS (CFSRs)
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services January 23, 2015
GOT PERMANENCE? DIVISION OF FAMILY & CHILDREN SERVICES G-FORCE MEETING
Using Early Care and Education Administrative Data
FIRST PLACEMENT IS THE RIGHT PLACEMENT
Why Collect Outcome Data?
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services December 19, 2014
Tracking Adoption Rate of Children “Available for Adoption”
Presentation transcript:

Identifying the Underlying Factors Related to Placement Stability in Florida Penelope (Penny) L. Maza, Ph.D. Consultant National Resource Center for Child Welfare Data and Technology Presented at: The CFSR Coordinators Call October 19, 2010 Thank you to the Florida Department of Children and Families which gave permission for the presentation of these data. The analyses and interpretation of these data are solely the responsibility of the author.

Project Purposes Explore Florida’s administrative data to identify the underlying reasons for Florida’s CFSR performance on Placement Stability. Identify CBCs that could benefit from special attention in this area. Identify target practice areas that have the most potential for improving performance. Identify measures that could be used to track progress on Placement Stability, possibly for PIP purposes. 2

– Have data on all children and CBC’s – Includes factors included in existing research, e.g. type of placement, child demographics, various case characteristics, etc. – Includes data on timing and trajectory of moves. Administrative Data: Strengths 3

– Does not provide information on why the placement was selected or the reason for a move. – Does not provide information on “relationships” e.g. between worker and foster parents, foster parents and child’s family, foster parents and child, etc. – Does not provide adequate information to assess the type and quality of services provided to maintain the placement. Administrative Data: Limitations 44

CFSR Placement Stability Composite Measure The Placement Stability composite measure is composed of three measures. The national standard is approximately the 75 th percentile of the array of states scores on the composite based on federal fiscal year (FFY) It is the only national standard. The measures are: – Two or fewer placement settings for children in care less than 12 months (75 th Percentile=86.0%--Fl score=83.7%) – Two or fewer placement settings for children in care for 12 to 24 months (75 th Percentile=64.5%--FL score=60.3%) – Two or fewer placement settings for children in care 24+ months (75 th Percentile=41.8%--FL score=31.2%) 5

CFSR Placement Stability Composite Measure (continued) The Florida Score is from the July 21, 2009 Data Profile. Florida ranked 29 th among the states. The 75 th Percentile is not a federal standard, but is a benchmark that can be used for comparison. 6

Technical Information Data Files: – FFY AFCARS annual foster care files – Unless otherwise noted, one year data are from FFY 2008 (approximately 41,000 children served), and are the child’s first removal (approximately 31,000 children). – A file starting with approximately 275,000 placement settings was linked to the FFY 2008 file, so that the placement setting history of each child was included. – The final file is comparable to the file used for CFSR calculations (total served). Summary Stability Rank is the average rank on the three stability measures for the CBCs. The over 100 service codes used by Florida were collapsed to provide for a more interpretable analysis. Some codes were excluded from main categories, e.g. pre- adoptive home, independent living, respite, etc. 7

Topics 1.Trend in Number of Entries 2.Child Characteristics 3.Case Characteristics 4.Foster Parent Age 5.Movement Timing 6.Movement Origins and Trajectories 8

Trend in Number of Entries 9

10

11

12

Child Characteristics 13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Case Characteristics 21

22

23

24

Foster Parent Age 25

26

Movement Timing 27

28

29

Movement Origins and Trajectories for First Removals 30

31

32

33

34

Recommendations Address issues with CBC 21. Make efforts to increase the removal age for the 75 th percentile for each of the measures by targeting children entering at older ages. Decrease the percentage of children with early first moves. Focus on decreasing non-relative foster care lateral moves. Increase the percentage of children in non-relative foster homes in the “no moves” or “discharge “ instead of first moves. Potential issue: Aging of relative foster parents. 35