1. Building a Better Child Welfare System for Fresno's Children: Using Data as Our Foundation (and Friend!) Daniel Webster, MSW PhD Center for Social Services Research University of California, Berkeley Fresno Child Welfare Summit: Creating Endless Possibilities for Children and Families Across Fresno County September 27, 2007 Some slides in this presentation originally created by Barbara Needell, and Emily Putnam-Hornstein The Performance Indicators Project is supported by the California Department of Social Services and the Stuart Foundation.

2. Theoretical Prelude Outcome tracking is only as accurate as what we put into CWS/CMS !

3. Presentation Outline Fresno county—some challenging demographics A review of outcome performance The road forward—linking outcomes to practice improvement

4. Unemployment Rate: 2004 %

5. 2000 Fresno Median Household Income by Race/Ethnicity

6. Los Angeles, 38.7% Fresno, 43.4% Orange, 26.5% California, 33.5% San Francisco, 24.3% Alameda, 27.1% % of Live Births to Teenage Moms: 2000-2003 %

7. 2005 Fresno Teen Birth Rate per 1000 by Race/Ethnicity

8. 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 ShorterLengths Of Stay Stability Of Care Rate of Referrals/ Substantiated Referrals Home-Based Services vs. Out-of-HomeCare Maintain 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

9. FRESNO: County-Wide Child Welfare Participation Rates

10. FRESNO: Referral Rates by Ethnic Group

11. FRESNO: Substantiation Rates by Ethnic Group

12. FRESNO: Entry Rates by Ethnic Group

13. FRESNO: In Care Rates by Ethnic Group

14. Black White Native American Hispanic Asian/PI 2003 FRESNO: Racial Disparity Indices (group compared to non-group) 1.00 UnderrepresentedOverrepresented

15. Black White Native American Hispanic Asian/PI 2006 FRESNO: Racial Disparity Indices (group compared to non-group) 1.00 UnderrepresentedOverrepresented

16. Disparity Index Over Time: Children in Care

17. 2006 FRESNO: Children in Foster Care per 1,000 by Age and Ethnicity *Series Total

18. FRESNO: Point in Time: Facility Types

19. FRESNO: Point in Time: FFA by Ethnic Group

20. FRESNO: Placement Stability (8 days to 12 months) State Goal (equal to or above line.)

21. FRESNO: Reunification within 12 Months (Exit Cohort) State Goal (equal to or above line.)

22. FRESNO: Reentry within 12 Months of Reunification State Goal (equal to or below line.)

23. FRESNO: Adoption within 24 Months (Exit Cohort) State Goal (equal to or above line.)

24. Summary of Trends CW participation rates have declined county-wide—but Black and Native American children are overrepresented in all rates. Though the population is small, referral, substantiation, entry, and in care rates have grown for Native American children in the past several years. In care rates are greatest for Native American 0-5 year olds and Black 11-17 year olds. Racial disparity in Fresno CW is greatest for Blacks and Native Americans. There has been a large increase in the use of FFA placements over the past 5 years. Other placement types have been steady or declined slightly. FFAs placement rates are highest for Hispanic and Asian children, lowest for Blacks.

25. Summary of Trends continued… Placement stability for spells a year or less has increased slightly, but is substantially lower than the state goal. Reunification within 12 months (exit cohort) has declined in the past several years, is lowest for Blacks, and is substantially lower than the state goal. Reentry rate is very low (surpassing state goal) – but was highest in the most recent time period for Black and Native American children. Adoption within 24 months (exit cohort) has declined for virtually all children, and has dropped below the state goal.

26. Theoretical Coda Where the Hard Work Begins: Linking Practice to Outcomes

27. ALL CHILD WELFARE DATA IN THIS PRESENTATION TAKEN FROM: Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Zimmerman, K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Ataie, Y., Atkinson, L., Blumberg, R., Dunn, A., & Cuccaro-Alamin, S. (2007). Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved [month day, year], from University of California at Berkeley Center for Social Services Research website. URL: Daniel Webster dwebster@berkeley.edu 510.290.6779 Barbara Needell bneedell@berkeley.edu 510.642.1893 510.290.6334 (pcs)