Скачать презентацию Linking administrative data sets for selfevaluation Preliminary results Скачать презентацию Linking administrative data sets for selfevaluation Preliminary results

2fc032e4eea59fd3b8c985769867abfa.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 30

Linking administrative data sets for selfevaluation: Preliminary results from the Annie E. Casey Foundation Linking administrative data sets for selfevaluation: Preliminary results from the Annie E. Casey Foundation Family to Family Initiative in California Anne K. Abramson-Madden & William C. Dawson Center for Social Services Research University of California Berkeley

Linking administrative data sets for self-evaluation • Mandatory outcome reporting with Adoption and Safe Linking administrative data sets for self-evaluation • Mandatory outcome reporting with Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA) • Statewide reviews of selected indicators as part of Child and Family Services Reviews • In California, the California Child Welfare and System Improvement Accountability Act (AB 636) requires quarterly county reports

The Family to Family Initiative’s Four Core Strategies • Recruitment, Training and Support of The Family to Family Initiative’s Four Core Strategies • Recruitment, Training and Support of Foster and Kinship Families • Building community partnerships • Team Decision Making • Self-evaluation

Team Decision Making (TDM) • Meetings held to make placement decisions. • Meetings are Team Decision Making (TDM) • Meetings held to make placement decisions. • Meetings are led by trained facilitators who are not the case-carrying social workers. • Decision is reached by consensus with a safety plan in place. If consensus cannot be reached, agency is ultimately responsible for the decision. • Family decides who makes up the team and may reject members. May also have community members & child’s caregivers on the team. • Meetings generally last one to two hours.

CA F 2 F Implementation • 24 of 58 California counties • Approximately 88% CA F 2 F Implementation • 24 of 58 California counties • Approximately 88% of the 85, 286 children in child welfare supervised foster care live in a Family to Family county

Family to Family Self-Evaluation in California • Integration of data with practice: – Web Family to Family Self-Evaluation in California • Integration of data with practice: – Web reports using state administrative data provide information about child welfare outcomes – TDM database • Self-evaluation and quarterly reports • Linkage to state administrative data has potential to examine implementation progress and child welfare outcomes

Administrative Data Source: UCB_FC at CSSR • Longitudinal file containing foster care placement histories Administrative Data Source: UCB_FC at CSSR • Longitudinal file containing foster care placement histories from 1998 to present • Constructed from California's version of the federal Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS)

CWS/CMS reports CWS/CMS reports

Self-Evaluation using TDM CA • Customized Microsoft Access database • Counties collect TDM meeting Self-Evaluation using TDM CA • Customized Microsoft Access database • Counties collect TDM meeting and child information • Create reports regarding attendance, meeting participants, involved children, etc • Counties produce quarterly report for selfevaluation

TDM CA Export Form TDM CA Export Form

Characteristics of Sample Counties 2004 Child Population (0 -18) July 1, 2004 Child Welfare Characteristics of Sample Counties 2004 Child Population (0 -18) July 1, 2004 Child Welfare Caseload (0 -18) County 1 100, 000 -250, 000 <1, 000 County 2 100, 000 -250, 000 >1, 000 County 3 100, 000 -250, 000 <1, 000 County 4 <100, 000 <1, 000 County 5 >250, 000 >1, 000 County

Preliminary Findings • Five California Family to Family counties • TDM database: information on Preliminary Findings • Five California Family to Family counties • TDM database: information on all children for whom placement recommendations were discussed in a TDM meeting • UCB_FC contains information on all child welfare -supervised out-of-home placements • TDM meetings and child welfare events (placement moves) restricted to Quarter 1, 2005 (January 1, 2005 -March 31, 2005)

Preliminary Findings (Cont’d) • Data only as good as we get from counties- there Preliminary Findings (Cont’d) • Data only as good as we get from counties- there may be errors (especially with respect to reason for involvement and recommendations)

Implementation Analysis 1. Start with a qualified event (entry, placement move, or exit). 2. Implementation Analysis 1. Start with a qualified event (entry, placement move, or exit). 2. What was the closest preceding event: another child welfare event or a TDM meeting? 3. If a meeting, was it a related meeting? Count number of associated meetings. 4. Count remaining meetings without associated child welfare events.

Recommendation Analysis 1. Group children by reason for involvement and recommendation type. 2. Was Recommendation Analysis 1. Group children by reason for involvement and recommendation type. 2. Was there a related move during timeframe? 3. What was the actual move during the timeframe? 4. If both #2 and #3 match the recommendation, then the recommendation is achieved. 5. If recommendation achieved, then we look to the time to achievement.

Implementation Summary Numbers Section 1: Entered Placement Move Exit from Placement 1) County CW Implementation Summary Numbers Section 1: Entered Placement Move Exit from Placement 1) County CW Events 656 1110 479 2) Associated TDM Meet. Child Events 138 137 6 3) % CW Events with Assoc. TDM Meet. Child Event 21. 04% 12. 34% 1. 25% 4) TDM Meet. Child Event with No Assoc. CW Event 124 171 27

Placement Move Meeting Attendance Attendee Type Number of Number Mean Meetings of Number of Placement Move Meeting Attendance Attendee Type Number of Number Mean Meetings of Number of Attendees Attended By Meetings Attendees Per Meeting At Least One Percent of Meetings Attended By At Least One Facilitators 268 289 1. 08 268 100. 0% Supervisors 268 176 0. 66 169 63. 1% FR/PP Workers 268 170 0. 63 157 58. 6% Children 268 148 0. 55 129 48. 1% FFA Social Workers 268 149 0. 56 94 35. 1% Birth Parents 268 105 0. 39 88 32. 8% Relatives 268 176 0. 66 81 30. 2%

Placement Move Meeting Attendance Attendee Type Mean Number Attendees of of Per Meetings Attendees Placement Move Meeting Attendance Attendee Type Mean Number Attendees of of Per Meetings Attendees Meeting Number of Meetings Attended By At Least One Percentage of Meetings Attended By At Least One Mental Health Staff 268 89 0. 33 74 27. 6% Other DSS Staff 268 76 0. 28 70 26. 1% FFA Foster Parents 268 84 0. 31 66 24. 6% Other Relative Caregivers 268 88 0. 33 63 23. 5% Other Service Providers 268 76 0. 28 48 17. 9% Interested Individuals 268 54 0. 20 36 13. 4% County Foster Parents 268 49 0. 18 35 13. 1% Family Maintenance Workers 268 39 0. 15 32 11. 9%

Placement Move Meeting Attendance (cont’d) Attendee Label Mean Attendees Number of Per Meetings Attendees Placement Move Meeting Attendance (cont’d) Attendee Label Mean Attendees Number of Per Meetings Attendees Meeting Number of Meetings Attended by at Least One Percent of Meetings Attended by at Least One Adoptions Workers 268 31 0. 12 28 10. 4% CASA Advocates 268 31 0. 12 27 10. 1% Community Representatives 268 30 0. 11 27 10. 1% Other Social Workers 268 25 0. 09 21 7. 8% Other 268 128 0. 48 ALL 268 2013 7. 51

Recommendations Analysis • Analysis restricted to Placement Move as the Child’s Reason for Involvement Recommendations Analysis • Analysis restricted to Placement Move as the Child’s Reason for Involvement • Five counties: 301 recommendations • Possible recommendations include: – Change to less restrictive placement – Maintain in present placement – Change to same level placement – Change to higher level placement

Placement Move Recommendation: Change to Less Restrictive Placement Related Move? TDM Recommendation Change to Placement Move Recommendation: Change to Less Restrictive Placement Related Move? TDM Recommendation Change to less restrictive placement % N Rec Achieved? N % Not achieved 18 52. 9% Achieved 10 29. 4% 6 17. 6% 34 100% No 18 52. 9% Yes 16 47. 1% Not achieved Subtotal (less restrictive) 34 100%

Placement Move Recommendation: Change to Less Restrictive Placement Time to Achievement N Percent of Placement Move Recommendation: Change to Less Restrictive Placement Time to Achievement N Percent of Total Not achieved N/A 18 52. 9% 9. 4% Achieved One week or less 8 23. 5% 4. 2% One to two weeks 2 5. 9% 1. 1% N/A 6 17. 6% 3. 1% 34 100% 17. 8% Rec Achieved? Not achieved

Placement Move Recommendation: Maintain in Present Placement TDM Recommendation Related Move? Percent Rec Achieved? Placement Move Recommendation: Maintain in Present Placement TDM Recommendation Related Move? Percent Rec Achieved? N N Percent Maintain child in present placement No 87 79. 1% Achieved 73 66. 4% Not achieved 14 12. 7% Yes 23 20. 9% Not achieved 23 20. 9% 110 100% Total (maintain in present) 110 100%

Placement Move Recommendation: Maintain in Present Placement Recommendation Achieved? Time to Move N Percent Placement Move Recommendation: Maintain in Present Placement Recommendation Achieved? Time to Move N Percent of Total Achieved N/A 73 66. 4% Not achieved N/A 14 12. 7% Not achieved One week or less 3 2. 7% One to two weeks 3 2. 7% More than two weeks 17 15. 5% 110 100. 0%

Limitations • Data – TDM data entry errors – Missing data • Analysis – Limitations • Data – TDM data entry errors – Missing data • Analysis – Logic errors – Paper to Practice errors

Implications for Research • Linking small database to California’s full child welfare system has Implications for Research • Linking small database to California’s full child welfare system has huge potential • Longitudinal nature of database has wealth of information about children’s lives and child welfare histories • Ability to evaluate practice quarterly

Implications for Policy • TDM reports can influence county boards and state policy makers, Implications for Policy • TDM reports can influence county boards and state policy makers, leading to change in child welfare services allocations • Integrating practice and evaluation may serve as a model for future initiatives

Implications for Practice • Access to data provides a feedback loop • Agency workers Implications for Practice • Access to data provides a feedback loop • Agency workers (TDMS facilitators, analysts, and management) can easily see data regarding the TDMs to inform practice • TDM reports provide a nice way to communicate with community partners, county boards, and other agencies involved

Next Steps • Continue refining methods for linkage and expanding analysis • Analyze entry Next Steps • Continue refining methods for linkage and expanding analysis • Analyze entry and exit meetings • Consult with counties regarding linkage results • Work with counties to improve data accuracy

For more information: Anne K. Abramson-Madden William C. Dawson TDMSupport@lists. berkeley. edu Child Welfare For more information: Anne K. Abramson-Madden William C. Dawson [email protected] berkeley. edu Child Welfare Services (CWS/CMS) Reports http: //cssr. berkeley. edu/cwscmsreports/ TDM CA Support Page http: //cssr. berkeley. edu/tdm/