47
CHILDREN’S SERVICES STUDY Keith D. Carr, Principal Consultant Randy B. Nelson, Ph.D., Sr. Consultant Prepared for the Orange County Board of County Commissioners
C H I L D R E N ’ S S E RV I C E S S T U DY
K e i t h D . C a r r , P r i n c i p a l C o n s u l t a n t
R a n d y B . N e l s o n , P h . D . , S r . C o n s u l t a n t
Prepared for the Orange County Board of County Commissioners
1. Project Approach and Methodology 2. Review of Existing Children’s Trust Reports 3. Establish OC Baseline For Service Delivery 4. Compare Orange County Children’s Programs and
Services with Children’s Services Councils 5. Community Level Data 6. Options and Recommendations 7. Summary
2
1. Project Approach and Methodology 2. Review of Existing Children’s Trust Reports 3. Establish OC Baseline for Service Delivery 4. Compare Orange County Children’s Programs and
Services with Children’s Services Councils 5. Community Level Data 6. Options and Recommendations 7. Summary
3
4
Approach and Methodology Data Collection and Review Interviews Onsite Visits to CSCs
Data Collection Sources CSCs (8) Independent CSCs, (2) Dependent Orange County School District CBC of Central Florida/DCF Regional Headquarters Orange County Early Learning Coalition (ELC) Florida Children's Council Children’s Trust of Orange County University of Central Florida (UCF) Orange County
1. Project Approach and Methodology 2. Review of Existing Children’s Trust Reports 3. Establish OC Baseline for Service Delivery 4. Compare Orange County Children’s Programs and
Services with Children’s Services Councils 5. Community Level Data 6. Options and Recommendations 7. Summary
5
• 2016 and 2017 Children Trust Reports contained very similar and duplicative information.
• The approach and methodology of the Children’s Trust Reports and 2018 UCF Report did not identify the need at the community/neighborhood level.
• The macro approach used did not provide sufficient data to formulate a gap analysis or to best allocate our resources.
• All three reports included incorrect and misleading data. • The UCF report was inconsistent with the 2016 and 2017 Children’s
Trust Reports.
6
Areas of Concern: Title 1 After School Programs Early Learning Waitlist Abuse Registry Calls vs. Verified Cases of Abuse Poverty Health Rankings Funding Gap is Significantly Less than the $58M
Tax Increase Requested
7
1. Project Approach and Methodology 2. Review of Existing Children’s Trust Reports 3. Establish OC Baseline For Service Delivery 4. Compare Orange County Children’s Programs and
Services with Children’s Services Councils 5. Community Level Data 6. Options and Recommendations 7. Summary
8
Challenges: Different Structures among CSC’s Variations in Funding Program Focus Areas are County Specific Reporting Methodologies Level of Involvement Varies Across CSC’s Local Needs, Trends and Events Drive CSC focus and
priorities
9
Rationale for Comparisons 10 Counties have established CSC’s 8 Counties are Independent 2 are Dependent 5 Counties that were most similar to Orange
County were selected for comparison
10
These focus areas were organized under the following five major service categories: Strengthening Children and Families Educational Enrichment Services Mental and Physical Health Early Childhood Education Juvenile Justice/Prevention/Foster Care
11
Strengthening Children and Families,
$14,771,511, 22%
Educational Enrichment, $13,163,362,
20%
Mental and Physical Health, $6,629,434
10%
Early Childhood Education, $18,064,767,
27%
Juvenile Justice/Prevention/Fos
ter Care, $13,510,724, 21%
Orange County Expenditures $66 M FY 16-17
12
1. Project Approach and Methodology 2. Review of Existing Children’s Trust Reports 3. Establish OC Baseline for Service Delivery 4. Compare Orange County Children’s Programs and
Services with Children’s Services Councils 5. Community Level Data 6. Provide Best Practice Option(s) 7. Summary
13
Comparative Domains (Focus Areas)
Orange County
Broward CSC
Duval CSC
Hillsborough CSC
Miami-Dade CSC
Palm Beach CSC
Strengthening Children and Families
22 %
21 %
NA
30 %
12 %
6 %
Educational Enrichment Services
20 %
19 %
57 %
NA
NA
NA
Mental and Physical Health
10 %
25 %
18 %
20 %
13 %
28 %
Early Childhood Education
27 %
12 %
14 %
37 %
17 %
38 %
Juvenile Justice/Prevention/Foster Care
20 %
18 %
9 %
NA
37 %
13 %
14 *Data Source: Orange County Government and 2018 FL Statewide CSC Survey Responses
15 Source Data: State of Florida (Office of Early Learning)
School Readiness Wait List – August/2018
16
1,901
2,738 3,032
3,381 3,369
2,860
2,439
1,960 1,718
0
602
1,650
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
July 2017 Aug 2017 Sept 2017 Oct 2017 Nov 2017 Dec 2017 Jan 2018 Feb 2018 Mar 2018 Apr 2018 May 2018 June 2018
School Readiness Waitlist - July 2017 to June 2018
Data Source: State of Florida –Office of Early Learning
Volunteer Pre-Kindergarten (VPK) – Provides cost-free kindergarten to all 4 year olds. There is no waitlist for VPK as of 10/26/2018
17
22%
18% 21% 20%
25%
19%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Orange Broward Duval Hillsborough Miami-Dade Palm Beach
18
Children Under 18 in Poverty - 2016
27% 26% 25% 23% 22%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
19
18 17
12 12 13
21
16 15
0
5
10
15
20
25
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
20 Data Source: County Health Rankings
1. Project Approach and Methodology 2. Review of Existing Children’s Trust Reports 3. Establish OC Baseline for Service Delivery 4. Compare Orange County Children’s Programs and
Services with Children’s Services Councils 5. Community Level Data 6. Options and Recommendations 7. Summary
21
The domains* (focus areas) used in this review as a baseline were as follows: Individual Family Community Education
22
*Evidenced Based Model: Communities That Care (CTC) prevention model
Community Level Assessment Framework
Communities That Care Prevention Model: (Community, Family, School, Individual) Utilized evidenced-based Communities That Care (CTC) prevention model as the assessment framework.
The model provides that Individual and community-level variables are analyzed in accordance with the four domains outlined in the CTC model;
COMMUNITY DOMAIN: Juvenile Arrest and Detention, EDUCATION DOMAIN: 3rd Grade Florida Standards Assessment (FSA) 12th Grade Graduation Rate FAMILY DOMAIN: Dependency Involvement, Abuse & Neglect Reports INDIVIDUAL DOMAIN: Teen Pregnancy
(Source Data: Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller 1992; Kim, Gloppen, Rhew, Oesterle, and Hawkins 2015; Kuklinski, Fagan, Hawkins, Briney, and Catalano 2015; Nelson 1998; Rhew et al., 2016; Shapiro, Oesterle, and Hawkins 2015). 23
681
475
382 377 329
223 211
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
32808 32805 32839 32811 32818 32810 32801
24
Seven (7) of 53 residential zip codes have accounted for a yearly average of 5,352 (53%) juvenile arrests in Orange County over the past two (2) fiscal years (FY 16-17 and FY 17-18)
Zip Codes
Average Yearly Juvenile Arrests FY 16-17 and FY 17-18
25
405
322
250 227
188 157
130
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
32808 32805 32811 32839 32818 32801 32810
26 Zip Codes
Of the $5.1 million Orange County expended for its cost share of detention services during FY 2017-18, approximately $3.2 million were expended on youth residing in the seven (7) aforementioned zip codes.
Average Yearly Detention Admissions
FY 16-17 and FY 17-18
225
159 154 134
98 90 82 76 64 60 58 52
0
50
100
150
200
250
32808 32839 32811 32805 32703 32818 32810 34787 34761 32822 32825 32835
27 Zip Codes
Consistent with juvenile delinquency and adult jail arrests, six (6) of the seven (7) previously identified zip codes represent areas with the highest number of clients receiving dependency services.
Average Yearly Dependency (Foster Care) Involvement Clients
FY 16-17 and FY 17-18
52
46 43
36
30 27
22 21 19 19 19 18 14 13 13 12 11 11 11 9 8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
28
Over the past two(2) fiscal years, there was a yearly average of 905 verified findings of abuse and neglect closed investigations. Fifty percent (450) involved child victims residing in 20 identified zip codes.
Zip Codes
Average Yearly Verified Findings of Abuse & Neglect
(Closed Investigations) FY 16-17 and FY 17-18
29
Zip Code Rank
Zip Code # Juvenile of Arrest FY 2016-18
Elementary School Feeder Middle School Feeder High School
1 32808
1,362
Ridgewood Park - D (2017) Rolling Hills - D (2018) Rosemont – D (2017- 2018)
Meadowbrook Meadowbrook College Park - 32804
Evans Evans Evans
2 32805
949
Catalina – D (2017) Rock Lake – F (2018)
Memorial – 32805 Carver - 32811
Jones Oak Ridge - 32809 Jones
4 32811 753 Ivey Lane – F (2018) Carver Jones - 32805
5 32818
658
Hiawassee – D (2018) Pinewood – D (2017)
Robinswood Robinswood
Evans - 32808 Ocoee – 34761 Evans - 32808
6 32810
445
Lake Weston – D (2017) F (2018) Lockhart – D (2017) Riverside – D (2018)
Lockhart Lockhart Lockhart
Edgewater - 32804 Wekiva – 32703 Wekiva – 32703 Edgewater - 32804 Wekiva – 32703
7 32801 421 Nap Ford – D (2017) * *
8 32703
401
Phyllis Wheatley – D (2018) Apopka -32712 Piedmont Lakes Wolf Lakes – 32712
Apopka – 32712 Ocoee – 34761 / Wekiva Apopka 32712 / Wekiva
14 32807 246 Bridge Prep Academy – D (2017 – 2018) Englewood – D (2018)
* Stonewall Jackson
* Colonial
30
76% 80%
40%
46% 48%
54%
71%
79%
37%
46% 47%
53%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
White Males White Females Black Males Black Females Hispanic Males Hispanic Females
2016-2017 FSA - ELA Scores 2017-2018 (Orange County) FSA - ELA Scores
3rd Grade Reading Proficiency Score s
Achieving Level 3 or Higher
31
71%
79%
37%
46% 47% 53%
66% 73%
36%
44% 51%
57%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
White Males White Females Black Males Black Females Hispanic Males Hispanic Females
Orange County State FL
Reading Proficiency Score - Level 3 or higher
32
83% 89%
79% 85%
69%
80% 89%
93%
82% 88%
70%
81%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
White Males White Females Hispanic Males Hispanic Females Black Males Black Females
High School Graduation Rates
2016-2017
Florida Orange County
33
72 68
44 48
42 43
35 37 32 34
31 29 24
27
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
32808 32839 32822 32818 32811 32703 32805 32809 32807 32712 32825 32810 34761 32824
Average Yearly Teen Pregnancies
CY 2016 and CY 2017
The was an average of 733 Teen Pregnancies in Orange County during calendar years 2016 and 2017.
34
• The community level focused on the needs of Orange County youth allowed for a richer meso-level understanding of the prevalence and geographical locations of risk factors impacting a youth’s life choices and chances of success.
• It was revealed that the seven (7) previously identified zip codes tended to have high poverty levels, large minority populations, somewhat contiguous, and consistently ranked at the top for most of the risk factors analyzed.
• Zip Codes 32703 and 32822 were typically ranked directly after the above-referenced zip codes in the areas of juvenile arrests and detention admissions but were ranked similarly or higher on some of the other risk factors analyzed.
• Of the nine (9) zip codes highlighted above, seven (7) were predominantly minority populations with the exception of codes 32703 and 32801 .
1. Project Approach and Methodology 2. Review Children’s Trust Reports 3. Establish OC Baseline for Service Delivery 4. Compare Orange County Children’s Programs and
Services with Children’s Services Councils 5. Community Level Data 6. Options and Recommendations 7. Summary
35
Areas of Critical Community Needs: Juvenile Prevention/Diversion Mental and Physical Health Early Childhood Education and Care Child and Student Homelessness, and System-wide Process and Data Management
Improvement
36
FOREFRONT makes the following recommendations based on our review of the array of Orange County Family Services using the evidence-based Communities That Care Prevention Model (CTC). Based on our findings, seven (7) zip codes 32808 32805 32839 32811 32818 32810 32801 account for the majority of juvenile arrests and detention, dependency involvement, abuse and neglect reports, low 3rd grade FSA reading scores, low performing schools, teen pregnancies, and infant mortalities. In addition two additional zip codes appeared for teen pregnancy and graduation – 32822 and 32703.
37
The recommendations for the additional funding cover the following areas: Operational Process Improvements: Use Evidenced-Based Practices for Newly Funded Children’s Services/Programs. Establish Common Outcomes for County Funded Children’s Services/Programs to
determine effectiveness. Data Management Improvements: Implement a common data and information sharing platform that creates the
opportunity to enhance greater Integration, Interoperability and Client Engagement across programs.
Community Input: Conduct a series of community-level focus groups and interviews utilizing the
County’s Neighborhood Centers for Families (NCF) with stakeholders to gather community input concerning children’s services needs in their neighborhoods to capture information that cannot be found in the data.
38
Funding Formula Process: Across all of the categories (Individual, Family, Education, and Community)
assessed, nine (9) similarly situated zip codes consistently ranked more than 50% of the list for the aforementioned risk factors.
Orange County should develop a funding formula that ensures all Orange
County government children and family services funding (direct or indirect) specifically target these areas at a level commensurate to their need. Funding amounts and distribution should be proportionally allocated and data-driven.
39
Funding - External Targeted Neighborhood Level Competitive Funding Program Establish a funding process, handled through the Orange County CCC/CRP
boards to provide evidenced based programs/services and neighborhood based programs/services with clearly defined outcomes in identified areas of community need.
The potential service providers would submit their funding proposals
through the established process for competitive review of their proposals and ranking for submission for funding consideration by the Board of County Commissioners.
Funding should be evidence-based and targeted towards reducing issues in identified zip codes with significant areas of community need based on the County’s children’s services five (5) focus areas.
40
Funding – Internal Family Services Competitive Funding Pilot Designate a portion of additional funding to address some of the Family Services
Department’s identified Children’s Services areas of community needs. The FSD divisions would submit their funding proposals for a competitive review of their
proposals and ranking for submission for funding consideration by the Board of County Commissioners.
Funding should be evidence-based and targeted towards reducing issues in identified zip codes with significant areas of community need based on the County’s children’s services five (5) focus areas.
Services should be delivered within the zip code areas experiencing the most significant areas of community need the funding proposal is designed to address.
41
Strategic and Targeted Partnerships Maximize impact through collaborative partnerships with other
public and private entities like Orange County Public Schools, Sheriff's Office, United Way, Boys & Girls Club, Urban League, Dr. Phillips Foundation and other grass roots entities (neighborhood organizations).
Therefore, we recommended that strategic and targeted
partnerships be utilized to address the significant needs of children and families residing in areas of critical need.
42
Community Empowerment Zones (CEZ) The Community Empowerment Zones (CEZ) concept has great
potential and proven successful in other communities (i.e., Harlem Children Zone, and Promise Neighborhoods) where the CEZ areas had defined neighborhood boundaries.
Therefore, we recommended that Orange County consider the
implementation of a similar approach utilizing zip codes and or historically defined neighborhood or other methodology.
43
1. Project Approach and Methodology 2. Review Children’s Trust Reports 3. Establish OC Baseline for Service Delivery 4. Compare Orange County Children’s Programs and
Services with Children’s Services Councils 5. Community Level Data 6. Options and Recommendations 7. Summary
44
Independent Review Conducted by Outside Firm Existing Reports Reviewed CSCs and DSCs OC Children’s Services OC Comparison to CSCs Community Level Assessment Counties are Different and Focus Areas Vary No Standardization Decisions Based on Community Needs
45
Performance Improvement Recommendations Data Driven Decision-Making Micro vs Macro Service Delivery Outcomes and Effectiveness Partnerships
Implementation
Decision on Funding of $20Million increase for Children’s Services Leadership Collaboration Partnerships
46
47
ORANGE COUNTY
FUNDED CHILDREN’S
SERVICES REVIEW
4
GOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITY
STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
3
SURVEY OF ALL CSC’S AND DSC’S
2 CHILDREN’S TRUST
& UCF REPORTS ANALYSIS
1
COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD RISK ANALYSIS
5
OPTIONS & RECOMENDATIONS
6
GOVERNANCE PROCESS FOR
MANAGEMENT OF $20M
7
