Linking administrative data sets for self-evaluation: 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 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 (AB636) requires quarterly county reports

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 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 F2F 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 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 from 1998 to present

• Constructed from California's version of the federal Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS)

CWS/CMS reports

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 self-

evaluation

TDM CA Export Form

Characteristics of Sample Counties

County2004 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

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 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. 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 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

Placement MoveExit from

Placement

1) County CW Events

656 1110 479

2) Associated TDM Meet-

Child Events138 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

MeetingsNumber of Attendees

Mean Attendees

Per Meeting

Number of Meetings

Attended By 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

Number of Meetings

Number of Attendees

Mean Attendees Per 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 LabelNumber of Meetings

Number of Attendees

Mean Attendees Per 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

• 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

TDM RecommendationRelated Move? N %

Rec Achieved? N %

Change to less restrictive placement No 18 52.9%

Not achieved 18 52.9%

 Yes 16 47.1% Achieved 10 29.4%

             

        Not achieved 6 17.6%

Subtotal (less restrictive) 

34 100% 

34 100%

Placement Move Recommendation: Change to Less Restrictive Placement

Rec Achieved?

Time to Achievement N Percent

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%

Not achieved N/A 6 17.6% 3.1%

   34 100% 17.8%

Placement Move Recommendation: Maintain in Present Placement

TDM RecommendationRelated Move? N Percent

Rec Achieved? 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%

Total (maintain in present)

 110 100%

 110 100%

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– Logic errors– Paper to Practice errors

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, 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 (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 and exit meetings

• Consult with counties regarding linkage results

• Work with counties to improve data accuracy

For more information:

Anne K. Abramson-MaddenWilliam C. Dawson

TDMSupport@lists.berkeley.edu

Child Welfare Services (CWS/CMS) Reportshttp://cssr.berkeley.edu/cwscmsreports/

TDM CA Support Pagehttp://cssr.berkeley.edu/tdm/