HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12062005 - C137 1
FHS #69 E.s-111111g-L ,o
CONTRA
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COSTA
��`'-�
COUNTY
FROM: Family & Human Services Committee
Osr'�
�
DATE: December 6, 2005 COUPZ
SUBJECT: Child Welfare Redesign and Outcome Measure Update
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION(S):
1
ACCEPT the attached report from the Employment and Human Services Department Children and
Family Services Division, on the child welfare redesign project and current outcome measures, as
recommended by the Family and Human Services Committee.
BACKGROUND/REASON(S) FOR RECOMMENDATION(S):
On November 7, 2005 the Family and Human Services Committee received an update on the efforts
made by the Children and Family Services Bureau to "redesign" many child welfare practices with the
goal of improving outcomes for children. Since the last report, December 2004, the Bureau has
made significant progress in addressing the focus areas identified by aself-assessment. These
accomplishments are detailed in the attached report.
FISCAL IMPACT
None — statistical report only.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATU
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR kRECOMM NDATION OF OA D COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S): FEDqRAL D. GLOVER ARK DESAULNIER
#'00"
ACTION OF BOARD ON I �Q D APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED_OHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
.V/ UNANIMOUS(ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ON MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Dorothy Sansoe,335-1099lc��I(e
ATTESTED
JOHN SW ETON,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
cc: CAO
EHSD,CWS
BY ,DEPUTY
1
EMPLOYMENT AND HUMAN SERVICES
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
TO: Family and Human Services DATE: November 7, 2005
Committee Members
cc John Sweeten
FROM: John Cullen, Director, Employment & Human Services Department
Danna Fabella, Director of Children & Family Services Bureau
SUBJECT: Child Welfare Redesign & Outcome Measure Update
Recommendation
Accept this report from the Employment and Human Services Department; and
Continue to support the Children and Family Services Bureau efforts on Child Welfare
Redesign and implementing the System Improvement Plan required by the State's Child
Welfare Performance Outcomes and Accountability Act.
Background
As the Committee may recall, Contra Costa Children & Family Services Bureau began a
formal process in 2001 to "redesign" many of our Child Welfare practices with the goal
of improving outcomes for children. The Federal government also passed the
Adoptions and Safe Families Act which requires all states to address specific federal
child safety, permanence and well-being outcomes in order to receive Federal Child
Welfare funding. Most recently, California passed the Child Welfare Performance
Outcomes and Accountability Act which sets specific performance goals for all
California counties, and requires self assessments, program audits, system
improvement plans, and outcome measurement data collection and reporting.
Outcomes Progress to Date
Since our last report in December 2004, we have made significant progress in
addressing the focus areas identified by the Self-Assessment described in the August
2004 report. The following is the Bureau's progress to date on the various strategies
being implemented to improve performance outcomes:
1. Overall O utcomes D ata. Attachment 1 is the most recent report on outcomes-
related data for all California Counties released by the State CDSS report in October
2005. As the data show, the Bureau continues to improve its performance for most
of the indicators over time.
1
During this last reporting period, in the Safety Outcomes, we have improved in eight
of n ine, a nd meet or e xceed t he S tate/Federal o utcome s tandard i n n ine o f n ine.
Within the Permanency Outcomes, we have improved in six of eight, and meet or
exceeded the State/Federal outcome standard in six of eight. In the Well Being
Outcomes, we have improved in six of 13, and meet or exceed the State/Federal
outcome standard in eight of 13.
2. Contra Costa System Improvement Plan (SIP). Last year's Self-Assessment and
System Improvement Plan focused on four areas to target as primary improvement
areas:
a. Improve the number of 1 0-day referrals with a timely response
b. Improve required social worker visits to all children without a visit exception
c. Reduce the over-representation of African-American children in our foster care
system
d. Increase the rate at which children are safely returned home
We are very pleased to report that the Bureau has made significant progress in
all four of these areas. The table below documents these outcome measures,
our June 03 performance, our improvement goal, and our actual outcome for the
most recent reporting quarter and strategies that lead to this result.
2
Our updated SIP 2005-06 will continue to focus on these four safety outcomes, and,
expand to add three more target areas from the Permanency and Well-Being
outcomes areas. These include:
Safety: (Current)
a) Maintain timely response compliance on 1 0-day referrals at 90% or above
b) Maintain social worker visits compliance at 90% or above
c) Reduce overrepresentation of African American children who are placed in
out of home care
d) Increase the rate at which children are safely reunified
Permanency: (New)
e) Increase the number of children with no more than two placements
Well-Being: (New)
f) Increase the number of youth graduating from High School or completing
GED
g) Increase the percentage of siblings placed together with all or some of their
siblings
State Pilot Child Welfare Redesign
In addition to our local efforts to meet/exceed Federal/State Safety, Permanency, and
Well-Being Outcomes, we are one of eleven pilot counties designated as an early
implementer of the State's Child Welfare System Improvement efforts. This
responsibility involves the development and testing of new service delivery activities that
will improve a county's outcomes. Once operated and evaluated in a pilot county, the
beneficial activities can be rolled-out to other California counties depending on
resources. Our Children & Family Services Bureau, along with other pilot counties, is
working on three very promising strategies summarized below and detailed on the chart
on page 7.
1. Comprehensive safety and risk assessment
The Bureau developed and implemented a Standardized, Comprehensive
Assessment Tool (CAT) system to assess child safety, risk and family protective
capacity, in accordance with State guidelines.
2. Develop an early intervention intake structure (Differential Response)
Implementation of Differential Response started in February 2005 for Path 1
services, followed in May 2005 by Path 2 services. This program provides
community-based case management services in the target a reqs for families with
4
children under five at-risk of entering the child welfare system. Differential
Response has three levels of response, called Paths, which are assigned from the
Screening Hotline:
Path 1: The issues, while of concern, do not rise to the level of abuse/neglect and
can be addressed through community-based services. These cases were
traditionally evaluated out at the hotline.
Path 2: Face-to-face assessment by Social Worker shows there is no need for
continued CFS involvement and the family's issues can be addressed by
community-based services. These cases were traditionally closed after
initial investigation by the social worker with referrals.
Path 3: These are high-risk cases that require immediate involvement of Children
and Family Services.
Through the Request for Proposal (RFP) process and redirecting existing contracts, we
identified and funded a total of 10 community agencies to provide case management
and supportive services under Differential Response with a capacity for up to 210
families. A total of 125 families (approximately 275 children) are currently receiving
Differential Response community case management services. Under the traditional
system, these families would not have received these critical prevention and early
intervention services.
The Bureau is in the process of developing and implementing a data evaluation system
to measure the effectiveness of Differential Response. There is however anecdotal
evidence that the program is helping families become stronger and better able to care
for their children. The following illustrates the success story of one of these families:
"Maria"is a single mom with a 4-year old daughter, trying to get out of an abusive
relationship. After her abusive boyfriend was forced to move out of the home, Maria
faced many problems., including emotional distress and financial difficulties. Maria
was referred to Path 1 services.
Ap
Maria has been receiving services for about 4 months. She has many strengths and
is very motivated to create a better future for herself and her child. With the support
of the Path 1 Community Case Manager
., Maria has been able to achieve
remarkable progress. Maria secured a restraining order and her ex-boyfriend is no
longer disturbing the family. The child is receiving therapy and attending a full day
preschool where she is progressing on her basic skills and showing less emotional
distress. Maria also sought spiritual support from her church and restarted her
English classes. She is more involved with the child's education and is able to
understand more English. Maria received help with housing assistance and other
basic needs to alleviate her economic situation. She now has a full time job and is
more financially self-sufficient.
5
3. Address permanency and youth transition to self-sufficient adulthood
CFS staff continues to participate on the State's Permanency & Youth Transition
workgroup to develop protocols and best practice guides around emancipation.
Additionally, the Bureau continues to utilize the Federal System of Care (SOC) grant
that we received to focus on our older youth and permanency issues. This has
assisted us in developing the strategies that are required by our State pilot grant.
One of the subcommittees working on emancipation issues has developed an Exit
Package binder for youth emancipating from the system. The binders include gift
cards, resources and information regarding employment, college, etc., CDs
compiling all the foster care file information that will be needed by the youth upon
emancipation (i.e., birth certificate copy, contacts) and other useful items.
Other subcommittees continue to work on other emancipation issues such as
Placement stability; Case planning that is inclusive of youth and parent; and
Caregiver involvement.
6
�1 W
._ O .�
Q
.— N + O -a
V toO
O (1) cu0 U)
>+
MOONEDO O ca � 4-
.
,N O ._ V O
OMMOV
O 4) cuOcn
CU
O
O O O D. O .� '� O ca O C-
cn (DO L ,�C
to SOMED
(D (DO cu
0 Ocn
CT N p
� O ._ O — ._ � � O O U
cncuC — SOMOR
O M O —� V)
cu
ONNO
O O - . L-
4) O cn > (D (D
OC)
C:
cu
cn
cu
SNOWS cu
cu r. cn j
Cl) LJL 0
0
O cu U O d' -- L
�. 0
cn 0 ca r — O O = U U
o a)
0
o Q j — o o cu
ccl �- —
"o
O + U(n
C: C (1)
cu
Lo cu
OCIO'70 O L
a) a) a) O o C � o O oCU
— L o
> 0 CY)0
CIO*
� � O cn L. O
o C)
0
C) M E (n
O O O L- cn ,� O O
4WD cu CY)
4" sommm
�/� .-
w V/ .� L (n U. ` p • L
cn cn O 4) •— O [1..
a) o o0 OWNS
to � � � � 0 o °
(D cO a. L � �
Q O .� +� O .� p O � ,O U
.� � SWOON , L L +
Cl) CU 0 SNOW
L O -� O ,�, U U C �- C
U O t� U U L •— O cu �6
O WOMS
CL (1)
—
0 C: LOO
Ca cu 4—
cn 0
0 CJ) 0 o
U UCL .0.0 o
cn 0"000 cu
cn
c cu -6-0
Ca
4-0 mo
co L.
mr
.0 L cu O — L C T3 .�.r V Q �' O O L .�
SOMME O O to O •� co �- I— �- ti
�- U O OL
OMMOM
ca Q — O O O mo 00 CO
mo a. >
0 0 CU a)
0
0
-0 CD
'00
C U) cu
CL
(D
O O �- c:
ma 4.
-0 4—
.)
O L a) c: U-C6O
ca
p a) -� o wLr;
a) o •� °_� a) W O o
MORMON
CL 4.0 O 0 — p -� — O N U — — O •�
O cif — O •— O ._ - M O
U O a) �. o O > o O > -� 'v, o 0.O i. > cn L .
�- �- a) o L a) a) O -� a) 0 0 a) >> a) C o
� •c U �
ca �
Q. 0 of LL cn - N �. 0 C!) CL
U)
0)
cu
a) C o
�. cn O O0 C/) .o E
—co O
N --
-00 -
�E — L- � .—
._ U •� Q O U
cn
L.
C:
CU co 0 0
-0cn i) U E E U
CO cuoo ,� E 0
CU cnEE o �
DOWNS
cn OO O O O
cnQ D ao = F- �.
c _
c cam cu o � cn o �
�0
0 BOOM 0 (1) U) (1) C.)
cu 0
L.
Cl) {� ._ O ._ O C/) � L � O
�. O 4— �- Cl) . L 4)
cu
%j"
(1) co -0 cu E CD
iOc
cn O m U w (D � L.. :1. � O .*.., L
._ ._
012
"� -Y cu c ccs O � �'''' cu
ca. cocnO ONEWp `= � U :0 4) cu B O O 0 U
c cn CIO CU CL 0
O L- w j O E 0 O C O �. cis •—
r: .}.,,QD -0 Q .6.0
,:, O O O cn - O
0 cn 0 cn
0 CU C CU 0 cu
0 0 (n
0 cu
U0 0
ca co �.6.0 U U V1 .G .9 �. 0 U
:
Summary/Conclusion
The CFS Bureau continues to meet Federal and State performance improvement
expectations and goals. We have been able to continue our Redesign efforts by
utilizing funding from a variety of sources: State Redesign Pilot grant, Promoting Safe
and Stable Families, Federal System of Care, and smaller grants from the Stuart
Foundation and Hedgefunds Care. Over the next few months we will be implementing
our plan for evaluating the effectiveness of DR in order to begin plans for countywide
implementation in FY 05/06. One of our main challenges in accomplishing this goal will
be identifying and obtaining the additional funds to make this expansion possible.
With the Board's continuing support and the commitment of our CFS staff, we are
confident that Contra Costa will lead Child Welfare System changes that will positively
impact outcomes for children and families.
8
Attachment 1
California Child Welfare Services
Outcome & Accountability Comparison Data Report
(Welfare Supervised Caseload)
Contra Costa County v. California
October 2005
New data are added and some old data have been updated in this report. The data in this
report reflect the Original outcomes for data available through April 1, 2005. We have also
included Updated (refreshed) data for some quarters, run on data from more recent extracts
than those that were originally posted. Differences between the Original and Updated values for
these measures are probably due to data cleanup efforts in some counties. Uniform Resource
Locators (URLs) included in this document direct the viewer to summary data across counties
and breakouts by age, race, gender, and over time, including refreshed data for time periods
earlier than those included in this report for all UCB developed measures. New October data
information is indicated in red.
CHILD WELFARE SERVICES PARTICIPATION RATES
This section provides data on the number, and number per 1,000 children in the county/state,
for key child welfare indicators. The section was developed by the University of California,
Berkeley (UCB). These numbers and rates are updated once per year.
Number of children < 18 in population
Population projections have been revised using California Department of Finance data. This
go
revision affects reported population numbers and the denominator of rate calculations.
Year State Number County Number
2002 9,436,475 259,056
2003 9,536,260 260,799
L2004 9,575,520 262,706
Number and rate of children with referrals
Unduplicated count of child clients < age 18 in referrals during the indicated year, per 1,000
children < age 18 in population
URL: httq://cssr.bericelev.edu/CWSCMSreaorts/Referrals/rates.asn#countyrates
Year State Number State Rate County Number County Rate
2002 489,340 51.9 per 1,000 10,428 40.3 per 1,000
2003 493,091 51.7 per 1,000 9,848 37.8 per 1,000
2004 491,926 51.4 er 1,000 10,913 41.5 per 1,000--i
Number and rate of children with substantiated referrals
Unduplicated count of child clients < age 18 in referrals during the indicated year that had
substantiated allegations, per 1,000 children < age 18 in population
URL: http://cssr.berkelev.edu/CWSCMSreports/Referrals/rates.asn#countyrates
9
Year State Number State Rate County Number County Rate
2002 115,766 12.3 per 1,000 2,241 8.7 per 1,000
2003 111,451 11.7 per 1,000 1,996 7.7 per 1,000
2004 110,308 11.5 per 1,000 2,127 8.1 per 1,000
Number and rate of first entries
Unduplicated count of children < age 18 entering a child welfare supervised placement episode
of at least five days duration for the first time during the indicated year, per 1,000 children < age
18 in population
URL: http://cssr.berlceley.edu/CWSCMSreports/Cohortstfirstentries/Rates.asp
Year State Number State Rate County Number County Rate
2002 27,688 2.9 per 1,000 662 2.6 per 1,000
2003 27,103 2.8 per 1,000 650 2.5 per 1,000
2004 27,165 1 2.8 per 1,000 660 2.5 per 1,000
Number and rate of children in care
Number of children < age 19 in child welfare supervised foster care on the indicated date, per
1,000 children < age 19 in population.
URL: http://cssr.berkelev.edu/CWSCMSregorts/Pointintime/fostercare/childweUnrevalence.asa
Date State Number State Rate I County Number County Rate
July 19 2003 86,842 8.9 per 1,000 1 2,026 7.4 per 1,000
July 1, 2004 84,500 1 8.4 per 1,000 1 1,908 6.9 per 1,000 __j
SAFETY OUTCOMES
Recurrence of Maltreatment (1 A and 1 B)
This measure reflects the percent of children who were victims of child abuse/neglect with a
subsequent substantiated report of abuse/neglect within specific time periods. It is both a state
and federal outcome measure. This measure was developed by UCB.
Federal: O f a II c hildren w ith a s ubstantiated a(legation w ithin t he f first s ix m onths o f t he 12-
month study period, what percent had another substantiated allegation within six months?
(limited to dispositions within the study year, according to federal guidelines).
URL: http://cssr.berkelev.edu/CWSCMSrenorts/cfsrdata/standards/cfsr recurrence.aso
1 A. Percent recurrence of maltreatment (Fed) ( study eriod
State Contra Costa
07/01/02-06/30/03 9.7% 6.9%
10/01/02-09/30/03 9.7% 6.3%
01/01/03-12/31/03 9.4% 5.8%
04/l/03-3/31/04 8.9% 5.0%
07/l/03-6/30/04 8.7% 6.6%
10/01/02-9/30/03 9.0% 7.8%
01/01/04-12/31/04 8.4% 7.1%
04/01/04-03/31/05 8.3% 5%
10
State: Of all children with a substantiated referral during the 12-month study period, what
percent had a subsequent substantiated referral within 12 months?
URL: hlto'//cssr.berkelev.edu/CWSCMSreoorts/Referrals/recurrence.asn
1 B. Percent recurrence of maltreatment within 12 months 12-month study period)
State Contra Costa
07/01/01-06/30/02 13.2% 11.1%
10/01/01-09/30/02 13.4% 11.4%
01/01/02-12/31/02 13.5% 10.4%
04/1/02-3/31/03 13.5% 9.7%
07/1/02-6/30/03 13.5% 9.3%
10/01/02-9/30/03 13.2% 9.0%
01/01/03-12/31/03 13,1% 9.8%
04/01/03-03/31/04 12.9% 10%
State: Of all children with a first substantiated referral during the 12-month study period, what
percent had a subsequent substantiated referral within 12 months?
URI: htto://cssr.berkelev.edu/CWSCMSreoorts/Reterrels/recurrence.aso
1 B. Percent recurrence of maltreatment within 12 months after first substantiated
allegation (12-month study period)
State Contra Costa
07/01/01-06/30/02 11.6% 10.2%
10/01/01-09/30/02 11.8% 10.1%
01/01/02-12/31/02 11.7% 9.1%
04/01/02-3/31/03 11.7% 9.0%
07/01/02-6/30/03 11.7% 8.7%
10/01/02-9/30/03 11.4% 8.0%
01/01/03-12/31/03 11.3% 9.1%
104/01/03-03/31/04 11.1% 8.4%
Rate of Child Abuse and/or Neglect in Foster Care (1 C)
This measure reflects the percent of children in foster care who are abused or neglected while in
foster care placement (currently limited due to data constraints to children in foster or FFA
homes). This data was developed by UCB. It is a federal outcome measure.
For all children in county supervised or Foster Family Agency child welfare supervised foster
care during the nine-month review period (timeframe established according to federal
guidelines), what percent had a substantiated allegation by a foster parent during that time?
URL: htto://cssr.berkelev.edu/CWSCMSrenorts/cfsrdatalstandards/cfsr abuse asu
1C. Percent rate of child abuse and/or neglect in foster care (Fed)
(9-Month review period
State Contra Costa
10/01/02-06/30/03 0.76% 0.30%
01/01/03-09/30/03 0.81% 0.37%
04/01/03-12/31/03 0.83/% 0.23%
07/01/03-3/31/04 0.81% 0.69%
10/01/03-6/30/04 0.82% 1
01/01/04-9/30/04 0.86% 1
04/01/04-12/31/04 0.75% 0.65%
07(01104-03/31/05 0.73% 0.3%
11
Rate of Recurrence of Abuse and/or Neglect in Homes Where Children Were Not
Removed (2A)
This measure reflects the occurrence of abuse and/or neglect of children who remain in their
own homes. This data was developed by CIDSS. It is a state outcome measure.
Of all the children with allegation (inconclusive or substantiated) during the 12-month study
period who were not removed, what percent had a subsequent substantiated allegation within
12 months?
URL: htta://cssr.Berkeley.edu/CWSCMSreaorts/Ccfsr.asa#2A
2A. Percent rate of recurrence of abuse/neglect in homes where children were not
removed 1 2-month study period)
State Contra Costa
07/01/01-06/30/02 8.9% 9.3%
010/01/01-09/30/02 8.9% 8.6%
01/01/02-12/31/02 8.9% 7.9%
04/l/02-3/31/03 8.8% 8.5%
07/01/02-6/30/03 8.9% 8%
10/01/02-9/30/03 8.7% 8.3%
01/01/03-12/31/03 8.7% 8.6%
04/01/03-03/31/04 8.7% 8.3%
Child Abuse/Neglect Referrals with a Timely Response (2B)
This is a process measure designed to determine the percent of cases in which face-to-face
contact with a child occurs, or is attempted, within the regulatory time frames in those situations
in which a determination is made that the abuse or neglect allegations indicate significant
danger to the child. This data was developed by CIDSS. It is a state process measure.
Percent of child abuse and neglect referrals in the study quarter that have resulted in an in-
person i nvestigation s tratified by i mmediate r esponse and t en-day r eferrals, for b oth p tanned
and actual visits.
URL: http://cssr.berlceley.edu/CWSCMSreports/Ccfsr.asq#26
2B. Percent of child abuse/neglect referrals with a timely response
State Contra Costa
Immediate 1 0-day Immediate 1 0-day
Response Response Response Response
Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance
Q2 2003 94.5% 88.6% 92.1% 50.7%
Q3 2003 93.5% 90.2% 88.2% 87.8%
Q4 2003 93.9% 87.5% 94.2% 74.6%
Q 1 2004 95.6% 89.5% 93.7% X6.2%
Q2 2004 95.0% 89.9% 92.4% 81.5%
Q3 2004 95.1% 92% 96% 96%
Q4 2004 95.3% 92.1% 94.7% 93.5%
Q 1 2005 96.2% 92.9% 97.3% 95.1%
12
Timely Social Worker Visits With Child (2C)
This is a process measure designed to determine if social workers are seeing the children on a
monthly basis when that is required. Children for whom a determination is made that monthly
visits are not necessary (e.g. valid visit exception) are not included in this measure. This data
was developed by CDSS. It is a state process measure. This report is based on CWS/CMS
only. (Other data analysis measurements such as the SafeMeasures application may provide
different results.) Please note: Since the methodology for computing social worker visits has
been changed, Q2 and Q3 data have been revised.
Of all children who required a monthly social worker visit, how many received a monthly visit?
URL: htta://cssr.berkelev.edu/CWSCMSreports/Ccfsr.asa#2C
2C. Percent of timely social worker visits with child
Q2 2003 Apr 2003 May 2003 Jun 2003
State 84.6% 85.2% 85.8%
Contra Costa 77.9% 78.6% 79.4%
Q3 2003 Jul 2003 Aug 2003 Sept 2003
State 85.4% 85.9% 86.4%
Contra Costa 77.1% 78.3% 78.9%
Q4 2003 Oct 2003: Nov 2003 Dec 2003
State 85.7% 86.3% 86.8%
Contra Costa 82.5% 83.5% 84.1%
Q 1 2004 Jan 2004 Feb 2004 March 2004
State 87.4% 87.8% 88.5%
Contra Costa 85.4% 86.0% 86.5%
Q2 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004
State 89.0% 89.4% 89.8%
Contra Costa 88.4% 89.0% 89.2%
Q3 2004 July 2004 August 2004 Sept 2004
State 89.6% 89.9% 90.2%
Contra Costa 87.8% 88.4% 88.7%
Q4 2004 Oct 2004 Nov 2004 Dec 2004
State 90.1% 90.5% 90.9%
Contra Costa 89.3% 90% 90.9%
Q1 2005 Jan 2005 Feb 2005 March 2005
State 91.4% 91.6% 92.1%
Contra Costa 90.7 91.2% 91.5%
PERMANENCY OUTCOMES
These measures are designed to reflect the number of foster care placements for each child,
the length of time a child is in foster care, and the rate that children re-enter foster care after
they have returned home or other permanent care arrangements have been made.
Length of Time to Exit Foster Care to Reunification (3E and 3A)
This is an outcome measure reflecting the percent of children reunified within 12 months of
removal of a child from the home. The data was developed by UCB. It is a federal and state
outcome measure.
13
Federal: Of all children who were reunified from child welfare supervised foster care during the
12-month study period, what percent had been in care for less than 12 months?
URL: hftp://cssr.berkeley.edu/CWSCMSreports/Cfsrdata/standards/cfsr standardsFortn.as
3E. Percent reunified within 12 months (Fed) ( study period)
State Contra Costa
07/01/02-06/30/03 65.4% 65.0%
10/01/02-09/30/03 65,1% 64.2%
01/01/03-12/31/03 65.0% 63.9%
04/01/03-3/31/04 64.6% 68.5%
07/01/03-6/30/04 65.8% 73.8%
10/01/03-9/30/04 66.5% 75.7%
01/01/04-12/31/04 66.8% 74.5%
04/01/04-3/31/05 67.7% 74.8%
State: For all children who entered foster care for the first time (and stayed at least five days)
during the 12-month study period, what percent were reunified within 12 months?
URL: httoJ/cssi.berkelev.edu/CWSCMSreoorts/Cohortslexits/
3A. Percent reunified within 12 months (entry cohort12-month study period)
State Contra Costa
07/01/01-06/30/02 35.8% 38.3%
10/01/01-09/30/02 36.2% 37.9%
01/01/02-12/31/02 36.2% 41.6%
04/01/02-3/31/03 36.4% 43.1%
07/01/02-6/30/03 35.9% 41.9%
10/01/02-9/30/03 36% 47%
01/01/03-12/31/03 36.8% 47%
04/01/03-03/31/04 36.4% 49.9%
Length of Time to Exit Foster Care to Adoption (31D and 3A)
This is an outcome measure reflecting the percent of children adopted within 24 months of
removal of a child from the home. The data was developed by UCB- It is a federal and state
outcome measure.
Federal: Of all children who were adopted from child welfare supervised foster care during the
12-month study period, what percent had been in care for less than 24 months?
URL: http://cssr.6erkelev.edu/CWSCMSrenorts/cfsrdata/standards/cFsr standardsForm.aso
3D. Percent adopted within 24 months (Fed) (1 2-month study period)
State Contra Costa
07/01/01-06/30/02 24.3% 34.5%
10/01/01-09/30/02 25.3% 36.4%
01/01/02-12/31/02 26.2% 37.0%
04/01/03-3/31/04 27.2% 39.0%
07/01/03-6/30/04 27.7% 43.1%
10/01/03-9/30/04 28.1% 45.1%
01/01/04-12/31/04 28.4% 39%
04/01/04-03/31/05 28.8% - 39.5%
14
State: For all children who entered child welfare supervised foster care for the first time (and
stayed at least five days) during the 12-month study period, what percent were adopted within
24 months?
URL: hftip://cssr.berkeley.edu/CWSCMSreg)orts/Cohorts/exits/
3A. Percent adopted within 24 months (entry cohort12-month study period)
State Contra Costa
07/01/00-06/30/01 5.1% 6.0%
10/01/00-09/30/01 5.3% 6.9%
01/01/01-12/31/01 5.4% 7.5%
04/01/01-3/31/02 5.5% 7.2%
07/01/01-6/30/02 5.8% 9.1%
10/01/01-9/30/02 6% 10.9%
01/01/02-12/31/02 6.2% 10.9%
04/01/02-03/31/03 6.4% 10.8%
Multiple Foster Care Placements (313 and 3C)
These measures reflect the number of children with multiple placements within 12 months of
placement. This data was developed by UCB. It is a federal and state outcome measure.
Federal: For all children in child welfare supervised foster care for less than 12 months during
the 12-month study period, what percent had no more than two placements?
URL: htto://cssr.berkelev.edWCWSCMSreoorts/cfsrdatalstandards/cFsr standardsFortn.aso
3B. Percent with 1-2 placeme.nts within 12 months (Fed) (1 2-month study period)
State Contra Costa
07/01/01-06/30/02 83.0% 84.8%
10/01/01-09/30/02 82.9% 87,1%
01/01/02-12/31/02 82.9% 87.5%
04/01/03-3/31/04 83.7% 86.9%
07/01/03-6/30/04 84.0% 86.4%
10/01/03-9/30/04 84.1% 85.2%
01/01/04-12/31/04 84.3% 84.7%
04!01/04-03/31/05 85% 85.2%
15
State: For all children who entered child welfare supervised foster care for the first time (and
stayed at least five days) during the 12-month study period, and were in care for 12 months,
what percent had no more than two placements?
URL: htto://cssr.berkelev.edWCWSCMSreoortslwhorts/stability/
3C. Percent with 1-2 placements - if still in care at 12 months (entry cohort)
1 2-month study period)
State Contra Costa
07/01/01-06/30/02 63.2% 67.7%
10/01/01-09/30/02 63.3% 67.6%
01/01/02-12/31/02 63,1% 68.9%
04/01/02-3/31/03 63.2% 67.8%
07/01/02-6/30/03 63.5% 66.9%
10/01/03-9/30/04 64% 71.4%
01/01/03-12/31/03 64.3% 71.5%
04!01/03-03/31/04 64.9% 97.5%
Rate of Foster Care Re-Entry (3F and 3G)
This measure reflects the number of children who re-enter foster care subsequent to
reunification or guardianship. The data was developed by UCB. It is a federal and state
outcome measure.
Federal: For all children who entered child welfare supervised foster care during the 12-month
study period, what percent were subsequent entries within 12 months of a prior exit?
URL: htto://cssr.berkelev.edu/CWSCMSreoorts/cfsrdatalstandards/cfsr standardsFortn aso
3F. Percent of admissions who are re-entries (Fed) (1 2-month study period)
State Contra Costa
07/01/02-06/30/03 11.2% 13,1%
10/01/02-09/30/03 17.3% 11.0%
01/01/03-12/31/03 11.1% 10.9%
04/01/03-3/31/04 10.6% 10.0%
07/01/03-6/30/04 10.4% 9.3%
10/01/03-9/30/04 10.2% 10.8%
01/01/04-12/31/04 10.3% 11.7%
04/01/04-03!31/05 10.3% 11.9%
State: For all children who entered child welfare supervised foster care for the first time (and
stayed at least five days) during the 12 month study period and were reunified within 12 months
of entry, what percent re-entered foster care within 12 months of reunification?
URL: htto:/lcssr.berkelev.edu/CWSCMSreoorts/Cohorts/reentries/
3G. Percent who re-entered within 12 months of reunification (entry cohort reunified
within 12 months (12-month study period)
State County
07/01/00-06/30/01 13.4% 14%
10/01/00-09/30/01 13% 15.1%
01/01/01-12/31/01 13.2% 13.3%
04/01/01-3/31/02 13.2% 14.3%
07/01/01-6/30/02 13% 11.9%
10/01/01-9/30/02 13.4% 15.2%
01/01/02-12/31/02 13% 15%
04/01/02-03/31/03 12.6% 14.5%
16
CHILD & FAMILY WELL-BEING OUTCOMES
These measures are designed to reflect the degree to which children in foster care retain
relationships with the family and extended communities with whom they are associated at the
time of their removal from their parents.
Siblings Placed Together in Foster Care (4A)
These measures reflect the number of children placed with all or some of their siblings in foster
care. The data was developed by UCB. It is a state outcome measure.
For all children in child welfare supervised foster care on the point-in-time, of those with siblings
in care, what percent were placed with some and/or all of their siblings?
URL: http://cssr.bericelev.edu/CWSCMSreaorts/aointintime/fostercare/childweVsiblin4s.asa
4A. Percent of children in foster care that are placed with ALL siblings point in time)
State County
Jul 1, 2003 41.3% 37.3%
Oct 1, 2003 41.9% 35%
Jan 1, 2004 42,1% 37.5%
Apr 19 2004 41.8% 36.8%
Jul 1, 2004 42.2% 39.6%
Oct 1, 2004 42.3% 37.8%
Jan 1, 2005 43.4% 38.6%
Apr 11 2005 43.7% 37.2%
4A. Percent of children in foster care that are placed with SOME or ALL siblings
(point in time)
State County
Jul 1, 2003 65.4% 59.3
Oct 1, 2003 65.7% 59%
Jan 1, 2004 65.6% 58.1%
Apip 1, 2004 65.4% 58%
Jul 1, 2004 65.4% 59.6%
Oct 1, 2004 65.7% 58.8%
Jan 1, 2005 66.2% 58.7%
Apr 1, 2005 1 66.8% 57.5% 1
Foster Care Placement in Least Restrictive Settings (4B)
This measure reflects the percent of children placed in each type of foster care setting. The
data was developed by UCB. It is a state outcome measure.
For all children who entered child welfare supervised foster care for the first time (and stayed at
least five days) during the 12 month study period, what percent were in kin, foster, FFA, group,
and other placements (first placement type, predominant placement type)? What percent of
children in child welfare supervised foster care were in kin, foster, FFA, group, and other
placements at the specified point in time?
URL: (entry cohort)htta://cssr.barksrev.edu/CWSCMSreaorts/cohortstfirstentries/
URL: (point in time)http://cssr.barksrev.edu/CWSCMSreports/gointintime/fostercare/childwel/aaeandethnic.asu
Initial Placement Primary Placement Pt in Time Placement
07/01/02-06/30/03 07/01/02-06/30/03. Jul 1, 2003
17
46. Relative
State 16.6% 37.8% 34.5%
Contra Costa 15.6% 40.7% 35.9%
46. Foster Home
State 32.8% 20.3% 13.0%
Contra Costa 62.4% 37.8% 18.2°/a
46. FFA
State 28.1% 28.7% 22.4%
Contra Costa 8.7% 9.1% 17.1%
46. Group/Shelter
State 19.9°/a 9.2% 8.9%
Contra Costa 10.2% 8.4% 11.6%
46. Other
State 2.6% 3.9% 21.1%
Contra Costa 3.1% 4.0% 17.1%
Initial Placement Primary Placement Pt in Time Placement
10/01/02-09/30/03 10/01/02-09/30/03 Oct 1, 2003
46. Relative
State 16.7% 38.3% 34.4%
Contra Costa 16.8% 40.9% 35.5%
46. Foster Home
State 32.6% 20.3% 13.1%
Contra Costa 62.1% 38.1% 20.1%
46. FFA
State 28.6% 28.6% 22.5%
Contra Costa 7.1% 7.9% 16.5%
46. Group/Shelter
State 19.6% 8.9% 9.0%
Contra Costa 10.8% 8.8% 11.8%
46. Other
State 2.5% 3.9% 21.0%
Contra Costa 3.2°/a 4.3% 16.1%
Initial Placement Primary Placement Pt in Time Placement
01/01/03-12/31/03 01/01/03-12/31/03 Jan 1, 2004
4B. Relative
State 17.4% 38.7% 34.9 %
Contra Costa 17,88% 40.6% 35.8%
46. Foster Home
State 32.0% 19.8% 12.7%
Contra Costa 61.6% 38.3% 19.1%
4B. .FFA
State 29.0% 29.2% 22.5%
Contra Costa 7.7% 8.5% 16.5%
46. Group/Shelter
State 19.2% 8.7% 9.1%
Contra Costa 9.4% 8.1% 12.5%
46. Other
State 2.3% 3.7% 20.8%
Contra Costa 3.4% 4.5% 16.1%
18
Initial Placement Primary Placement Pt in Time Placement
4/1/03-3/31/04 4/1/03-3/31/04 Apr 1, 2004
46. Relative
State 17.8% 37.3% 34.2%
Contra Costa 15.4% 36.6% 35.6%
4B. Foster Home
State 31.2% 20.2% 12.6%
Contra Costa 62.8% 41.4% 19.1%
46. FFA
State 30.8% 30.8% 22.9%
Contra Costa 8.5% 9.6% 16.5%
46. Group/Shelter
State 18.1% 8.4% 9.1%
Contra Costa 10.2% 9.0% 12.5%
4B. Other
State 2.1% 3.2% 21.2%
Contra Costa 3.1% 3.4% 16.3%
Initial Placement Primary Placement Pt in Time Placement
7/1/03-6/30/04 7/1/03-6/30/04 7/1/03-6/30/04
4B. Relative
State 17.6% 35.4% 34.1%
Contra Costa 17.7% 37.9% 36.1%
4B. Foster Home
State 30.7% 20.9% 12.3%
Contra Costa 61.7% 41.3% 18.3%
4B. FFA
State 32.1% 32.1% 22.5%
Contra Costa 8.6°/a 8.2% 15.8%
4B. Group/Shelter
State 17.5% 8.6% 9.1%
Contra Costa 9.2% 9.4% 13.7%
4B. Other
State 2.1% 3.1% 22.0%
Contra Costa 2.9% 3.1% 16.0%
19
Initial Placement Primary Placement Pt in Time Placement
10/01/03-09/30/04 10/01/03-09/30/04 Oct 1, 2004
4B. Relative
State 17.5% 35.2% 33.9%
Contra Costa 16.1% 37.2% 35.4%
46. Foster Home
State 29.8% 20.1% 11.9%
Contra Costa 63.8% 41.9% 18.8%
46. FFA
State 33.6% 33.1% 22.9%
Contra Costa 8.2% 8.1% 14.7%
46. Group/Shelter
State 17.0% 8.4% 9.0%
Contra Costa 8.2% 8.4% 14.3%
4B. Other
State 2.1% 3.1% 22.3%
Contra Costa 3.7% 4.4% 16.8%
Initial Placement Primary Placement Pt in Time Placement
01/01/04-12/31/04 01/01/04-12/31/04 Jan 1, 2005
4B. Relative
State 17.4% 35.7% 34.9%
Contra Costa 16.4% 37.9% 35.2°/a
4B. Foster Home
State 28.9% 19.6% 11.6%
Contra Costa 64.7% 43.3°/a 18.3%
46. FFA
State 35.1% 33.5% 22.9%
Contra Costa 7.0% 6.4% 13.7%
46. Group/Shelter
State 16.6% 8.3% 9.1%
Contra Costa 8.6% 8.5% 13.8%
46. Other
State 2.0% 3.0% 21.6%
Contra Costa 3.3% 3.9% 19.0%
Initial Placement Primary Placement Pt in Time Placement
04/01/04-03/31/05 04/01/04-03/31/05 04!01/04-03/31/05
4B. Relative
State 17.6% 36% 34.5%
Contra Costa 18.2% 40.7% 35.7%
4B. Foster Home
State 27.9% 19.1% 11.4
Contra Costa 64.6% 42.3% 18.5%
4B. FFA
State 36.3% 34.2% 23.3
Contra Costa 7.2% 6.1% 13.1%
4B. Group/Shelter
State 16.2% 8% 9.1%
Contra Costa 6.9% 7.4% 13.8%
4B. Other
State 2% 2.9% 21.6%
Contra Costa 3.1% 3.5% 18.9%
20
Rate of IOWA Placement Preferences (4E)
This measure reflects the-percent of Indian Child Welfare Act eligible children placed in foster
care settings defined by the ICWA. This data was developed by CIDSS. It is a state outcome
measure.
4E (1)Of those children identified as American Indian, what percent were placed with relatives,
non-relative Indian and non-relative non-Indian families?
URL: http://cssr.berkelev.edu/CVUSCMSreuorts/Ccfsr.asn#4E
Q2 2003
State Contra Costa
4E. Relative Home 41.3% 50.0%
4E. Non-Relative Indian Family 9.5% 0.0%
4E. Non-Relative Non-Indian Family 21.0% 0.0%
Q3 2003
State Contra Costa
4E. Relative Home 39.3% 37.5%
4E. Non-Relative Indian Family 9.4% 0.0%
4E. Non-Relative Non-Indian Fami_ly_ 23..0% 0.0%
Q4 2003
State Contra Costa
4E. Relative Home 38.9% 29.4%
4E. Non-Relative Indian Family 9.9% 0.0%
4E. Non-Relative Non-Indian Family 22..8% 17.6%
Q 1 2004
State Contra Costa
4E. Relative Home 42.0% 60.0%
4E. Non-Relative Indian Family 10.2 0.0%
4E. Non-Relative Non-Indian Family 24.8% 6-.7%
Q2 2004
State Contra Costa
4E. Relative Home 33.9% 26.1
4E. Non-Relative Indian Family4.3 0.0%
4E. Non-Relative Non-Indian Family 48.9% 60..9%
Q3 2004
State Contra Costa
4E. Relative Home 37.9% 26.1%
4E. Non-Relative Indian Family 5.7% 0.0%
4E. Non-Relative Non-Indian Family 44.7% 65.2%
21
Q4 2004
State Contra Costa
4E. Relative Home 37.9% 29.2%
4E. Non-Relative Indian Family 5.7% 0.0%
4E. Non-Relative Non-Indian Family 44.8% 58.3%
1 Q 1 2005
State Contra Costa
4E. Relative Home 37.8% 40%
4E. Non-Relative Indian Family 5.2% 0.0%
4E. Non-Relative Non-Indian Family 46.5% 50%
4E (2) This measure reflects the percent of Indian Child Welfare Act eligible children placed in
foster care settings defined by the IOWA. This data was developed by CDSS. It is a state
outcome measure.
URL: http://cssr.berkelev.edu/CWSCMSreports/Ccfsr.asp#4E
Q 1 2004
State Contra Costa
4E. Relative Home 52.2% 77.8%
4E. Non-Relative Indian Family 11.2 0.0%
4E. Non-Relative Non-Indian Family 18.6% 11,1%
Q2 2004
State Contra Costa
4E. Relative Home 37.6% 27.3%
4E. Non-Relative Indian Family 5.9% 0.0%
4E. Non-Relative Non-Indian Family 44.0% 63.6%
Q3 2004
State Contra Costa
4E. Relative Home 33.7% 25.6%
4E. Non-Relative Indian Family 4.3% 0.0%
4E. Non-Relative Non-Indian Family 49.4%- 62.8%-.--
Q4
2004
State Contra Costa
4E. Relative Home 34.6% 27.9%
4E. Non-Relative Indian Family 4.4% 0.0%
4E. Non-Relative Non-Indian Family 50.0% 60.5%
Q 1 2005
State Contra Costa
4E. Relative Home 33.5% 29.7%
4E. Non-Relative Indian Family % 0.0%
4E. Non-Relative Non-Indian Famil51.4% 59.5%
**Measure 4E (2) was recently developed to reflect percent of ICWA eligible placement types.
22
For county information only.
Children Transitioning to Self-Sufficient Adulthood (8A)
These measures are designed to reflect the degree to which children and families receiving
child welfare services are receiving the services necessary to provide for their care and
developmental needs.
This measure reflects the percent of foster children eligible for Independent Living Services who
receive appropriate educational and training, and/or achieve employment or economic self-
sufficiency. The data was collected by CDSS. This measure includes data regarding youths,
ages 16 through 20, who receive services from the Independent Living Foster Care Program. It
identifies the number of youths receiving Independent Living Program services, the program
outcomes for those youths, and certain client characteristics. This report is limited to a subset
population obtained from State of California form 405A. It is a state outcome measure.
This data is based on hard copy reports submitted by counties to the CDSS for the time period
covered by the report. These numbers are updated once per year.
URL: htta://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/research/SOC405A-In 415.htm
Number of Children Transitioning to Self-Sufficient Adulthood with:
10/01/01-09/30/02
State Contra Costa
8A. High School Diploma 4,940 66
8A. Enrolled in College/Higher Education 3,291 53
8A. Received ILP Services 23,361 642
8A. Completed-Vocational Training 1,430 0
8A. Employed or other means of support 5,691 163
10/01/02-9/30/03
8A. High School Diploma State Contra Costa
61395
94
8A. Enrolled in College/Higher Education 3,450 52
8A. Received ILP Services 249988 723
8A. Completed Vocational Training 1,461 0
8A. Employed or other means of support 1 5,643 1 157
1 10/01/03-9/30/04
8A. High School D!ploma State Contra Costa4,807 120
8A. Enrolled in College/Higher Education 3,433 124
8A. Received ILP Services 289048- 919
8A. Completed-Vocational Training 1,313 0
8A. Employed or other means of support 6,182 102
23