Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10172006 - SD.2 s FHS #69 Contra TO: Board of Supervisors } oY,Idmw ffi:_ , Costa FROM: Family and Human Services Committee = N DATE: October 17, 2006 ®u-nty SUBJECT: CHILD WELFARE SERVICES REDESIGN SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION Recommendation: CONSIDER accepting report from the Employment and Human Services Director on Child Welfare Services Redesign, as recommended by the Family and Human Services Committee. Fiscal Impact: None Children's Impact Statement: This action impacts five of the community outcomes: 1) Children Ready for and Succeeding in School; 2) Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood; 3) Families are Economically Self-Sufficient; 4) Families are Safe, Stable and Nurturing; and 5) Communities are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life. Background: The Children and FaAly Services Bureau began a formal process in 2001 to "redesign" many child welfare practices with the goal of improving the outcomes for children. The federal government also passed the Adoptions and Safe Families Act, which requires all states to address specific federal child safety, permanency and well-being outcomes in order to receive federal child welfare funding. Most recently, California passed the Child Welfare Performance Outcomes and Accountability Act (AB 636) 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. This report outlines the Bureau's progress to date on various strategies being implemented to improve performance outcomes. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SNATURE: _s R COMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE PROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): C�Y .. MARKnDe)SAULNIER DERAL GLOVER // ACTION OF BOARD ON © /) APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED X- OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD AYES: NOES: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: yf ATTESTED OGL' - ' 7 slv+'i-6 JOHN CULLEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Contact Person: Dorothy Sansoe(5-1009) CC: CAO EHSD BY: OAu� DEPUTY S l i Addendum to SD.2 October 17, 2006 On this day the Board considered accepting report from the Employment and Human Services Director on Child Welfare Services Redesign, as recommended by the Family and Human Services. Employment and Human Services Director, Joe Valentine made the presentation on Child Welfare Redesign and Outcome Measures Report. He outlined the Bureau's progress to date on various strategies being implemented to improve performance outcomes. Supervisor DeSaulnier requested Employment and Human Services staff to track in the future the impact of the changes in the economy on child welfare caseloads and outcome measures. Supervisor Uilkema suggested a referral of the Emancipation Program be included to the Family and Human Services for their review and later be brought back to the Board. By an unanimous vote with none absent, the Board of Supervisors took the following action: ACCEPTED the report; and REQUESTED a referral be included to the Family and Human Services for their review of the Emancipation Program and return to the Board with a status. EMPLOYMENT AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TO Family and Human Services Committee FROM Joe Valentine, EHSD Director DATE October 2, 2006 RE Child Welfare Redesign and Outcome Measures Report Recommendation Accept this report from the Employment and Human Services Department; and Continue to support the Children and Family Services Bureau efforts in achieving the goals of Child Welfare Redesign and in implementing the System Improvement Plan required by the State's Child Welfare Performance Outcomes and Accountability Act. Background The Children & Family Services Bureau began a formal process in 2001 to "redesign" many child welfare practices with the goal of improving outcomes for children. The federal government also passed the Adoptions and Safe Families Act (ASFA), which requires all states to address specific federal child safety, permanency and well-being outcomes in order to receive federal child welfare funding. Most recently, California passed the Child Welfare Performance Outcomes and Accountability Act (AB 636), 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 November 2005, 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 Outcomes Data: Attachment 1 is the most recent report on outcomes- related data for all California counties released by the State CDSS report in July 2006. As the data show, the Bureau continues to improve its performance for most of the indicators over time. Please see the Overall Outcomes Analysis summary chart below. Overall Outcome Analysis Outcome Area Total Number Improvement Performing Total Number Meeting or Exceeding of Measures (Contra Costa Better Than Measures With Federal Standards Baseline Compared State Average National (Contra Costa Current to Current Quarter) Standard Quarter Compared to National Standard Participation Rates 3 3 (10 % 3 (100%) 0 Safety 8 7 (88%) 8 (100%) 2 1 50% Permanency 8 6 (75%) 6 (75%) 4 2 (50%) Weltbein 5 1 20% 3 (60%) 0 Contra Costa System Improvement Plan (SIP); Last year's Self-Assessment and SIP focused on four specific outcomes (a-d). Our updated SIP 2005-06 continues to focus on these outcomes and expands to include,three additional areas (e-g) from the Permanency and Wellbeing outcomes. Safety a) Maintain timely response compliance on 10-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 e) Increase the number of children with no more than two placements Wellbeing 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 We are very pleased to report that the Bureau continues to make significant progress in the safety areas and has implemented a number of strategies in the permanency and well being areas which are yielding overall positive results. The table below documents these outcome measures, our baseline data, our improvement goals, and our actual outcomes for the most recent reporting quarter as well as strategies that led to this result. We are also including a chart documenting the Bureau's progress in reducing racial disproportionality. As the data shows, our continued efforts in this area are yielding very positive results. Family and Human Services Committee Report 2 October 2, 2006 Incidence Rate of First Entries to Care by Ethnicity in Contra Costa County Child Welfare 10 9 i 8 - C 7 . 0 0 6 0 -�-Black 0 a c 5 w White c -----Hispanic m I 4 _ - _- Asian m p i c 3 2 - - - 0 _ 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 �-Black 8.69 7.72 7.3 7.55 7.94 7.61 6.59 5.95 ®-White 2.83 2.49 2.26 2.61 2.19 1.99 2.17 2.08 -----Hispanic 1.97 1.73 1.88 2.23 2.17 2.16 2.5 1.49 Asian 0.84 0.93 0.7 0.95 0.56 1.17 0.1 0.46 -- ----- Year -- ----- -- --- State Pilot Child Welfare Redesign In addition to our local efforts to meet/exceed Federal/State Safety, Permanency, and Wellbeing Outcomes, we are one of the 11 pilot counties designated as an early implementer of the State's Child Welfare System Improvement efforts. This responsibility involves the development and implementation of new service delivery strategies designed to improve our county's outcomes. Once implemented and evaluated in a pilot county, strategies that prove to be successful 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 attached chart (Attachment 2). Family and Human Services Committee Report 3 October 2, 2006 Comprehensive safety and risk assessment The Bureau developed and irmplemented, in conjunction with Stanislaus, San Mateo and Glenn counties, a standardized Comprehensive Assessment Tool (CAT) system to assess child safety, risk and family protective capacity in accordance with State guidelines. The CAT system has obtained State approval and the Bureau is currently working with the Sphere Institute and other participating counties to evaluate and refine the CAT tools. Early Intervention System (Differential Response) The Bureau implemented Differential Response (DR) in 2005. This program provides community-based case management services in the phase-in areas for families with children under five at-risk of entering the child welfare system. DR 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. . We continue to contract with 10 community agencies to provide case management and supportive services under DR with a capacity to serve approximately 210 families annually. 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 DR. 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: "Ms. Lopez"is a mother of four children ranging from age 4 to 16. She had one boy, aged 14, and three girls aged 4, 6, and 16. Mom was struggling with several issues, including depression, anxiety, bad knees and difficulty walking or standing for long periods. The children's father was not in the home due to drug use. The 16-year-old was in the care of CFS. Mom was very concerned about her daughter and fearful that she would run away, use drugs and drop out of school. Mom needed assistance with housekeeping and transportation. The two school-aged children in the home, who had each missed 66 days of school the prior Family and Human Services Committee Report 4 October 2, 2006 year, needed outside as well as social activities and tutoring. The family was referred to Path 2 services. The family was very motivated and made remarkable progress with the continued assistance and support provided by the program. Mom started attending therapy for her depression. Under a doctor's care, she was able to walk better and her anxiety attacks were under control. As her health improved, she was able to keep the house in better condition. The community case manager was able to provide food vouchers and bus tickets for the family as well as link mom with paratransit bus service to address the transportation issues. Mom enrolled in the LEAP program to complete her G.E.D and became self-employed. She also started building a relationship with her 16-year-old daughter through CFS. Although the father remained out of the home, he successfully completed his drug rehabilitation plan. The 14 year old was enrolled in a tutoring and after school program and doing well despite the challenges of being limited to a wheel chair. The two youngest daughters attended school on a regular basis. With the support of the community case manager, the family successfully utilized their strengths to achieve their goals and improve their lives. Address permanency and youth transition to self-sufficient adulthood As part of our overall System of Care and Redesign strategies, efforts have been developed to specifically address youth permanency and transition needs. A three- phase Young Adult Preparation process (YAPP) was developed. It encompasses: Early Transition Preparation of young teens ➢ Formal Transition planning called °e-conferences', and ➢ Enhanced Discharge planning or Exit Team Decision Making (TDM) meetings. The vision of the YAPP is to develop comprehensive permanency and transition plans for all foster youth in Contra Costa County. These plans will be youth driven and will aim to increase post-emancipation stability, create supportive networks of committed adults and address the youth's desired educational and career goals. Contra Costa County is also a California Permanency for Youth Project (CPYP) County and began implementing CPYP strategies in January 2006. This involves identifying and nurturing connections with caring adults that can potentially become lifelong supports for the foster youth. Family and Human Services Committee Report 5 October 2, 2006 California Child Welfare Services Outcome & Accountability Comparison Data Report (Welfare Supervised Caseload) Contra Costa County v. California July 2006 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 January 1, 2006. We have also included Updated (refreshed) most time periods, 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 improved data entry and cleanup efforts in some counties and Q3 05 and Q4 05 modifications in CWS/CMS to county of removal and placement counter variables. 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 July report 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 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 2004 9,575,520 262,706 2005 9,620,511 264,853 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: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/CWSCMSret)orts/Referrals/rates.aso#countyrates Year State Number State Rate County Number County Rate 2002 488,760 51.8 per 1,000 10,440 40.3 per 1,000 2003 492,304 51.6 per 1,000 9,845 37.7 per 1,000 2004 491,039 51.3 per 1,000 10,914 41.5 per 1,000 2005 482,462 50.1 per 1,000 10,350 39.1 per 1,000 Family and Human Services Committee Report 6 October 2, 2006 Attachment 1 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: ht�//cssr.berkelev.edu/CVVSCMSreports/Referralslrates_as #countyrates Year State Number State Rate County Number County Rate 2002 115,739 12.3 per 1,000 2,245 8.7 per 1,000 2003 111,478 11.7 per 1,000 1,997 7.7 per 1,000 2004 111,052 11.6 per 1,000 2,127 8.1 per 1,000 2005 108,582 11.3 per 1,000 2,018 7.6 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.berkgley.edu/CWSCMSregorts/Cohorts/firstentries/Rates.asp Year State Number State Rate County Number County Rate 2002 27,645 2.9 per 1,000 650 2.6 per 1,000 2003 27,067 2.8 per 1,000 640 2.5 per 1,000 2004 27,074 2.8 per 1,000 662 2.5 per 1,000 2005 28,999 3 per 1,000 534 2 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/cliiIdwel/prP.valence.a-�p Date State Number State Rate County Number County Rate July 1, 2003 86,036 8.6 per 1,000 2,019 7.6 per 1,000 July 1, 2004 81,451 8.1 per 1,000 1,886 6.9 per 1,000 July 1, 2005 79,378 7.8 per 1,000 1,835 6.7 per 1,000 SAFETY OUTCOMES Recurrence of Maltreatment (1A and 1B) 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: Of all children with a substantiated allegation within the first six months of the 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.berke)ey.edu/CWSCMSrepgrts/cfsrdata/standards/cfsr recurrence.asp Family and Human Services Committee Report 7 October 2, 2006 Attachment 1 1A. Percent recurrence of maltreatment Fed 12-month study period State Contra Costa 07/01/02-06/30/03 9.8% 6.8% 10/01102-09/30/03 9.7% 6.3% 01/01/03-12/31/03 9.5% 5.8% 04/1/03-03/31/04 8.9% 5.0% 07/l/03-06/30/04 8.8% 6.6% 10/01/03-09/30/04 9.1% 7.8% 01/01/04-12/31/04 8.5% 7.1% 04/01/04-03/31/05 8.3% 5% 07/01/04-06/30/05 8.7% 5.7% 10/01/04-09/30/05 8.7% 5.2% 01/01/05-12/31/05 8.4% 4.7% 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: htt�//cssr.berkelev.edu/CWSCMSreports/Referrals/recurrence.q�p 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% 11.3% 01/01/02-12/31/02 13.5% 10.2% 04/1/02-03/31/03 13.5% 9.5% 07/1/02-06/30/03 13.5% 9.2% 10/01/02-09/30/03 13.2% 9.0% 01/01/03-12/31/03 13.1% 9.8% 04/01/03-03/31/04 12.9% 9.9% 07/01/03-06/30/04 12.6% 9.8% 10/01/03-09/30/04 12.6% 9.2% 01/01/04-12/31/04 12.4% 8.8% 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? URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/CWSCMSreports/ReferraIs/recurre as 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% 01/01/02-12/31/02 11.7% 9% 04/01/02-03/31/03 11.7% 8.9% 07/01/02-06/30/03 11.7% 8.6% 10/01/02-09/30/03 11.4% 8.0% 01/01/03-12/31/03 11.4% 9.1% 04/01/03-03/31/04 11.1% 8.4% 07101/03-06/30/04 10.9% 8.5% 10/01/03-09/30/04 10.9% 8.1% 01/01/04-12/31/04 10.7% 7.5% Family and Human Services Committee Report 8 October 2, 2006 Attachment 1 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 12-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.berkeley.edu/CWSCMSreports/cfsrdata/standards/cfsr abuse.asp 1 C. Percent rate of child abuse and/or neglect in foster care (Fed) 12-month reviewperiod) State Contra Costa 07/01/02-06/30/03 0.01% 0.0% 10/01/02-09/30/03 0.01% 0.0% 01/01/03-12/31/03 0.02% 0.0% 04/01/03-03/31/04 0.03% 0.0% 07/01/03-06/30/04 0.04% 0.15% 10/01/03-09/30/04 0.06% 0.19% 01/01/04-12/31/04 0.08% 0.30% 04/01/04-03/31/05 0.10% 0.39% 07/01/04-06/30/05 0.13% 0.24% 10/01/04-09/30/05 0.15% 0.21% 01/01/05-12/31/05 0.19% 0.42% 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 CDSS. 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: http.//cssr.berkeley.edu/CWSCMSreports/Ccfsr.asp#2A 2A. Percent rate of recurrence of abuse/neglect in homes where children were not removed 12-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% 04/1/02-03/31/03 8.8% 8.5% 07/01/020-06/30/03 8.9% 8% 10/01/020-09/30/03 8.7% 8.3% Family and Human Services Committee Report 9 October 2, 2006 Attachment 1 01/01/03-12/31/03 8.8% 8.6% 04/01/03-03/31/04 8.7% 8.4% 07/01/03-06/30/04 8.6% 8.1% 10/01/03-09/30/04 8.4% 8.6% 01/01/04-12/31/04 8.4% 8.3% Child Abuse/Neglect Referrals with a Timely Response (213) 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 CDSS. It is a state process measure. Percent of child abuse and neglect referrals in the study quarter that have resulted in an in-person investigation stratified by immediate response and ten-day referrals, for both planned and actual visits. URL. http://cssr.berkeley,edu/CWSCMSreports/Ccfsr.asp#2B 2B. Percent of child abuse/neglect referrals with a timely response State Contra Costa Immediate 10-day Immediate 10-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% Q12004 95.6% 89.5% 93.7% 76.2% Q2 2004 95.0% 89.9% 92.4% 81.5% Q3 2004 95% 91.5% 96% 96% Q4 2004 95.3% 92.0% 94.7% 93.5% Q1 2005 96.2% 92.8% 97.3% 95.1% Q2 2005 96.3% 92.4% 97.2% 94.8% Q3 2005 96.1% 93.6% 96% 94.4% Q4 2005 96% 92.6% 96.8% 94.6% 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: http:/icssr,berkeley.edu/CWSCMSreports/Ccfsr.asp#2C Family and Human Services Committee Report 10 October 2, 2006 Attachment 1 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% Q1 2004 Jan 2004 Feb 2004 March 2004 State 87.4% 87.9% 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% Q2 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 State 91.3% 91.6% 92% Contra Costa 91.3% 91.7% 92.7% Q3 2005 July 2005 Aug 2005 Sept 2005 State 91.3% 91.8% 92.1% Contra Costa 91.1% 91.3% 91.2% Q4 2005 Oct 2005 Nov 2005 Dec 2005 State 90.1% 90.5% 90.9% Contra Costa 90.7% 91.1% 91.6% 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. Family and Human Services Committee Report 11 October 2, 2006 Attachment 1 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: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/CWSCMSreports/cfsrdata/standards/cfsr standardsForm.asp 3E. Percent reunified within-.1 2months Fed 12-month study eriod State Contra Costa 07/01/02-06/30/03 65.4% 62.8% 10101/02-09130/03 65.1% 62.4% 01/01/03-12/31/03 64.9% 63.8% 04/01/03-3/31/04 64.5% 68.9% 07/01/03-6/30/04 65.4% 74.5% 10/01/03-9/30/04 66.1% 76.1% 01/01/04-12/31/04 66.8% 75.5% 04/01/04-3/31/05 67.4% 75.6% 07101/04-06/30/05 67.7% 71.3% 10/01/04-09/30/05 67.8% 69.9% 01/01/05-12/31/05 68.1% 66.1% 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: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/CWSCMSreports/Cohorts/exits/ 3A. Percent reunified within 12 months (entry cohort12-month study period) State Contra Costa 07/01/01-06/30/02 36.1% 38.6% 10/01/01-09/30/02 36.4% 38.3% 01/01/02-12/31/02 36.5% 41.6% 04101102-3131/03 37% 43.2% 07/01/02-6/30/03 37% 42.5% 10/01/02-9/30103 37.1% 46.8% 01/01/03-12/31/03 37.4% 46.9% 04/01/03-03/31/04 37.2% 50.2% 07/01/03-06/30/04 37.3% 48.1% 10101/03-09/30/04 37.4% 47.8% 01/01/04-12/31/04 37.8% 46.5% Length of Time to Exit Foster Care to Adoption (3D 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.berkeley.edu/CWSCMSreports/cfsrdsta/standards/cfsr standardsForm.asp Family and Human Services Committee Report 12 October 2, 2006 Attachment 1 3D. Percent adopted within 24 months Fed 12-month study eriod State Contra Costa 07/01/02-06/30/03 24.2% 37.4% 10/01/02-09/30/03 25.2% 38% 01/01/03-12/31/03 26% 38.9% 04/01/03-3/31/04 26.9% 40.3% 07/01/03-6/30/04 27.5% 42.7% 10/01/03-9/30/04 27.8% 44.6% 01/01/04-12/31/04 28.3% 39.5% 04/01/04-03/31/05 28.5% 40.9% 07/01/04-06/30/05 29% 39.7% 10/01/04-09/30/05 29% 37% 01/01/05-12/31/05 29% 41.2% 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: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/CWSCMSreports/Cohorts/exits/ 3A. Percent adopted within 24 months (entry cohort 12-month study period) State Contra Costa 07/01/00-06/30/01 5.1% 6% 10/01/00-09/30/01 5.3% 7% 01/01/01-12/31/01 5.5% 7.6% 04/01/01-3/31/02 5.6% 7.6% 07/01/01-6/30/02 6% 9.6% 10/01/01-9/30/02 6.1% 11.1% 01/01/02-12/31/02 6.3% 11% 04/01/02-03/31/03 6.6% 11.1% 07/01/02-06/30/03 6.6% 11.3% 10/01/02-09/30/03 6.7% 9% 01/01/03-12/31/03 6.9% 9.5% Multiple Foster Care Placements (31B 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: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/CWSCMSreports/cfsrdata/standards/cfsr standardsForm.asp 3B. Percent with 1-2 placements within 12 months Fed 12-month s udy period) State Contra Costa 07/01/02-06/30/03 83.4% 85.9% 10/01/02-09/30/03 83.3% 88% 01/01/03-12/31/03 83.9% 87.9% 04/01/03-3/31/04 84.1% 87.5% 07/01/03-6/30/04 84.1% 87.4% Family and Human Services Committee Report 13 October 2, 2006 Attachment 1 10/01/03-9/30/04 84.1% 86.4% 01/01/04-12/31/04 84.3% 85.6% 04/01/04-03/31/05 85.1% 85.6% 07/01/04-06/30/05 85.3% 87.9% 10/01/04-09/30/05 85.1% 83.3% 01/01/05-12/31/05 84.8% 88.6% 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: http://cssr,berkeley.edu/CWSCMsreports/cohorts/stability/ 3C. Percent with 1-2 placements - if still in care at 12 months (entry cohort) 12-month study period State Contra Costa 07/01/01-06/30/02 64.2% 68.3% 10/01/01-09/30/02 64.4% 68.2% 01/01/02-12/31/02 64% 69.4% 04/01/02-3/31/03 64.2% 68.6% 07/01/02-6/30/03 64.2% 67.4% 10/01/03-9/30/04 64.7% 71.8% 01/01/03-12/31/03 65.1% 72.4% 04/01/03-03/31/04 65.6% 67.9% 07/01/03-06/30/04 66.2% 67.5% 10/01/03-09/30/04 66.4% 66.8% 01/01/04-12/31/04 67.1% 67.7% 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: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/CWSCMSret)orts/cfsrdataistandards/cfsr standardsForm.asn 3F. Percent of admissions who are re-entries Fed (12-month study period State Contra Costa 07/01/02-06/30/03 11.3% 13.4% 10/01/02-09/30/03 11.4% 11.4% 01/01/03-12/31/03 11.2% 11.3% 04/01/03-3/31/04 10.8% 10.8% 07/01/03-6/30/04 10.9°!0 10.4% 10/01/03-9/30/04 L 10.6% 11.5% 01/01/04-12/31/04 10.7°!0 12.3% Family and Human Services Committee Report 14 October 2, 2006 Attachment 1 04/01/04-03/31/05 10.7% 12.8% 07/01/04-06/30/05 10.4% 13.1% 10/01/04-09/30/05 10.2% 13.9% 01/01/05-/12/31/05 9.9% 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 and were reunified within 12 months of entry, what percent re-entered foster care within 12 months of reunification? URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/CWSCMSreports/Cohorts/reentries/ 3G. Percent who re-entered within 12 months of reunification (entry cohort reunified within 12 months 12-month study period) State Count 07/01/00-06/30/01 13.4% 12.5% 10/01/00-09/30/01 13% 13.7% 01/01/01-12/31/01 13.2% 14% 04/01/01-3/31102 13.1% 15.5% 07/01/01-6/30/02 13% 12.7% 10/01/01-9/30/02 13.4% 14.9% 01/01/02-12/31/02 13% 14.8% 04/01/02-03/31/03 12.7% 13.8% 07/01/02-06/30/03 12.5% 14.2% 10/01/02-09/30103 11.9% 12% 01/01/03-12/31/03 11.8% 9.2% 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.berkeley.edu/CWSCMSreports/pointintime/fostercare/childwel/siblings.asp 4A. Percent of children in foster care that are placed with ALL siblings (point in time State Count Jul 1, 2003 41.5% 38.0% Oct 1, 2003 42.2% 35.4% Jan 1, 2004 42.6% 37.7% A r 1, 2004 42.3% 37.0% Jul 1, 2004 42.8% 40.2% Family and Human Services Committee Report 15 October 2, 2006 Attachment 1 Oct 1, 2004 42.9% 37.9% Jan 1, 2005 43.9% 39.4% Apr 1, 2005 44.0% 37.8% Jul 1, 2005 44.7% 36.3% Oct 1, 2005 45.0% 38.5% Jan 1, 2006 45.4% 38.7% 4A. Percent of children in foster care that are placed with SOME or ALL siblings point in time State Count Jul 1, 2003 65.7% 59.6% Oct 1, 2003 66% 59.6% Jan 1, 2004 66.1% A r 1, 2004 65.8% 58.1% Jul 1, 2004 65.8% 60.1% Oct 1, 2004 66.2% 58.9% Jan 1, 2005 66.6% 59.2% A r 1, 2005 66.9% 57.4% Jul 1, 2005 67.2% 55.9% Oct 1, 2005 67.7% 58.5% Jan 1, 2006 67.7% 56.7% Foster Care Placement in Least Restrictive Settings (413) 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) htto://cssr.berkeley.edu/CWSCMSreoorts/cohorts/fiirstentries/ URL: (point in time)htto://cssr.berkeley.edu/CWSCMSreports/oointintime/fostercere/childwel/ageandethnic.aso Relative Initial Placement Primary Point in Time Placement State County State County State County 07/01/02-06/30/03 16.5% 15.2% 38.30/. 42.8% 34.2% 36.2% 07/01/03 10/01/02-09/30/03 16.6% 16.2% 39.0% 43.1% 34.1% 35.7% 10/01/03 01101103-12/31/03 17.3% 17.2% 39.3% 42.3% 34.6% 36.0% 01/01/04 04/01/03-03/31/04 17.8% 15.3% 39.4% 38.3% 34.0% 36.2% 04/01/04 07/01/03-06/30/04 17.7% 18.0% 39.4% 38.9% 34.2% 36.6% 07/01/04 10101/03-09/30/04 17.6% 15.9% 39.4% 37.9% 34.1% 35.4% 10/01/04 01/01/04-12/31/04 17.6% 16.9% 39.6% 40.5% 35.0% 35.5% 01/01/05 04/01/04-03/31/05 17.8% 18.6% 39.7% 43.5% 34.7% 35.8% 04/01/05 07/01/04-06/30/05 18.6% 14.4% 40.0% 41.9% 35.2% 35.1% 07/01/05 10/01/04-09/30/05 19.5% 15.4% 39.9% 40.0% 35.6% 35.0% 10/01/05 01/01/05-12/31/05 20.1% 14.8% 38.5% 37.1% 36.5% 35.6% 01/01/06 Family and Human Services Committee Report 16 October 2, 2006 Attachment 1 Foster Home Initial Placement Primary Point in Time Placement State County State Count State County 07/01/02-06/30/03 32.6% 64.1% 19.3% 34.7% 13.0% 18.1% 07/01/03 10/01/02-09130103 32.4% 64.7% 19.3% 35.6% 13.1% 20.2% 10101/03 01/01/03-12/31/03 31.8% 63.8% 19.0% 36.5% 12.8% 19.1% 01/01/04 04/01/03-03/31/04 30.9% 64.3% 18.5% 37.8% 12.7% 19.1% 04/01/04 07/01/03-06/30/04 30.3% 62.9% 18.3% 39.2% 12.5% 18.5% 07/01/04 10/01/03-09/30/04 29.3% 64.3% 17.8% 40.3% 12.1% 18.9% 10/01/04 01/01/04-12/31/04 28.59/o 65.3% 17.4% 41.5% 11.7% 18.8% 01/01/05 04/01/04-03/31105 27.5% 65.3% 17.0% 40.4% 11.6% 18.5% 04/01/05 07/01/04-06/30/05 25.9% 65.4% 16.6% 39.4% 11.3% 19.1% 07/01/05 10/01/04-09/30/05 24.9% 64.4% 16.5% 40.8% 11.1% 19.3% 10/01/05 01/01/05-12/31/05 23.7% 63.6% 16.7% 41.5% 10.7% 19.2% 01/01/06 FFA Initial Placement Primary Point in Time Placement State County State Count v State Count 07/01/02-06/30/03 27.8% 8.7% 27.7% 9.5% 22.5% 17.1% 07/01/03 10/01/02-09/30/03 28.2% 6.4% 27.7% 8.6% 22.5% 16.5% 10/01/03 01/01/03-12/31/03 28.7% 6.9% 28.3% 8.5% 22.6% 16.7% 01/01/04 04/01/03-03/31/04 30.4% 7.5% 29.1% 10.1% 23.2% 16.4% 04/01/04 07/01/03-06/30/04 31.6% 7.7% 29.7% 8.5% 23.1% 15.8% 07/01/04 10/01/03-09/30/04 33.2% 8.2% 30.6% 7.7% 23.5% 14.8% 10/01/04 01/01/04-12/31/04 34.7% 6.5% 31.2% 5.6% 23.2% 13.7% 01/01/05 04/01/04-03/31/05 35.8% 6.8% 32.2% 5.0% 23.7% 13.2% 04/01/05 07/01/04-06/30/05 37.0% 10.2% 32.8% 7.2% 23.8% 14.1% 07/01/05 10/01/04-09/30/05 37.3% 1.1.0% 33.0% 8.2% 23.9% 13.9% 10/01/05 01/01/05-12/31/05 37.7% 12.0% 34.2% 9.9% 23.9% 13.4% 01/01/06 Group/Shelter Initial Placement Primary Point in Time Placement State County State County State Count 07/01/02-06/30/03 20.3% 9.9% 9.3% 8.5% 8.9% 11.8% 07/01/03 10/01/02-09/30/03 20.1% 10.7% 8.9% 9.5% 9.1% 11.9% 10/01/03 01/01/03-12/31/03 19.7% 9.5% 8.7% 8.8% 9.2% 12.5% 01/01/04 04/01/03-03/31/04 18.7% 10.4% 8.4% 10.1% 9.3% 12.5% 04/01/04 07/01/03-06/30/04 18.0% 9.1% 8.2% 9.9% 9.2% 13.8% 07/01/04 10/01/03-09/30/04 17.5% 8.2% 8.0% 9.1% 9.2% 14.3% 10/01/04 01/01/04-12/31/04 17.0% 8.5% 7.9% 8.5% 9.2% 13.8% 01/01/05 04/01/04-03/31/05 16.7% 6.8% 7.6% 7.6% 9.2% 13.9% 04/01/05 07/01/04-06/30/05 16.6% 6.7% 7.6% 7.1% 9.1% 14.5% 07/01/05 10/01/04-09/30/05 16.4% 6.4% 7.6% 7.1% 8.9% 13.1% 10/01/05 01/01/05-12/31/05 16.7% 6.8% 7.9% 7.9% 8.9% 14.2% 01/01/06 Family and Human Services Committee Report 17 October 2, 2006 Attachment 1 Other Initial Placement Primary Point in Time Placement State County State County State County 07/01/02-06/30/03 2.9% 2.2% 5.3% 4.2% 21.3% 16.8% 07/01/03 10/01/02-09/30/03 2.6% 2.0% 5.1% 3.2% 21.2% 15.6% 10/01/03 01/01/03-12/31/03 2.5% 2.7% 4.8% 4.1% 20.9% 15.8% 01/01/04 04/01/03-03/31/04 2.3% 2.5% 4.6% 3.7% 20.8% 15.8% 04/01/04 07/01/03-06/30/04 2.4% 2.3% 4.4% 3.5% 21.0% 15.2% 07/01/04 10/01/03-09/30/04 2.4% 3.4% 4.2% 4.6% 21.2% 16.5% 10/01/04 01/01/04-12/31/04 2.2% 2.9% 3.8% 3.9% 20.9% 18.1% 01/01/05 04/01/04-03/31/05 2.1% 2.6% 3.5% 3.6% 20,8% 18.5% 04/01/05 07/01/04-06/30/05 1.9% 3.2% 3.2% 4.2% 20.7% 17.2% 07/01/05 10/01/04-09/30/05 1.9% 2.8% 3.0% 3.7% 20.6% 18.8% 10/01/05 01101/05-12131/05 1.8% 2.8% 2.7% 3.6% 20.0% 17.6% 01/01/06 **Rate of ICWA 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 CDSS. 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.berkeley.edu/CWSCMSreports/Ccfsr.asp#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 Family 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 52.2% 77.8% 4E. Non-Relative Indian Family 11.2% 0.0% 4E. Non-Relative Non-Indian Family 18.611/ 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% 63.6% Family and Human Services Committee Report 18 October 2, 2006 Attachment 1 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% 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% Q1 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% Q2 2005 State Contra Costa 4E. Relative Home 28.4% 36% 4E. Non-Relative Indian Family 7.2% 0.0% 4E. Non-Relative Non-Indian Family 51.9% 56% Q3 2005 State Contra Costa 4E. Relative Home 27.9% 23.8% 4E. Non-Relative Indian Family 7.7% 0.0% 4E. Non-Relative Non-Indian Family 52.2% 71.4% Q4 2005 4E. Relative Home 28.2% 21.1% 4E. Non-Relative Indian Family 6.7% 0.0% 4E. Non-Relative Non-Indian Family 52.7% 73.7% 4E (2) 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. URL: htto://cssr.berkeley.edu/CWSCMSrel)orts/Ccfsr.aso#4E Q1 2004 State Contra Costa 4E. Relative Home 42% 60% 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 Family 4.3% 0.0% 4E. Non-Relative Non-Indian Family 48.9% 60.9% 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% Family and Human Services Committee Report 19 October 2, 2006 Attachment 1 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% Q1 2005 State Contra Costa 4E. Relative Home 33.5% 29.7% 4E. Non-Relative Indian Family 4% 0.0% 4E. Non-Relative Non-Indian Family 51.4% 59.5% Q2 2005 State Contra Costa 4E. Relative Home 23.6% 18.4% 4E. Non-Relative Indian Family 5.8% 2.6% 4E. Non-Relative Non-Indian Family 58.4% 68.4% Q3 2005 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 2005 State Contra Costa 4E. Relative Home 24% 21.1% 4E. Non-Relative Indian Family 4.9% 0.0% 4E. Non-Relative Non-Indian Family 59.8% 71.1% "Measure 4E(2) was recently developed to reflect percent of ICWA eligible placement types. For county information only. CDSS does not update these measures due to recent methodology changes, which render comparisons between current and previous data meaningless. NOTE: For measures 4E (1) and 4E (2), values for Q1 2004 and Q2 2004 were corrected in April 2006 reports and therefore may not correspond to previously published values. 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: http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/research/SOC405A-In 415.htm Family and Human Services Committee Report 20 October 2, 2006 Attachment 1 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 10/01102-9/30103 State Contra Costa 8A. High School Diploma 5,315 94 8A. Enrolled in College/Higher Education 3,450 52 8A. Received ILP Services 24,988 723 8A. Completed Vocational Training 1,461 0 8A. Employed or other means of support 5,643 157 State Contra Costa 8A. High School Diploma 4,807 120 8A. Enrolled in College/Higher Education 3,433 124 8A. Received ILP Services 28,048 919 8A. Completed Vocational Training 1,313 0 8A. Employed or other means of support 6,182 102 10/01/04-9/30/05 State Contra Costa 8A. High School Diploma 5,364 98 8A. Enrolled in College/Higher Education 3,893 188 8A. Received ILP Services 29,173 757 8A. Completed Vocational Training 1,243 40 8A. Employed or other means of support 6,868 226 Family and Human Services Committee Report 21 October 2, 2006 Attachment 1 Outcome County's Past Performance Improvement Goal County's Current Performance Child For the quarter ending June A1.0: Maintain compliance Update: We are on track to meet goal. 2" Abuse/ 30, 2003, Contra Costa County at 90% or above. Qtr 05 data (latest available at this time) Neglect had a 52% compliance rate for from UC Berkeley shows compliance at Referrals timely completion of 10-day 94.8%. In addition, the latest SafeMeasures with a investigations. data (1"Quarter 2006) shows compliance Timely for 10 day referrals at 93.5%. Response For the quarter ending March (10-Day 2005, we improved compliance Strategies: Responses) on 10-day responses to 95.1%. 1. Use of Safe Measures by management to track worker compliance 2. Expand pilot project of assigning workers to geographical areas and assign 10-day referrals accordingly Timely For the quarter ending June B1.0: Maintain compliance Update: We appear to be on track to meet Social 30, 2003 compliance with of social worker visits at goal. 2 n Qtr 05 data from UC Berkeley Worker Visits social worker visits ranged 90%or above. (latest available at this time) shows with Child from 77.9% to 79.4%. compliance at 91.9°/x. SafeMeasures data, however, shows a slight decrease in timely For the quarter ending March face-to-face contacts for the first quarter of 2005, we improved compliance 2006, although there appear to be some for timely social worker visits slight methodological differences in ranging from 90.7% to 91.5%. measurement. Strategies: 1. Use of Safe Measures by management to track worker compliance 2. Identify system issues re Probate Guardianships, PP cases and Adoption cases and implement a plan to resolve them Number and In 1998, the incidence rate for C1.0: Reduce the Update: On track to meet goal. Calendar Rate of First first entries to Foster Care for overrepresentation of year 2005 first entries of African-American Entries to African-American children in African-American children children into Foster Care shows a 9.2% Foster Care Contra Costa County was who are placed in out of decrease—to 5.95/1000. 8.69/1000 (2.83/1000 for White home care by 5%. Strategies: children). 1. Utilize Differential Response For calendar year 2004 there 2. Improve family engagement and good was a decrease of first entries case planning by expanding use of of African-American children to TDMs 6.59/1000 3. Enter positive tox referrals in CWS/CMS and complete policy regarding drug- exposed infants Length of For the entry cohort period D1.0: Increase the percent Update:We are above baseline, but below Time to Exit 7/1/01 through 6/30/02, 38.3% of children who are the last two previous reporting periods and Foster Care of all children who entered reunified within 12 months need to continue work towards meeting this to foster care for the first time to 50%. goal. The latest figure reported by UC Reunificatio (and stayed at least five days) Berkeley for% of children reunified within 12 n during the entry cohort period months is 46.5 (for the 1/1/04 through were reunified within 12 12/31/04 entry cohort). months. Family and Human Services Committee Report 22 October 2, 2006 Attachment 2 Outcome County's Past Performance Improvement Goal County's Current Performance For the entry cohort period Strategies:1. Analyze problems and difficulties 4/1/03 through 4, we attaining 12 month reunification goal children who are reunified increased the percent 2. Utilize culturally competent family within 12 months tor 4eriod engagement techniques 3. Implement a standardized safety and For the entry cohort period risk assessment tool for the seven 7/1/03 through 6/30/04, 47.4 decision making points in child welfare percent of children were 4. Continue collaborating with the judicial reunified within 12 months. system to explore ways of improving family engagement 5. Implement"Icebreaker Meetings" and "Enhanced Visitation" strategies 6. Provide parents entering the system with assistance from a Parent Partner 7. Provide integrated case plans by improving communication between WFS and CFS workers Multiple During the period 7/1/01 E.1.0: Increase the Update: On track to meet goal. For the Foster Care through 6130/02, 84.8% had 1 percentage of children with latest reporting period (1/1/05 through Placements or 2 placements. This is below no more than two 12/31/05), 88.6% of children had two or the national standard of 86.7% placements to the National fewer placements. Standard of 86.7% or For the period 7/1/04 through greater Strategies: 6/30/05, 88% of children had 1 1. Develop an assessment tool for or 2 placement determining risk factors for children at risk of multiple placements 2. Provide TDMs for children and youth who have had multiple placements Family and Human Services Committee Report 23 October 2, 2006 Attachment 2 Action Step 1 Deliverables Main Activities Completed Develop a Standardized Safety In collaboration with 3 other counties, comprehensive process Assessment System. and tools to assess developed Comprehensive safety, risk and family (Comprehensive Assessment Tools (CAT) incorporating protective capacity Assessment Tools) uniform Standard Areas for Review throughout the life of a adopted by the State. child welfare services Created policy and provided staff case. training on the CAT system. ■ Implemented CAT at the front end as of July 2005. Implemented CAT throughout the life of a case as of Sep. 2005. Over 11,700 tools have been completed since implementation. • Working with the SPHERE Institute to evaluate and refine the tools. Action Step 2 Deliverables Main Activities Completed Develop and test an ER Differential response Developed protocols and Implemented process that includes protocol for three paths Differential Response in the early of service delivery (CWS geographic phase-in areas, for families intervention/differential High Risk, CWS with with children under five in 2005. response. Community, and Community). ■ Developed community capacity to respond to referrals of Path I and Path II families by utilizing State Redesign funds and redirecting PSSF funds to create 14 community case management positions. • Provided ongoing training and support. Provided contract monitoring. ■ Developed a database to track outcomes for Path 1 and Path 2. Collaborating with other home visiting programs to avoid duplication and improve coordination of services. ■ Providing Peer TA and/or presentations to other counties on DR and Redesign. • Conducted new community needs survey in each district in Dec 2005 ■ Finalized community contracts for minigrants to support redesign efforts and fund identified service gaps in each district Family and Human Services Committee Report 24 October 2, 2006 Attachment 3 Action Step 3 Deliverables Main Activities Completed Develop a team-based Team Decision-making Implementation of front-end Team case planning process protocol. Decision Making (TDM) in target areas for supporting family started January 2003. Expanded restoration and TDM's for children with multiple transition planning placements as of July 2005 (target throughout the life of a population is youth with 3 or more Child Welfare Services placements who are placed in group case. homes and residential treatment programs). • Started implementation phase of Exit TDMs for hard to serve youth in February 06. ■ Expanded the Parent Partner Program to 2 full time and 12 part time parent partners. Incorporated Parent Leaders into key policy and System Improvement workgroups. ■ Permanency and Youth Transition (PYT) Workgroup convened and is comprised of youth, staff, and foster parents. • Implement pilot of the California Permanency for Youth Project (CPYP) strategy in West County. Family and Human Services Committee Report 25 October 2, 2006 Attachment 3