Site Selection and Transition Issue Advisory Committee Report – December 2009

1. Site Selection and Transition IssueAdvisory Committee Report – December 2009 Jeanine Livingston, WA Federation of State Employees Nancy Sutton, CA Region 5 Administrator

2. Update • Completed Committee membership • Jeanine Livingston • Nancy Sutton • Mark Courtney, Partners for Our Children • Brenda Lopez, Birth Parent • Charlotte McCullough, Performance-based Contract Expert • Jerry Meninick, IPAC Representative • Joe Mienko, Social Worker • John Seals, Foster Youth • Mary-Jeanne Smith, Foster Parent • Tommy Williams, Social Worker

3. Update • Meeting Schedule • Five meetings to date • October 5, 14, 29 • November 12 • December 10 • Agenda Items • Types of evaluation • Geographic model - CA and supervising agencies compared in different part of the state • Random assignment – CA and supervising agencies assigned cases in the same site on a randomly selected basis • Historical – use data for analysis • Size of population needed • Location of sites

4. Type of Evaluation • Random Assignment • CA and supervising agencies would both be assigned cases in the same site on a randomly selected basis. • Advantages • Fewer variables to control • Same courts, demographics, services, etc. • Truer comparison • Maintains Children Administration case management infrastructure in demonstration sites • Disadvantages • Variables still need control • Automated system for random selection needs development

5. Size of Population • Still defining what meaningful statistical difference is acceptable • Need to define prioritization of outcomes to be measured • Will do jointly with Outcomes Advisory Committee • Implementation and evaluation timeline issues need more thought/discussion

6. Location of Sites • Look at number of children/youth per office, county, etc. • Continue to overlay demographics, tribal affiliation, etc.

7. Next Steps • Random assignment • Continue to define transition issues • What are “trumps” • Mechanisms for assigning cases • Timing • Etc. • Determine significance, size and location of sites • Identify and define other transition issues

8. Outcomes and Evaluation IssueAdvisory Committee Report – December 2009 Marian Harris, Racial Disproportionality Advisory Committee, Asst. Professor, UW Tacoma Ken Nichols, CA Region 2 Administrator

9. Update • Completed Committee Membership • Marian Harris, Racial Disproportionality Advisory Committee • Ken Nichols, CA Region 2 Administrator • Henry Cagey, IPAC Representative • Mark Courtney, Partners for Our Children • Deborah Ellsworth, Foster Parent • Darcey Hancock, CA Division of Licensed Resources • Steve Hassett, Attorney General • Roy Hogan, Social Worker • Jeanine Livingston, WA Federation of State Employees • Maureen McGrath, Private Provider • Mary Meining, Office of Family and Children Ombudsman • Sharon Osborne, Private Agency • Onalee Stewart, Foster Youth • Gwendolyn Lawson Townsend, Private Provider

10. Update • Meeting Schedule • Four meetings to date • October 6, 27 • November 17 • December 10 • Major Agenda Items • Membership • Prioritization of Tasks • Discussion of Outcomes • Domains and Indicators • Process of Care and Quality of Care Measures

11. Outcome Overview PRACTICE/QUALITY MEASURES Process of Care Quality of Care Intermediate Outcomes Measurable INDICATORS End Outcomes DOMAINS

12. Recommendation to Full Committee • Definitions of Outcome Domains • Safety • Children in Washington’s child welfare system will be protected from abuse and neglect. • Permanency and Stability • Children in Washington’s child welfare system will experience stability and permanency in their living situations. • Well-Being • Children in Washington’s child welfare system will receive care that meets their physical health, mental health, educational and social/emotional needs.

13. Recommendation to Full Committee • Safety Indicators • Of all children with a founded maltreatment report and who do not enter out-of-home care, what percentage is the subject of another substantiated report within a specified period of time (e.g., 3, 6, 12, 24 months)? • Of all children with an unfounded maltreatment report and who do not enter out-of-home care, what percentage is the subject of a founded report within a specified period of time (e.g., 3, 6, 12, 24 months)? • For all children in out-of-home care during the reporting period (e.g., calendar year), what is the number of founded child abuse reports, by type of perpetrator (out-of-home care provider; parent or other relative not providing care; other), per care year (i.e., total # of founded reports/total number of years in care experienced by all children in care during the reporting period)? • Of all children experiencing an exit from out-of-home care to permanency, what percentage is the subject of a later founded child maltreatment report within a specified period of time (e.g., 3, 6, 12, 24 months), by permanency type? Permanent exits include reunification with parent(s), discharge to a relative, legal guardianship, and adoption.

14. Recommendation to Full Committee • Permanency and Stability Indicators • Of all children entering out-of-home care, what percentage experiences an exit to permanency within a specified period of time (e.g., 3, 6, 12, 24 months), by permanency type? Exits to permanency include reunification with parent(s), discharge to a relative, legal guardianship, and adoption. • Of all children in out-of-home care for at least 15 months, what percentage experiences an exit to permanency within a specified period of time (e.g., 3, 6, 12, 24 months), by exit type ? • Of all children entering out-of-home care, what percentage experiences an exit that does not lead to permanency within a specified period of time (e.g., 3, 6, 12, 24 months), by non-permanent exit type? Exits not leading to permanency include running away from care and not returning, emancipation and aging out of care, incarceration leading to exit, hospitalization leading to exit, and death. • Of all children in out-of-home care for at least 15 months, what percentage experiences an exit that does not lead to permanency within a specified period of time (e.g., 3, 6, 12, 24 months), by exit type?

15. Recommendation to Full Committee • Permanency and Stability Indicators • Of all children experiencing an exit from out-of-home care to permanency, what percentage reenters out-of-home care within a specified period of time (e.g., 3, 6, 12, 24 months), by permanency type? • Of all children in out-of-home care for whom parental rights have been terminated, what percentage experience a finalized adoption within a specified period of time after termination of parental rights (e.g., 3, 6, 12, 24 months)? • What percentage of children entering out-of-home care experiences two or more placements within six months of entering care, by nature of the moves (e.g., moves from nonkin care to kinship care; from family-based care to group care)? • For children in out-of-home care over six months, what is the average number of placement moves per care year? • For what percentage of children in out-of-home care who are members of federally-recognized tribes are all the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act being met?

16. Next Steps • Finalize Outcomes definitions • Continue to refine Well-Being Indicators • Begin developing Process of Care and Quality of Care measures • Work with Site Selection Advisory Committee in developing evaluation criteria