preliminary report, quantitative component of the ...preliminary report quantitative component of...

Preliminary ReportQuantitative Component of the Evaluation

of theYMCA Children, Youth & Family Services, Inc.

(Sarasota County Coalition of Families and Children andManatee County Partnership for Safe Families)

Prepared by theInstitute for Health and Human Services

Researchin the School of Social Work

Florida State UniversityTallahassee, Florida

March 13, 2001

Because this report is preliminary and research willcontinue until late May 2001, we invite your comments

and input.

This report includes information collected and prepared by the School ofSocial Work at Florida State University and a research team assembled at theDepartment of Children and Families. A list of the individual researchers and

department staff who participated in this effort is in Appendix G.

Please contact the Institute for Health and Human Services Research using thefollowing email address:

[email protected]

Orthe Department of Children and Families using the following email address:

[email protected]

Written comments may also be sent to:IHHSR

2035 E. Paul Dirac DriveSuite 236 HMB Innovation ParkTallahassee, Florida 32306-2810

IHHSR Telephone: (850) 644-2710

Quantitative Component, Community-Based Care Evaluation, 3/13/01 A

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... i

Introduction .......................................................................................................................1Relevant Federal and State Law ..............................................................................2The Vision of the Florida Department of Children and Families ............................3Research Project to Evaluate Community-Based Care Programs ...........................4

Descriptions of the YMCA Children, Youth, and Family Services, Inc. Programs inthe Sarasota and Manatee Locations ...............................................................................5

Sarasota County Program Location .........................................................................5Manatee County Program Location .........................................................................7Comparison of the Sarasota and Manatee Program Locations ................................8

Research Design and Methodology ................................................................................10Research Questions................................................................................................10Sources of Information ..........................................................................................11

Program Performance Measures Provided by Program Staff ....................11Electronic Databases/Files .........................................................................12Case Files ...................................................................................................12

Summary of Electronic Data Bases and Case Files ..........................................................13Financial Reports .......................................................................................14

Program Performance Methods and Analysis........................................................16Florida Abuse Hotline Information System...............................................16Client Information System.........................................................................16Department Management Reports .............................................................16YMCA Program Database .........................................................................17

Cost Data Methods and Analysis...........................................................................18Research Challenges and Caveats..........................................................................18

Research Findings and Observations.............................................................................19Program Performance Measures Provided by the YMCA Program......................19Case File Review Findings ....................................................................................20Findings based on Available Data Files.................................................................23Financial Analysis Findings...................................................................................30

Summary...........................................................................................................................35Key Observations and Findings .............................................................................36Subsequent Review of Case Files ..........................................................................37Subsequent Analysis of Program and Department Data Files ...............................38Subsequent Cost Analysis......................................................................................38

References.........................................................................................................................40

Quantitative Component, Community-Based Care Evaluation, 3/13/01 B

AppendicesAppendix A (Program Principles) .........................................................................41Appendix B (Ratio of Liabilities to Assets)...........................................................43Appendix C (Ratio of Current Assets to Current Liabilities) ................................44Appendix D (Contribution Ratio 1998) .................................................................45Appendix E (Contribution Ratio 1999) .................................................................46Appendix F (Contribution Ratio 2000)..................................................................47Appendix G (Research Team Members) ...............................................................48

Quantitative Component, Community-Based Care Evaluation, 3/13/01 i

Executive Summary

Children deserve to live in a safe and permanent environment in which they arefree from abuse, neglect, and other forms of maltreatment. Social programs must respondto the priority of child welfare in a way that will ensure the safety and welfare of childrenwhile providing services that will attempt to strengthen the family. Community-basedcare in efforts to privatize and manage foster care and related services has emerged asone viable model. Community-based care introduces greater flexibility and opportunitiesfor efficiency in the provision of protective services for children.

Evaluation of Community-Based Care Programs

The Institute for Health and Human Services in the School of Social Work atFlorida State University was selected to conduct the evaluation of community-based careimplementation during FY 2000/01 required in Section 409.1671(4)(a), F.S. This reportrepresents the first major document in a series of related products through the remainingmonths in FY 2000/01. This project will also assist the Department in preparing for thefuture evaluation of community-based care programs providing foster care and relatedservices throughout the state. The program evaluated in the first component of theevaluation is the YMCA Children, Youth, and Family Services, Inc., in Manatee andSarasota counties. The first component of the evaluation has focused on the collectionand review of quantitative data.

This Executive Summary provides a brief explanation of the relevant federal andstate law, the theoretical framework, the research methodology, the sources ofinformation, and the analysis that was appropriate at this stage in the evaluation research.Several key findings are highlighted. Insights regarding subsequent research are alsopresented. This report also appears at the web site for the Institute for Health and HumanServices Research, www.ihhsr.fsu.edu.

Relevant Federal and State Law

The existing and newly created community-based care models for deliveringfoster care and related services must respond to and meet requirements in federal andstate law. At the federal level, foster care and related services received attention mostrecently in the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-89), known as ASFA.Florida statutory law addressing foster care and related services is extensive. Servicegoals for the care of children in statutory law include:

• prevention of separation of children from their families,• reunification of families,• permanent placement of children who cannot be reunited with their families or

when reunification would not be in the best interest of the child,

Quantitative Component, Community-Based Care Evaluation, 3/13/01 ii

• protection of dependent children or children alleged to be dependent, includingprovision of emergency and long-term alternate living arrangements.(Section409.145, F.S.)

Key provisions guiding community-based care for foster care and related servicescorrespond with the goal of privatizing foster care and related services statewide. Section409.1671, F.S. states that the definition of “privatize” is “to contract with competent,community-based agencies.” Related services are specified as “family preservation,independent living, emergency shelter, residential group care, foster care, therapeuticfoster care, intensive residential treatment, foster care supervision, case management,post-placement supervision, permanent foster care, and family reunification.”

The Vision of the Florida Department of Children and Families

The Department’s vision for implementation of the relevant federal and Florida lawwithin a community-based care model includes the following:

• The safety of children at all times will be a foremost concern, and rapidpermanency resolution will be the system’s standard.

• Services will be provided by comprehensive, community-based networks ofproviders who are equipped to manage and deliver all needed services.

• Resources will be efficiently and effectively managed to achieve better outcomesfor children.

• Services will be coordinated across systems to maximize limited resources andensure a single, unified case plan, managed by a primary case manager.

• Financial support will be available from diverse federal, state, and local sources.• There will be a coherent allocation model that equitably distributes resources

based on actual needs, costs, and performance expectations.• The system will be able to collect and use data to forecast what services and

supports are needed, gauge intensity and duration and at what cost, to achievedesired outcomes.

The community-based care model relies on a partnership between the dependencycourt judges, an effective lead agency, the Department, a community alliance, as well ascollaboration and communication between service agencies providing traditional andnon-traditional services. Consistent with the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act andFlorida law, Florida’s community-based care for foster care and related services will:

1. promote the safety of children first and foremost;2. decrease the time it takes to achieve permanency for all children;3. promote adoption for children when that is the best permanency

option; and4. enhance the state’s capacity and accountability for both safety and

permanency.

Quantitative Component, Community-Based Care Evaluation, 3/13/01 iii

Evaluation Methodology and Sources of Information

The logic model was used as the theoretical framework for conducting theevaluation. The logic model proposes that there is alignment between the needs of theclient, the processes of a program or service and the outcomes. The model includes thefollowing components:

Problems/Needs (The current situation and what needs to be changed.)Goal (The desired state to be achieved.)Objectives (Milestones or minigoals that lead to goal achievement.)Inputs (Concrete and intangible resources needed to achieve theobjectives.)Methods (Services and activities that put resources into operation.)Results (Short-term impacts of applying inputs and methods.)Outcomes (Long-term impacts of applying inputs and methods.)

Data collection techniques used in this component of the evaluation included casefile reviews, secondary sources of information in electronic data files and reports, andfiscal documentation. Case files maintained at the Sarasota and Manatee programlocations were included in the review. The electronic data files used as sources ofinformation were the Client Information System (CIS), Florida Abuse HotlineInformation System (FAHIS), and a program data file maintained by the YMCAChildren, Youth, and Family Services, Inc. for both the Sarasota and Manatee programlocations. Several measures of program performance were calculated using each datafile. Standard reports from the Department of Children and Families derived frommanagement information systems were also reviewed and selected items are presented inthis report in relationship to other sources. In addition, copies of financial reports forfiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000 were consulted for the cost segment of the evaluation.A variety of standard ratios were employed to scrutinize the fiscal data.

Major Findings and Observations

Major findings regarding the experience of the children before or during theircontact with the program, including those relevant to child safety and permanency, arelisted below:

Ø Among the 46 case files reviewed, the overwhelming majority of children hadseveral reports of abuse and maltreatment prior to being served by the program.Other common problems included substance abuse by a parent, economichardship, disability, and poor performance in school.

Ø Among the 46 case files reviewed, 6 children had 6 or more placements ordisruptions after the early services intervention (ESI) staffing date. Children didnot typically experience multiple placements or disruptions within a short periodof time. In 20 case files, there were no additional placements after the first earlyservices intervention staffing date.

Quantitative Component, Community-Based Care Evaluation, 3/13/01 iv

Ø Among the 46 case files reviewed, reports of abuse or maltreatment occurred inonly 3 cases after the program’s early services intervention (ESI) staffing date.

Ø Several different types of services were provided by the network of providers,including mental and physical health assessments, medical treatment, and drugtreatment for drug abusing parents.

Ø According to information in FAHIS, 95.3% of the children had no additionalmaltreatment reports after services began.1

Ø According to the program data file, the average number of placements forchildren in the Sarasota program location is 2.7 and for the Manatee programlocation, 2.8.

Several highlights from the cost analysis findings are listed below:

Ø The YMCA Children, Youth & Family Services, Inc. (which includes theSarasota and Manatee program locations), reported an almost 61% increase in itsrevenue and support over the previous fiscal year.

Ø Debt Ratio: (total liabilities/total assets) – Although this ratio has been increasingat an accelerating rate, a debt ratio of .64 shows that the parent agency has enoughassets to cover its obligations.

Ø Contribution Ratio: (specific revenue source/total revenues) – The agency is lessthan 50% dependent on any one source.

Ø For FY 2000, foster care grant money was 48% of total revenue and support,matching the revenue and support generated by all other grants. The remaining4% was split between contributions (3%) and foundation grants (1%).

Ø Increase in Support Over Time: All sources of support increased each fiscal yearfrom 1998 through 2000. Foster care grant money increased 21% from FY 1998to FY 1999, which was followed by an increase of 185% between FY 1999 andFY 2000.

Ø Of interest in the community-based care model, private contributions increased aslight 8% from FY 1998 to FY 1999, but 83% from FY 1999 to FY 2000. Thiscould demonstrate increasing support from the community for this endeavor.

Ø General and Management Expense Ratio: The costs attributable to managementand general activities mirrors those for total support costs, 7%, 8% and 8%respectively, across the fiscal years. The proportion of management and generalcosts is well within established parameters of acceptable practice.

Ø The mix of local, state, and federal funding has remained relatively stable from1998 to 2000. However, the percentage of funding covered by local and statecontracts was lower in 2000.

Answers to Several Research Questions

Recognizing the limitations in the information available for this component of theevaluation, answers to several research questions are presented.

1 Includes both Sarasota and Manatee, reports since 3/1/97, no distinction between reports during or afterservices ended; figure calculated by evaluators from original data source.

Quantitative Component, Community-Based Care Evaluation, 3/13/01 v

Are children and families receiving timely and adequate assessments of their serviceneeds?

Relying on the case file review, it was unclear if assessments of all needs of thecases were completed. There was no information available in the electronic data files onthe assessment of service needs.

Are children and families receiving services based on their needs in a timely manner?

Relying on the case file review, a variety of services were provided for childrenand the biological parents. Documentation of services in the case files referred tomedical care, drug treatment programs, mental health assessments, and referrals toHealthy Start. This documentation also indicated that services were provided by agenciesother than the lead agency.

Was the program performance consistent with the Adoption and Safe Families Act?

Relying on the case file review, it was evident that efforts were made to addressat least two of the program performance emphases in ASFA. Only 3 of the 46 case filesreviewed had documentation indicating there was verified abuse or maltreatment of achild after the program early services intervention (ESI) staffing date. Effort to ensurepermanency for the children was documented by the specification of primary permanencygoals, the use of concurrent planning, and a relatively small number of children with ahigh number of placements.

Relying on the information in the program data files, it was found that around40% of the cases had temporary placement/reunification as a permanency goal. Theaverage number of placements for the children in the Manatee program location was 2.84and for the children in the Sarasota program location, the average was 2.7. Based on thedata in the FAHIS, the percentage of cases with no additional maltreatment reports afterservices began was 95.3%.

What is the cost/financial structure of the Sarasota Family Young Men’s ChristianAssociation, Inc. and its subsidiary, the YMCA Children, Youth & Family Services,Inc. (including the Coalition and Partnership)?

It appears that the Sarasota Family Young Men’s Christian Association, Inc. andits subsidiary, the YMCA Children, Youth & Family Services, Inc. (including theSarasota and Manatee county program locations) are financially stable, with relevantcalculations showing generally positively trends.

What is the level of financial support demonstrated by the community?

Based on the information obtained, contributions increased 8% from 1998 to 1999and 83% from 1999 to 2000. Relying on this funding source as an indication ofcommunity support, it appears that community support has been evident and increasing.

Quantitative Component, Community-Based Care Evaluation, 3/13/01 vi

However, the community support continues to be a relatively small percentage of thetotal funding.

Subsequent Analysis of the Program and Department Data Files in this Project

Further refinement and adjustment of the descriptive statistics generated using theelectronic data files is advisable. Values that are extreme may be errors in the system andselected records might need to be corrected or omitted for certain calculations. Thisdocument includes information derived from the Department’s standard managementreports. It does not fall within the scope of this evaluation to audit the validity andreliability of these reports. However, the independent analyses also presented hereprovide some limited indication that the Department’s reports do not appear to havesignificant data quality issues. Key variables referring to child safety and permanencywill continue to be compared across data sources when additional refinements have beencompleted.

Subsequent Cost Analysis in this Project

Absent the ability to calculate costs for children based on a variety of factors,including gender, age, race/ethnicity, type/severity of abuse, as well as various family andcommunity variables, it is impossible to discern an accurate cost per child. Attempts areunderway to utilize existing cost-related data to calculate the cost per child based onseveral data structures that take into account the length of time a child has been served.One objective in the additional cost analysis will be to develop statistical models toexplain a significant portion of any cost variances.

Lastly, community-based care models utilize a collaborative web of agencies toprovide client services. However, by evaluating the financial structure of the lead agencyonly one slice of the collaborative pie is being examined. Thus, the findings containedherein only paint a piece of the overall financial picture because each agency is inter-dependent upon the others within the collaborative framework. It is recommended forfuture evaluations that the financial records of all participating agencies be examined tounderstand the full financial picture.

Quantitative Component, Community-Based Care Evaluation, 3/13/01 1

Introduction

The welfare of children is a priority in our society. Children deserve to live in asafe and permanent environment in which they are free from abuse, neglect, and otherforms of maltreatment. Along with promoting the safety and well-being of children,preservation of the family has been recognized as important. Social programs mustrespond to the priority of child welfare in a way that will ensure the safety and welfare ofchildren while providing services that will attempt to strengthen the family.

Interest in implementing managed care techniques in the child welfare system hasbeen elevated as criticisms of the traditional, state run system of care surface. Somedescriptions of the child welfare system characterize it as cumbersome, inefficient, andcostly. (McCullough, 1997; Feild, 1996) The view of the child welfare system failingthose who need it most has been supported by reports in the media and lawsuits that haverequired states to operate under consent decrees. (McCullough, 1997) An additionalcriticism refers to the traditional child welfare system as a categorical service deliverysystem. The categorical system has divided services into different categories, resulting inshortcomings when comprehensive treatment for behavioral and emotional problems iswhat is needed. (Bruns, et. al., 1995)

Community-based care has emerged as a model in efforts to privatize and managefoster care and related services in Florida and other states. Community-based care allowsprivate providers, in concert with local community stakeholders, to develop andimplement a system of care with greater flexibility and opportunities for efficiency in theprovision of child protective services. This approach often promotes a “child-centered”orientation and the ability to offer a more complete selection of services tailored to theindividual needs of each family called “wraparound services”. (Bruns, et.al., 1995)

However, challenges remain in the provision of care to this particular populationusing a managed care techniques and community-based care approach. Inadequateinformation about service utilization and costs, key tools in the physical health managedcare arena, top the list of factors that compound the situation and add to the difficulty indetermining the strengths and weaknesses of any system design. (McCullough, 1997)The demands in the child welfare system often set it apart from the service deliveryarenas in which managed care has been considered most successful, such as, medicalservices. Securing a child’s welfare often involves actions that are not pursued oraccepted voluntarily by affected parties. Entire families are involved as part of theproblem and the solution. Assessing and meeting the needs of the entire family iscomplex and requires a network that extends beyond the confines of a single servicecategory.

Regarding program cost issues, it is generally recognized that the financial healthand structure of human services organizations are of secondary importance to the missionof the agency which is service to the community, families, and children. Because of thissecond tier status, the financial structure of an organization may not receive adequateattention to plan for, and meet, the growing needs of clients. This is done so at their peril.


Through these difficult lessons, agencies have found that sound financial practices areessential to survival and continued client service delivery. Analyzing the efficiency offinancial expenditures against their intended and unintended consequences (i.e., benefits)is the basis for what British economist Alfred Marshall termed consumer surplus or thewelfare enjoyed by a consumer in excess of the price paid. In part, it was the intent tohave benefits exceed program costs that added support to the community-based caremovement.

Relevant Federal and State Law

In Florida, the community-based care models for delivering foster care and relatedservices must respond to and meet requirements in federal and state law. At the federallevel, foster care and related services received attention in the 1980 Adoption Assistanceand Child Welfare Act (P.L. 96-272) and the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997(P.L. 105-89), known as ASFA. The 1980 Act required “reasonable efforts” on the partof the states to return children to their biological parents. Adoption or independent livingfor older children are considered desirable options when reunification with the biologicalparents is not possible. In the 1980 federal law, states were also required to establishpermanency plans for children in the foster care system within an 18 month time periodwith federal funding tied to this requirement. The 1997 federal legislation clarified the“reasonable efforts” requirement, required the permanency plans for children in the fostercare system to adhere to a 12 month time period, added incentives for states to expediteadoptions, and expanded authority for states to implement demonstrations in childwelfare programs. The federal changes in 1997 supported the belief that an emphasis onchild safety, timely decisions regarding the return of children to their home, and adoptionincentives would reduce the length of time children are in foster care. (Courtney, 2000)

Florida statutory law addressing foster care and related services is extensive. Theresponsibility for these services is assigned to the Department of Children and Families,hereinafter referred to as the Department. Service goals for the care of children instatutory law include:

• prevention of separation of children from their families;• reunification of families who have had children placed in foster homes or

institutions;• permanent placement of children who cannot be reunited with their families or

when reunification would not be in the best interest of the child;• the protection of dependent children or children alleged to be dependent,

including provision of emergency and long-term alternate living arrangements(section 409.145, F.S.); and

• family preservation through a family-centered services constellation. (section409.152, F.S.)

Key provisions guiding community-based care for foster care and related servicescorrespond with the goal of privatizing foster care and related services statewide over athree year period beginning in January 2000. (section 409.1671, F.S.) In the relevant


statutory section, the definition of “privatize” is “to contract with competent, community-based agencies.” Related services are specified in the statutes as “family preservation,independent living, emergency shelter, residential group care, foster care, therapeuticfoster care, intensive residential treatment, foster care supervision, case management,post-placement supervision, permanent foster care, and family reunification.”

In section 409.1617, F.S., implementation of the system identified above requiresthe Department to contract with a single agency referred to as an “eligible leadcommunity-based provider,” for the provision of child protective services in a communitythat is no smaller than a county. According to the statute, these agencies must:

• coordinate, integrate, and manage all child protective services in thecommunity while cooperating with child protective investigations,

• ensure continuity of care from entry to exit for all children referred,• provide directly or through contract with a network of providers all child

protective services,• accept accountability for achieving the federal and state outcome and

performance standards for child protective services,• have the capability to serve all children referred to it from protective

investigations and court systems,• be willing to ensure that staff providing child protective services receive the

training required by the Department of Children and Families.

The Vision of the Florida Department of Children and Families

According to the Community-Based Care Implementation Plan prepared by theFlorida Department of Children and Families and released in July 1999, the vision forimplementation of the relevant federal and Florida law includes the following:

• The safety of children at all times will be a foremost concern, and rapidpermanency resolution will be the system’s standard.

• Services will be provided by comprehensive, community-based networks ofproviders who are equipped to manage and deliver all needed services andsupports to meet the needs of children and their families.

• Resources will be efficiently and effectively managed to achieve better outcomesfor children.

• Services will be coordinated across systems to maximize limited resources andensure a single, unified case plan, managed by a primary case manager.

• Financial support will be available from diverse federal, state, and local sources.Flexibly managed at the local level, to meet child and family needs.

• There will be a coherent allocation model that equitably distributes resourcesacross all jurisdictions based on actual child and family needs, costs, andstandardized performance expectations.

• The system will be able to collect and use data to accurately forecast whatservices and supports are needed, gauge level of intensity and duration and atwhat cost, to achieve desired outcomes for each child and family in need.


Overall, the Department’s vision strives to provide a “comprehensive, full array ofsupportive services available to all children and families who reside in Florida providedthrough an integrated community-based delivery system.” Consistent with this vision,the Department is implementing a new service delivery design in which community-based organizations assume the child protection service provision role defined in section409.1671, Florida Statutes. As envisioned by the Department, the community-based caremodel relies on a partnership between the dependency court judges, an effective leadagency, the department, a community alliance, as well as collaboration andcommunication between service agencies providing traditional and non-traditionalservices. Consistent with the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act and Florida law,Florida’s community-based care for foster care and related services will:

1. promote the safety of children first and foremost;2. decrease the time it takes to achieve permanency for all children;3. promote adoption for children when that is the best permanency option; and4. enhance the state’s capacity and accountability for both safety and

permanency.

Research Project to Evaluate Community-Based Care Programs

On November 22, 2000, the Florida Department of Children and Families, Officeof Mission Support and Performance, entered into a contract with the Institute of Healthand Human Services in the School of Social Work at Florida State University. Onepurpose of the contract is to meet the statutory requirement to conduct an annualevaluation of all community-based agencies providing foster care and related services insection 409.1671(4)(a), F.S. Preliminary results from this evaluation, a quantitativeanalysis of the YMCA Children, Youth, and Family Services, Inc. community-based careprograms in Sarasota and Manatee counties, are presented here. In addition to thiscomponent, a second component of this research will produce:

• a qualitative evaluation of the YMCA Children, Youth and Family Services, Inc.community-based care programs in Sarasota and Manatee counties;

• an evaluation tool and handbook for evaluating community-based models forfoster care and related services throughout the state;

• a summary of the status of community-based care models in child welfareservices across several states; and

• an evaluation of the procurement and contracting procedures in the community-based care program for foster care and related services in Pinellas and PascoCounties.

All project deliverables are due to the Department of Children and Families on or beforeJune 18, 2001.

This report documents the first component of the evaluation of the YMCAChildren, Youth, and Family Services, Inc. in Sarasota County and Manatee County.


The report includes a brief description of the program in each county and then explainsthe research design and methodology of the research. Major observations and findingsbased on the first phase of the research are covered in the subsequent section. The reportends with a summary that highlights key findings, noteworthy research challenges, andinsights on future research.

Descriptions of the YMCA Children, Youth, and Family Services, Inc.Programs in the Sarasota and Manatee County Locations

The two locations for the community-based program addressed in this report areearly examples of community-based care for foster care and related services in Florida.Both programs are operated under one contract between the department and the YMCAChildren, Youth and Family Services, Inc. The program in Manatee County wasestablished after the program in Sarasota County had been operational for 2 years. Theprograms in each location are similar in a number of respects but they have noteworthydifferences. This section begins with a brief overview of the program in each locationand ends with a comparison of the two.

Sarasota County Program Location

The program in Sarasota County became operational in January 1997. Morespecifically, the Sarasota program location began to handle adoption cases for SarasotaCounty on January 1, 1997, foster care cases on March 1, 1997, and protective servicescases on June 2, 1997. As a lead agency in the community-based care model, thisprogram has partnered with several providers. The agencies listed as members are theSarasota YMCA, Child Development Center, Family Counseling Center, First Step,Lifelink Child and Family Services, Child Protection Center, Foster Parent Association,Westcoast Access to Children’s Health, Sarasota Memorial Hospital, Coastal RecoveryCenter, Foster America, Florida Department of Children and Families, Sarasota SchoolDistrict, a law firm providing legal support, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Sarasota CountyGovernment, and other stakeholders. The Sarasota program location is guided by amission statement and nine principles. The mission states:

The coalition of Community-based agencies provides comprehensiveservices to children and families needing services due to abuse and/orneglect through a collaborative effort that unites our resources, holds allparties accountable to specific standards of care, evaluates performanceand distribution of resources based upon specific and measurableoutcomes, holds permanency of the child’s living arrangement and thecontinuity of relationships for the child as the primary goals, and providesthese services through an inclusive and informative relationship with thecommunity and the state.

The Sarasota County location program principles are listed in Appendix A.


The Sarasota program location describes its selection of services as a continuumwith the following services included:

Parent Training and Support GroupsOutpatient Individual, Family, and Group CounselingHealthy Families SarasotaDevelopmental Day Treatment ServicesCase ManagementChildren’s Psychiatric Services (Out-Patient)Family Preservation Services (In-Home Intervention)Comprehensive AssessmentAppropriate Out-of-Home PlacementReunification/Postplacement ServicesAdoption Services

In addition to the delivery of the services listed above, the Sarasota programlocation implements several techniques to improve the quality and effectiveness of theservices. One is a team approach to enhance communication and avoid duplication ofservices. Another technique promoted in ASFA, concurrent planning, allows more thanone permanency goal and is intended to avoid prolonging the time period during which achild is not in a permanent or stable placement. Maintaining continuity for the child byensuring that the child has regular contact with one individual or family member isanother technique. The Sarasota program location also promotes the availability of“wraparound” services that are services not normally available to a child in a foster careand related services program. The examples of wraparound services identified byprogram staff in Sarasota County include several YMCA programs that are available toall family members, such as, health and fitness and character development.

As described in program materials addressing the Sarasota program location,referrals to the Sarasota program are from the Department of Children and Families’protective investigations unit, by court order, or under several additional circumstancesspecified in the program’s contract with the Department. According to availabledescriptions of the program, emergency placement of eligible children is available 24hours a day and early services intervention (ESI) staffings are scheduled with theparticipation of Sarasota Program location staff. Case files for clients are maintained atthe Sarasota Program location with all legal records, medical records, and other case plandocumentation included. All activities and procedures are to be in compliance with therelevant federal and state laws. In addition, the program is described as cooperating withthe Department in efforts to maximize resources through Title IV-E and TANF2

eligibility determination.

2 Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, federal Title IV-A.


Manatee County Program Location

In 1998, the Florida Legislature mandated that community-based care for fostercare and related services in Manatee County use the lead agency for the program inSarasota County which is the YMCA Children, Youth, and Family Services, Inc. As aresult, the two program locations share selected administrative functions and maintain aclose working relationship. The start-up contract for the Manatee County programlocation was signed in May of 1999. The program location began operating in June of1999. The Manatee program location began to serve Department of Children andFamilies’ cases in foster care/temporary placements on November 1, 1999 and protectivesupervision cases on February 1, 2000.

The mission of the program in Manatee County is “A partnership of communityresources assisting Manatee County’s abused and neglected children and their families inreaching their full potential in a safe and stable environment.” The service deliveryprinciples developed by the program in Manatee County are in Appendix A. Theapproach used in the delivery of services is described as a cluster in which the team ofprofessionals works with the family to identify additional community services andsupports to “wrap around the family”. The cluster was identified as including thefollowing functions:

Clinical AssessmentClinical/therapy servicesCrisis InterventionAssessment of child welfare needs and risk levels, coordinating assessments,developing psychosocial history and integrative summary.Development of service planCompleting documentation required for court, attending court hearings.Coordinating service and insuring that the family and child are receivingcommunity linked services.Providing targeted case management activities and direct support services tochildren and families.Providing concrete case management functions and support (i.e., arranging forday care, housing, employment, teaching basic parenting skills, cooking/nutritionskills, personal hygiene skills)Working with the family to identify issues and support needs and recommendingservices to team members.

Several techniques and emphases in service delivery adopted in the Manateeprogram location mirror those in the Sarasota program location. These include theemphasis on the continuity of care through stability in the professional staff working witha child and reducing the number of foster care placements. Concurrent planning is alsopracticed at the Manatee program in an attempt to reduce the time the child is not in astable or permanent situation. Within the community-based model, the program inManatee County subcontracts with several agencies for the delivery of services. Thoselisted in information available on the program include Manatee Glens, Lifelink Child and


Family Services, Manatee Children Services, Hope Family Services, Family Resources,Inc., Florida Sheriff’s Youth Ranch, The Children’s Home Society, Camelot, YMCA,Project Child Care, and Professional Development Center. Referrals to the Manateeprogram location are from the Office of the Manatee Sheriff, either by protectiveinvestigation or court order.

Comparison of the Sarasota and Manatee Program Locations

As indicated earlier in this section of the report, the program in the Sarasota andManatee county locations have similarities and differences. In this subsection, acomparison of selected structural and functional components is provided. In addition,one comparison of the capacity and actual number served across the county locations ispresented. Comparisons of outcome measures are presented later in this report. Thefollowing chart (Chart 1) presents a preliminary comparison of structural and functionalcomponents of the two program locations.

Chart 1YMCA Children, Youth, and Family Services, Inc.

Comparison of Selected Structural and Functional Componentsat the Sarasota and Manatee Program Locations

Program Structure or Function Comparison of Program LocationsAdministrative (Financial) Both locations rely on same administrative staff

for accounting and other financial functions. Auditand other financial reports are combined.

Advisory Council (StakeholderGroup)

Councils are separate.

Case Management Case managers serve children and parents at onecounty program location. Case files for childrenserved at one county location are maintained atthat county program location.

Services Similar across county program locations;emphases on being child-centered, ensuringcontinuity in staff, and the availability ofwraparound services

Service Providers Each location has a selection of service providersthat work with clients at one county location.(Service networks and partners are separate.)

Planning and Outcomes Similar outcome measures computed for eachprogram location. Several measures correspondwith safety and permanency ASFA requirements.

Protective Investigation Performed by DCF in the Sarasota County locationand by the Office of the Manatee Sheriff in theManatee County location.

Child Welfare Legal Services Performed by DCF in the Sarasota County locationand the Attorney General in the Manatee Countylocation.


Table 1YMCA Children, Youth, and Family Services, Inc.

Number of Children Served by Program Locationñ

Category Sarasota Location Manatee Location

Total Children Served Since Program Began 3,251 children 1,592 children

Number of Cases Openñ 700 children 1,034 children

On March 1, 1997, the Sarasota program began serving all foster cases that weretransferred from DCF on March 1, 1997; seventy-four (74) cases were staffed at the timeof this transfer. On June 1, 1997, the remaining cases which were receiving all servicetypes were transferred from DCF to Sarasota YMCA. At this time, a total of 31 caseswere staffed and Sarasota began full implementation of the CBC model and wasresponsible for all foster care and related services from that point forward.

On November 1, 1999, the Manatee program began serving all foster care casesthat were transferred from DCF; this was a total of 327 cases that were staffed for theinitial transfer. On February 1, 2000, all of the remaining cases that were receivingservices from DCF were transferred to the control of the Manatee program; this includeda total of 357 cases. Following the transition sequence used for the Sarasota program,after the February 1, 2000 transfer all additional cases became a part of the Manateeprogram.

Table 2 below displays the actual number of children and families being served asprovided by program staff for the month of September 2000.

Table 2Number of Clients Served

Information provided by the YMCA Children, Youth, and Family Services, Inc.Sarasota and Manatee Program Locations (September 2000)

Actual Number Served Sarasota Manatee

Total Number of Children 667 1035Total Number of Families 377 515Total Number in Out ofHome Care

196 297

ñ These numbers were taken from the YMCA program database for both program locations which wascopied on 12/21/00. The dates for inclusion in the database were 3/1/1997 to 12/18/2000 for Sarasota; and11/1/999 to 12/18/2000 for Manatee.ñ See previous footnote regarding dates included in analysis.


Research Design and Methodology

The logic model was used as the theoretical framework for conducting theevaluation. More specifically, the logic model provides a framework for determiningwhat components of the evaluation to include and what are the important components ofa program. The logic model has been widely used in other evaluations (Alter and Egan,1997; Berry, Bussey, & Cash, in press; Pecora, et al., 1997). The logic model proposesthat there is alignment between the needs of the client, the processes of a program orservice and the outcomes. It ensures that there is congruence between each of thesedomains, thus maximizing the program’s capabilities and the evaluation’s ability tomeasure each of these components. The model includes the following components:

Problems/Needs (The current situation and what needs to be changed.)Goal (The desired state to be achieved.)Objectives (Milestones or minigoals that lead to goal achievement.)Inputs (Concrete and intangible resources needed to achieve theobjectives.)Methods (Services and activities that put resources into operation.)Results (Short-term impacts of applying inputs and methods.)Outcomes (Long-term impacts of applying inputs and methods.)

The research design and methodology incorporate techniques for collectinginformation that correspond with the components in the logic model. Data collectiontechniques used in this component of the evaluation included case file reviews andsecondary sources of information in electronic data files and management reportsmaintained by the program and the Florida Department of Children and Families. Thesedata files include information on clients served by each program location. Theinformation is used to describe the experience of the clients and compare programperformance across program locations and with the state as a whole. In addition, severalresearch questions developed by the research team and Department officials areanswered.

Research Questions

The questions addressed in this research refer to the assessment of client needs,the services provided, the performance of the program as addressed in the Adoption andSafe Families Act, the community factors that are important in determining the success orfailure of the programs, and service costs. The major or global questions are listedbelow:• Are children and families receiving timely and adequate assessments of their service

needs?• Are children and families receiving services based on their needs in a timely manner?• Was the program performance consistent with the Adoption and Safe Families Act?


• What is the cost/financial structure of the Sarasota Family Young Men’s ChristianAssociation, Inc. and its subsidiary, the YMCA Children, Youth & Family Services,Inc. (including the Sarasota and Manatee locations)?

• How has the financial mix changed over the project’s life-cycle?• What is the level of financial support demonstrated by the community?• What system elements contribute to the successes or failures of the community-based

care model?• What community factors contribute to the successes or failure of the community-

based care model?• Are the consumers, stakeholders, and caseworkers satisfied with the services

provided?

Sources of Information

In order to address each component of the logic model and answer the questionsarticulated above for this research, it was necessary to obtain, review and analyzeinformation in the following categories:

Family Structure and Demographic Characteristics of Family MembersAssessment of Problems (includes Abuse and Maltreatment Experience)Planning/Goals/ObjectivesProgram ServicesPlacementsProgram OutcomesProgram Costs

Using information from all of the categories listed above, it is possible to describethe experience of clients served. In order to obtain the necessary information, a variety ofsources were tapped during the first phase of the evaluation. These sources includedelectronic databases maintained by the Florida Department of Children and Families, andcase files, databases, and financial reports maintained by the YMCA Children, Youth andFamily Services, Inc. community-based care programs in Sarasota and Manatee counties.Each information source used in the evaluation is described below.

Program Performance Measures Provided by Program Staff

The program performance measures provided by the YMCA Children, Youth, andFamily Services, Inc. for both the Sarasota and Manatee program locations address someof the requirements in the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA). Several of thesemeasures are also specified in the contract between the YMCA Children, Youth andFamily Services, Inc. and the Florida Department of Children and Families. The first setaddresses child safety and includes percentages of children not abused or neglectedduring the provision of services as well as within one year after services ended. Anadditional measure refers to adoption cases stating that adoption for a specific percentageof children who are “legally available for adoption” would occur within 12 months of theavailability of adoption. Another measure refers to the percentage of cases returning to


foster care after reunification occurred. The annual goals for these measures appear laterin Table 3. Satisfaction with services, improvement in well-being, time period for endingout-of-home care, and cases in protective services who received substance abusetreatment when case plans required such treatment were also addressed in the programperformance measures. Surveys and interviews were identified as the methods used forobtaining the information needed for selected program performance measures.

Electronic Databases/Files

Data from three primary databases were retrieved for use in this first componentof the program evaluation. Two are maintained by the Florida Department of Childrenand Families. The first is the Client Information System (CIS) which maintainsinformation on all Child Protection clients (excluding Prevention Program clients) servedby DCF. For purposes in this research, the CIS information included records for allcommunity-based care clients (coded as participants at the two sites under review) inDCF Districts 6 and 8. The information was accessed from a CIS extract file created onDecember 11, 2000 from the “master” CIS file. It includes a “snapshot” of active andclosed cases as of the December 11, 2000 extract date. The information on each client inthe file included all information available on a CIS record for each client. The secondelectronic database is the Florida Abuse Hotline Information System (FAHIS) whichcontains reports of abuse and maltreatment. The cases pulled from FAHIS included onlythose clients retrieved from the December 11, 2000 CIS extract file. Abuse reportscovered the most recent five years. In addition to analysis of raw data extracts from thesetwo files, the Department’s management reports from the same sources were alsoreviewed and key measures selected for presentation. The third data file was from adatabase maintained by the YMCA Children, Youth and Family Services, Inc. for thecommunity-based care programs in Manatee and Sarasota counties. The programdatabase was copied on December 21, 2000 at the Sarasota program location.Throughout subsequent sections of this report, this data file is referred to as the “programdata file.” The third data file is the most complete selection of information among theavailable electronic data files on each child’s experience in the Sarasota and Manateeprogram locations.

Case Files

The case files for the clients served by the Sarasota Program location and theManatee Partnership are maintained and stored in the lead agency locations for each ofthese programs. The case files reportedly include all planning and staffing documents,protective investigation reports, Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and ReportingSystem (AFCARS) forms, legal documents, service plans, mental and physical healthassessments, written correspondence regarding the referral of children and parents forservices, Medicaid related documents, initial child safety assessment, case managementcase notes, client satisfaction surveys, and all other written documentation for the case.When multiple children in one family are involved, selected documents were located inone file for all family members. Examples of documents included in one file for a family


unit are legal documents. The review of the case files included recording information inseveral categories. These categories were:

Selected identification numbersLegal StatusProblems (includes abuse and maltreatment)Placement TypesPermanency Goals and DatesSpecific Case Goals and DatesJudicial or Legal Document and DatesServices and DatesProvider Agencies

The case files reviewed included those selected by the Florida Department ofChildren and Families for a variety of compliance reviews in July 2000, including adetermination of compliance with ASFA. The original objective in selecting this samplewas to combine the information collected in the review conducted for this project withinformation collected earlier. Case files were reviewed on December 18, 19, and 20,2000, January 11 and 12, 2001, and February 1 and 2, 2001. The total number of casefiles reviewed up to this point in the project is 46.

Summary of Electronic Data Files and Case Files

The research team determined that re-analysis of the raw data would provideadditional insights into the complexities of measurement of results in this area. Varyingmethods of calculation and alternative definitions of data elements are barriers tocommon interpretation, and this research project will frequently use ‘triangulation’ frommultiple sources to highlight this issue. As one knowledgeable source puts it,“Researchers using administrative datasets from multiple jurisdictions must becomealmost ‘cross-cultural’ researchers, learning and understanding the nuances of thedifferent agency and state cultures of child welfare.” (DiLeonardi and Yuan, 2000) Theinformation sources used in this initial component of the evaluation appear in Chart 2below. The anticipated availability of information is indicated for each source byinformation category. Chart 2 indicates what was expected but not what was consistentlyavailable.

Information in case files was not always present. For example, referral dates wereonly specified clearly in half of the files reviewed (21 of 46). Assessment informationappeared to be limited in the case files. The only assessment instrument that wasincluded in some of the cases was the Initial Child Safety Assessment, which iscompleted by the Investigator (either a DCF Investigator or an Investigator with theCounty Sheriffs Department). The reasons for the missing Initial Child SafetyAssessments are beyond this phase of the evaluation. However, this should be examinedin the future to determine the process and consistency involved in the “handoff” from theinvestigator to the CBC program. Specific assessment information, related to the familyand child, is inadequate at this time. The absence of information and inconsistencies in


the documents included in the case files were attributed to the type of case (out-of-homewith several placements), the extent of the judicial activity occurring with the child, andthe number of children covered in a file. Inconsistencies in the availability ofinformation in the electronic data files maintained by the Department could have beendue to differences across the district units entering the data and the circumstancesassociated with a particular client when services were initiated.

Chart 2Selected Sources of Information and Data Availability

Information Item/Category Case Files ProgramDatabase

CIS FAHIS

Date for referral to program Yes Yes, ESIStaffing

date

No YesDisposition

DateDate case is closed Not determined Yes Yes No—date

investigationis closed

Assessment• Initial Child Safety

Assessment• Staffing Documents

Yes No No No

Case Planning Yes No No NoPermanency Goals Yes Yes Yes NoReports of Abuse andMaltreatment

Yes Yes No Yes

Problems other than Abuseand Maltreatment

Yes No No No

Services YesIn case notes

and otherdocuments

No No No

Placements Yes Yes Mostrecent

No

Financial Reports

The financial data analyzed were collected through a variety of reports obtained fromthe Sarasota Family Young Men’s Christian Association, Inc. for fiscal years (FY) 1998,1999 and 2000. In this set of reports, the Sarasota Family Young Men’s ChristianAssociation, Inc. is the parent agency and the YMCA Children, Youth and FamilyServices, Inc. is a subsidiary. The evaluation documented in this report refers to thesubsidiary, the YMCA Children, Youth, and Family Services, Inc. with locations inSarasota and Manatee counties. The reports collected were the following:


• For FY 1998, the reports collected include the organization’s annual audit3, theInternal Revenue Service form 990 for the subsidiary (YMCA Children, Youth &Family Services, Inc.), as well as year-end revenue and expense statements for theCoalition and its departments.

• The reports collected for FY 1999 include the annual audit, the Internal RevenueService form 990 for the subsidiary (YMCA Children, Youth & Family Services,Inc.), as well as year-end revenue and expense statements for both the Sarasota andManatee program locations and their respective departments.

• For FY 2000, the reports collected include the annual audit, the Internal RevenueService form 990 for the subsidiary (YMCA Children, Youth & Family Services,Inc.), as well as year-end revenue and expense statements for the Sarasota andManatee program locations and their respective departments.

• Contained within the annual audit for each fiscal year are several financial reportsthat were utilized; including Supplementary Schedule of Consolidated Expenses,Statement of Financial Position, Statement of Consolidated Cash Flows, and theStatement of Consolidated Functional Expenses.

In addition to receiving the financial reports, the evaluation team met withexecutives from the Sarasota Family Young Men’s Christian Association, Inc. onDecember 18, 2000. During the meeting, the data identified above were requested anddiscussed, as was their financial reporting system and existing performance measures.Several meetings were subsequently held throughout January 11th and 12th of 2001. Theevaluation team met once again with program executives, as well as the program’sfinancial team. During these meetings, the data were further examined through mutualdialogue. The dialogue included the identification of various factors not traditionallyhighlighted within the organization’s financial documents; such as, those costsclassifiable as fixed or variable, and direct or indirect. In addition, the identification oftangible and intangible benefits and of productivity improvements and/or innovationswere discussed, but these were not able to be discerned from the available data.

Program Performance Methods and Analysis

In this component of the research, client information and measures of programperformance are compared across program locations and sources. At this time, the

3 All audits were conducted by an outside, independent accounting firm. The audits were conducted inaccordance with generally accepted auditing standards, Government Auditing Standards issued by theComptroller General of the United States, and the provisions of the Office of Management and BudgetCircular A-133 (Audits of States, Local Governments and Non-Profit organizations). The audit for eachfiscal year was given an unqualified finding. Lastly, in the course of the audit, it included, on a test basis,the gathering of evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. However, theamount sampled specifically from the financial records for either the Coalition or Partnership is unknownas the sampling scheme is not outlined in the audit report.


primary sources of information that were included in the comparisons include theelectronic databases, client information system (CIS) and the program data file. Clientcharacteristics in the comparison are gender, ethnicity, and average client age. Meannumber of placements and average time in placement are two examples of programperformance measures compared across information sources and program locations. Themethodology implemented for each information source is explained below.

Florida Abuse Hotline Information System (FAHIS)

The findings that were derived from the FAHIS database included both Sarasotaand Manatee county CBC data. The original database included abuse reports dating backto 1995. In order to focus specifically on the time in which the community-based careprogram locations had been operation, the data file was modified to include only thosereports that occurred after March 1, 1997. This is a limitation when using the data torefer to the Manatee program since the Manatee program location was not operating untilJune of 1999. In this stage of the research, it was not possible to separate the FAHISdataset into two files with each referring to a single program location or county. Thesample used is a listing of unduplicated reports. Cases that had multiple reports for thesame FAHIS and CIS ID were combined through an aggregation procedure and theaggregated data were included in one record under the FAHIS and CIS unique client ID.The data included in this application were a listing of cases that were opened during thetime in which community-based care was implemented in Sarasota. Cases that includedmissing values in regards to dates, or either CIS ID or FAHIS ID, were excluded from allanalyses. Data that were included in these descriptive analyses are based solely on theaccuracy of the report that was made to the abuse hotline and the procedures used for thesystem data entry.

Client Information System (CIS)

The CIS provides information on children that are served by individual providers.The method by which the data are entered into the CIS system may vary across providers.The major limitation of this dataset refers to its limited time dimensions. Specifically, thedatabase is designed so that an additional change in placement, status, or goal mightreplace previous entries in the identical field. This makes it difficult to constructplacement histories for children using CIS. This prohibits the development of anhistorical account of a client’s experience or the ability to review multiple placements,time between placements, or changes in goals.

For purposes here, the CIS database was separated into two groups: 1)cases at theSarasota program location and 2)cases at the Manatee program location. This separationwas completed in order to calculate measures for each program location and to comparethem. The computation of measures for each program was important for a variety ofreasons, including the differences in the time each location has been operating. TheManatee program location is relatively new and still in the development stage; whereasthe Sarasota program has been operating under the community-based care model forapproximately 4 years.


The length of time in placement was calculated by subtracting the currentplacement date from the termination date of the client in the CIS. This estimation methodis the most consistent with the state’s method of calculating the average length of stay.The analysis completed at this stage in the research is preliminary. Additional analyseswill be conducted that will include the computation of inferential statistics. Subsequentanalytical work will be an in-depth examination of the average length of stay and factorsor variables that influence the length of stay in foster care placements. The sample wasaggregated using a technique similar to that used with the FAHIS data, based on a uniqueclient ID.

Department Management Reports (from CIS and FAHIS)

The Department regularly reports data related to its activities, services, and clientsin the child protection system. The calculation methodologies and operationaldefinitions, while fairly stable, are occasionally refined as part of such initiatives asFlorida statewide performance based program budgeting and Federal reportingrequirement changes. (Some basic information about the Department’s performancemeasures is found on the Internet at http://fcn.state.fl.us/cf_web/news/mspt/docs/ or bycalling the source noted in the first part of this publication). The selected outcome chartspresented below provide additional insights into the performance of the community-basedcare program. Future phases of this evaluation project will continue to use comparativedata to draw conclusions about use of information from various sources, and makerecommendations in this area.

YMCA Program Database

The YMCA Children, Youth, and Family Services, Inc. maintains a database fortheir foster care and adoption records at the Sarasota and Manatee program locations.This database is housed in a Microsoft ACCESS computer package. The specificprocedures used to enter the information and maintain the information are not known atthis time. In preparing and analyzing each of these databases for this report, severalinconsistencies were noted and were treated as missing data. Results for each databaseare presented separately. The data used for the analyses were taken directly from queriesrun in each program location database.


At times, the queries that were already created by the CBC staff and those created by theevaluation team produced reports that included duplicate records for cases. Efforts weremade to ensure that data used in the analyses completed for this report were unduplicated.If a question remained regarding duplication of records, the data were adjusted or thepossibility of duplication was noted. There were as many as 22 placements experiencedby a single child in the Sarasota program location and 34 in the Manatee programlocation. However, because the number of cases that had this many placements was low,information and some calculations were based on the first 5 placements only. The time inplacement was calculated by subtracting the end date of the first placement from the startdate of the first placement.

Cost Data Methods and Analysis

In addition to the descriptive financial information provided below, numerousratios have been employed to analyze the data. The ratios included are widely used in thefinancial analysis arena, with actual or variant ratios included in many financialmanagement texts. In the research findings section, the description of each ratio isfollowed by the calculation based upon the data obtained. In some cases, due to the levelof specificity obtained through the financial records, the ratio is presented at variouslevels (i.e., the parent organization, the subsidiary or the foster care programs). In allcases, attempts have been made to present the data in its most reduced level. Data arealso presented, in many cases, across several years. When applicable, the trendsindicated are highlighted and described. Unfortunately, the data presented are unable tobe compared across other child welfare agencies providing similar services due to thelack of available industry-wide data at this time. Although the trend is changing,financial ratios and other performance measures are not widely reported, nor are industryindices maintained (such as Value Line and other financial indices that track for-profitorganizations). As such, there are no financial performance standards for the childwelfare field, which negates any industry-wide attempts at comparison. Therefore,standing alone, the findings presented must be interpreted with extreme caution. It isunclear from a single program analysis whether or not it may be performing better orworse than any other program within its field.

Research Challenges and Caveats

Most evaluation research that is comprehensive and consistent with a highstandard of quality and rigor encounters difficulties and challenges. In this case, at leastone of the community-based care program locations evaluated had been evaluated overthe past two years in accordance with statutory mandate. Both program locations servedas early examples of community-based care for foster care and related servicesthroughout the state. Because of this distinction, they are typically identified as theprograms to monitor and observe in discussions of continuing privatization efforts.


The expectations have been for these program locations to perform at levelshigher than attained by state agency programs. This evaluation introduced another set ofrequirements on these programs. A short time frame and demanding requirements for thefirst phase of this evaluation combined to make the completion of the necessary tasksdifficult. (Refer to other deliverables and evaluation time frame on page 5 of this report.)The scheduling of the case file reviews had to be coordinated with the availability ofspace in the program locations and sufficient lead time was necessary for retrieval of therequested files by program staff. Electronic data files retrieved from several sourcesrequired careful review and adjustment before descriptive and analytical tasks could beperformed. While identified as challenges in this component of the research, they alsoserve as excellent references for preparation of the evaluation handbook and tools thatwill be used to evaluate other community-based care programs in the future.

Research Findings and Observations

In this section of the report, the findings based on the research conducted for thefirst phase of the community-based care program evaluation and this component of theproject are discussed. The findings are presented by information source andmethodology. The first set of findings cover the program performance measurescalculated by the program staff. Second, the findings developed from the case file revieware presented. The third set of findings relies on the information in the databasesmaintained by the Florida Department of Children and Families (CIS and FAHIS) and thedatabase maintained by the community-based care program. The final set of findingsencompasses the cost analysis.

Program Performance Measures Provided by the YMCA Program

On the next page, Table 3 displays the annual goals and actual values calculatedby the YMCA Children, Youth, and Family Services, Inc. program for the Manatee andSarasota program locations. Based on the measures provided by the program, severalannual goals were met or exceeded. Comparing the Sarasota and Manatee programlocations, the Sarasota program had lower caseloads and shorter lengths of stay for thechildren served before returning them to their home or securing their adoption. Bothprogram locations had an overall length of stay that was shorter than that reported for thestate. In addition, both programs exceeded the state average for the safety outcomemeasure percentage safe from abuse for one year after closure of services.


Table 3Selected Program Performance Measures

Provided by YMCA Children, Youth, and Family Services, Inc.ϑ

(Sarasota and Manatee Program Locations)September 2000

Performance Measures Annual Objectives Averages and %Sarasota Manatee Sarasota Manatee

Caseload/Children per casemanager

15 20 23/29 29.1/35.5

Face to Face Contacts 4/mo. 4/mo. 79% seen4 X amonth

17% NA

NotAvailable

# Returned to Care followingReunification

0 0 10children/5families

0

% safe from abuse during care 97% 97% 98.3% 96.1%Safe from abuse for 1 yearfollowing closure fromservices

95% 95% 93.1% 93%

Average Length of StayReturn HomeAdoptionOverall

12 mos.30 mos.18 mos.

12 mos.30 mos.18 mos.

9.2 mos.30 mos.

20.5 mos.

19.4 mos.49.9 mos.30.6 mos.

Adoptions (Annual)Total # of Adoptions 31 56 2 8

Case File Review Findings

The findings based on the case file review are considered preliminary. As statedearlier, the number of files reviewed up to this point in the research is 46. The filesreviewed provide enough information to allow a preliminary description of the cases andsome indication of level of consistency across cases and data sources. Pertinentinformation recorded on the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System(AFCARS) forms included in the case files is also described. The case files still remainthe most comprehensive source of information on the clients served by these programlocations. The information in the case files covered in this report refers to familystructure, selected demographic characteristics, problems encountered by the clients,

ϑ The information included in this table was taken directly from program information that was provided bythe YMCA in documents provided to the research team at the beginning of the CBC evaluation project.The reliability and validity of these numbers have not been confirmed nor compared to any data currentlygathered in the project.


including abuse and maltreatment, the number and types of placements, permanencygoals and other more specific goals, and services.

Program: There were 30 case files reviewed at the Sarasota program location and 16case files reviewed for the Manatee program location. Of the 30 cases from Sarasota, 11were in-home and 19 were out-of-home; all 16 Manatee cases were out of home.

Family Structure and Selected Demographic Characteristics: Among the case filesin which this information was available, 13 specified 5 or more adults related to the childbeing served. The number of cases in which 5 or more siblings were specified in the filewas 7. The number of minority children in the files reviewed was 18 with two of thesebeing Hispanic. The marital status of the majority of the parents of the cases was single.According to the information on the AFCARS forms, the percentage of children whowere minority status was 32%.

Client Problems: The majority of the cases had several reports of abuse or maltreatmentbefore services began. The most common type of maltreatment was neglectfulsupervision, but physical abuse and sexual abuse were also evident in the filedocumentation for at least two cases each. For the most recent reports of abuse andmaltreatment and the majority of the cases, there was evidence that the abuse had beenverified. Several abuse reports included the abuse or maltreatment of more than onechild. Examples of common problems identified in the case files included substanceabuse, economic hardships due to unemployment, disabilities, poor performance inschool, and lack of day care. Information specified on the AFCARS reports indicatedthat common problems associated with children served in these programs includedneglect, abandonment, physical abuse, and parent substance abuse.

Permanency Goals and Other Goals: Among the case files reviewed, 20 specifiedreunification as a permanency goal, 10 specified maintain and strengthen family, and 11specified adoption. Long-term foster care was a goal specified for the remaining casesincluded in the file review.

Services: Based on the case files, a variety of services were provided for children andtheir parents. Parent education, drug treatment, mental health assessments, andtransportation are examples of some of the services specified in the files for the biologicalparents. For the children, mental health assessments, medical care, and referral toHealthy Start are examples of services. Several agencies were involved in providingservices for children and their parents. Agencies specified often as service providers atthe Sarasota program location included the YMCA, Child Development Center, FamilyCounseling Center, First Step, Coastal Recovery, and Westcoast Access to Children’sHealth.

Placements: The majority of the cases had shelter or foster care as their first placement.In 20 case files, there were no additional placements after the program ESI (early servicesintervention) staffing date. Only a few children had multiple placements within relativelyshort periods of time. The number of children with 6 or more placements after the ESI


(early services intervention) date was 6. While multiple placements within a short periodof time were not typical among the children served by these program locations, multipleplacements over a short period of time for children did occur. These cases will beexamined in future evaluation work to identify potential barriers to reducing the numberof placements. One example of a case that had several placements or disruptions within arelatively short period of time is listed below as Case I:

Case IDate Type of Placement6/3/99 Emergency Shelter7/13/99 Foster Care8/1/99 Kinship Care8/20/99 Foster Care12/3/99 Foster Care12/19/99 Shelter/Foster Care4/3/00 Foster Care7/27/00 Kinship Care8 placements within 13 months

Another example (Case II) is a case that had disruptions at the beginning and endof a relatively long period of time, 14 months. This case also entered the juvenile justicesystem briefly during the second series of disruptions.

Case IIDate Type of Placement11/12/98 Shelter/Foster Care12/8/98 Hospital12/31/98 Shelter/Foster Care3/8/00 Foster Care6/14/00 Foster Care6/25/00 Detention (DJJ or Jail)6/26/00 Foster Care3 placements within 2 months;4 placements within 3 months

According to the information recorded on the AFCARS forms, 37 children (74%of the children for which AFCARS information was available in the case files) had beenremoved from the home once. One child had been removed from the home 14 times.Information regarding the number of placements during the most recent removal from thehome indicated that 32% or 16 of the cases had one placement and 5 cases had 5 or moreplacements during the most recent removal.

Child Safety: According to the verified abuse and maltreatment reports in the case filesreviewed, 3 children had been a victim after the early services intervention (ESI) staffingdate. Additional reports were filed for cases after ESI dates, but these reports were notclearly verified or had no indicators.


Findings based on Available Data Files

This subsection of the report presents descriptive statistics using informationcontained in three major data files: 1) Florida Abuse Hotline Information System(FAHIS) maintained by the Florida Department of Children and Families, as analyzed byresearch staff; 2) Client Information System (CIS) maintained by the Florida Departmentof Children and Families, as analyzed by research staff; and 3) Program Databasemaintained by the YMCA Children, Youth, and Family Services, Inc. for the Sarasotaand Manatee community-based care program locations. In addition to demographiccharacteristics of clients and records in these data files, the information includes keymeasures referring to maltreatment and abuse, procedures, permanency goals, andplacements. Table 4-A presents statistics for several client characteristics acrosselectronic data file sources. Table 4-B presents several program performance andoutcome measures in a comparison between the electronic data files.

For comparison purposes, graphs of data as calculated by the Department arepresented in Graphics 1, 2, 3 and 4. Additional standard management reports whichinclude information on the community-based care projects covered in this evaluation maybe found on the Department’s Intranet athttp://eww.dcf.state.fl.us/~fsp/PAGES/adhoc.htm.4

Table 4-AClient Characteristics by Electronic Data File

Client Characteristics CIS DataFile

Sarasota(n=1,776)

CIS DataFile

Manatee(n=1,339)

FAHISData FileCombined(n=2,768)

ProgramData FileSarasota(n=660)

ProgramData FileManatee(n=836)

GenderMale 50.2% 51.4% 50.3% 49.6% 48.2%Female 49.8 48.6 49.7 50.4 51.8

Race/EthnicityWhite 69.8% 66.0% 69.9% 64.7% 61.6%Black 29.2 34.0 30.1 32.0 33.6Other -- -- -- 3.4 4.7

Age of ChildTime of Placement

6.6 years 6.8 years -- -- --

At First Placement

-- -- -- 6.7 years 7.3 years

At Abuse Report -- -- 7.4 years -- --

4 For copies of these reports, if unable to access the Florida governmental Intranet, call the Office of FamilySafety, 850-488-8762.


Table 4-BProgram Performance and Selected Outcomes

by Data Source (Refer to Notes)

Program Performanceand Outcomes

FAHIS DataFile

Combined(n=2,768)

SarasotaProgramDatabase

ManateeProgramDatabase

SafetyPercentage of cases withno additionalmaltreatment reports 5

95.3%

Total number of reportswhere abuse happenedwhile receiving care

-- 15 0

Total number of casesthat were reopened

-- 40 9

Notes: When information is available in a data file, that source is displayed in each table.Blank cells indicate that the data were not available or were not in a format that could bemanipulated to calculate the required outcome measures.

5 Aggregated measure, includes all cases in extracted data as discussed on pp. 12 and 16; reports may havebeen during or after service, not specific to a single fiscal year. That is, includes both Sarasota and Manateecases, reports since 3/1/97, no distinction between reports during or after services ended; figure calculatedby evaluators from original data source.


Table 4-B (Continued)Program Performance and Selected Outcomes by Data Source 6

Program Performance andOutcomes

CIS DataFile

Sarasota(n=1,776)

CIS DataFile

Manatee(n=1,339)

ProgramData FileSarasota(n=660)

ProgramData FileManatee(n=836)

PermanencyPercentage of Childrenwho have 2 or fewer outof home placements♠

68.9% 64.9%

Average number ofplacements

Mean 2.7 2.8Median 1.0 2.0

Permanency goals:Temporaryplacement/reunification

25.2% 30.6% 37.8% 40.7%

Adoption 7.0 10.3 10.5 9.1Long Term Foster Care 1.5 2.9 3.5 5.8Long Term Relative Care 0.0 4.6Independent Living 2.0 1.1 3.8 0.0Permanent Commitmentwith Foster Parents

0.0 0.4

Termination of ParentalRights

0.0 3.3

Not specified 64.3 54.9

In Table 4-B, there are differences in outcomes across program locations andelectronic data files. For example, for the percentages for permanency goals, the highestpercentages with a temporary placement or reunification goal are based on information inthe program data file. Further research will be required to determine whether thesedifferences are due to definitional variations or data accuracy.

6 Time periods covered and limitations as discussed on pp. 12 and 16-17.♠May include shelter placements, however does not include placements that are still open.


Graphic 1

Child Safety Outcome Measure:Percent of Children not Abused or Neglected During Services

Statewide and CBC ProvidersApril 1997 - September 2000

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

%Safe

4/99-3/00 4-6/2000 7-9/2000

4/99-3/00 93.49% 94.90% 91.81%

4-6/2000 98.09% 96.10% 98.29%

7-9/2000 98.09% 95.89% 97.55%

Statewide 6 CBC (Manatee) 8 CBC (Sarasota)

Source: DCF reports reac9900.xls andreac0001.xls

n=688/700

n=773/842

n=676/693

n=980/1022

n=962/1001

n=819/863


Graphic 2

Child Safety Outcome Measure:Percent of Children who Have no Findings of Maltreatment

Within One Year After Case Closure From ServicesStatewide and CBC Providers

Terminated July 1997 - December 1999

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

7/97-6/98 7/98-6/99 7-9/99 10-12/1999

7/97-6/98 90.28% 88.68%

7/98-6/99 90.11% 100.00% 92.50%

7-9/99 89.82% 93.10%

10-12/1999 90.05% 78.57% 98.28%

Statewide Manatee Sarasota

n=2/2 n=11/14

n=57/58

n=54/58

n=94/106

n=74/80

Source: DCF reports reab9900.xls andreab0001.xls


Graphic 3

Child Permanency Outcome Measure: Percent of Children Who Exited Out-of-Home Care by the 12th month*

Provider and Period in Which Child Entered Care

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Per

cen

t E

xiti

ng

wit

hin

12

Mo

nth

s 4/97-3/98* 7/98-6/99

7-9/1999 10-12/1999

4/97-3/98* 25.3% 10.7%

7/98-6/99 23.2% 83.3% 5.7%

7-9/1999 27.2% 0.0% 5.6%

10-12/1999 32.3% 46.7% 33.3%


**Percentages for 4/97 - 3/98 are based on exit within 15 months

n=8/75

n=10/12

n=6/105

n=0/1

n=1/18

n=63/135

n=14/32

*children who exit and return before the end of the 12 month period being reported are excluded.

Source: DCF reports fcout900.xls and fcout0001.xls


Graphic 4

It does not fall within the scope of this evaluation to audit the validity andreliability of these Department reports. A comparison of key measures of programperformance or outcomes for child safety and permanency will be completed after furtherwork reconciling various operational definitions and methodologies. At this point,consistency of the safety and permanency outcome measures with the state comparisonfigures depends on the data file or source of information

Child Safety and Permanency Outcome Measure: Percent of Children Reunified with Family Who Did not Return to Foster Care

within One Year After Case ClosureStatewide and CBC Providers

Children Reunified July 1996 - December 1999

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Per

cen

t W

ho

Did

no

t R

etu

rn

7/97-6/98 7/98-6/99 7-9/1999 10-12/1999

7/97-6/98 96.82% 100.00%

7/98-6/99 95.21% 0.00% 100.00%

7-9/1999 98.16%

10-12/1999 96.39% 81.82% 100.00%


n=0/1

n=8/8

n=9/11

n=7/7

Source: DCF reports rent9900.xls and rent0001.xls


Financial Analysis Findings

In this discussion of the financial analysis findings, the parent company ororganization is the Sarasota Family Young Men’s Christian Association, Inc. and itssubsidiary is the YMCA Children, Youth and Family Services, Inc. The subsidiaryincludes the Sarasota and Manatee CBC program locations, which are the focus of thispreliminary report, the YMCA Children’s Services, the YMCA Family Services, and theManagement and General Expenses for all four of these programs. The Sarasota FamilyYoung Men’s Christian Association, Inc. reported total revenue and support for FY 2000in the amount of $31,647,031. This figure was almost 47% over its previous year’srevenue and support, and 73.5% over FY 1998. However, expenses rose only 38.5%from the previous fiscal period, and 67% from FY 1998 resulting in an increase in netassets of $1,726,828 for FY 2000.

Similarly, the YMCA Children, Youth & Family Services, Inc. reported an almost61% increase in its revenue and support over the previous fiscal year. In addition, this ismore than double (202.5%) the revenue and support generated during FY 1998. Thesubsidiary's revenue and support also outpaced its expenses, with expenses rising only53% from the previous fiscal year, and 93% from two years before. The result was anincrease in net assets of $671,951 for FY 2000. Much of this increase appears to becontributed from a few specific line items including a 61% increase from FY 1999 to FY2000 in contracts and grants, as well as increases in YMCA foundation grants andindividual/business contributions; 82% and 108%, respectively. All of the increases inrevenue and support outpaced the amount of total expenses.7

The organization's Statement of Financial Position shows that the parentcompany's current assets have increased 237% from the previous fiscal year with much ofthis attributed to a new $9,069,737 investment. This growth is consistent over theprevious two fiscal years, with current asset growth between 1998 and 1999 totaling124%, and 1998 to 2000 topping 650%. Total assets have not kept pace, climbing almost120% from FY 1998 to FY 2000 to $26,426,528. Current liabilities have grown almost40% from FY 1998 to FY 2000, and total liabilities have increased slightly more than300% to $16,911,773.

Current assets for the subsidiary have remained fairly constant, increasing almost3% from FY 1999 to FY 2000 after a sharp rise from FY 1998 to FY 1999 of 120%.Similarly, total assets climbed a relatively small 21% from FY 1999 to FY 2000, incomparison to the 93% rise from FY 1998 to FY 1999. Debt followed a similar pattern,with current liabilities rising from FY 1998 to FY 1999, and FY 1999 to FY 2000, 136%and 1% respectively. Total liability for the subsidiary mirrored current debt, with anincrease of 134% from FY 1998 to FY 1999, and a rise of 2% from FY 1999 to FY 2000.

7 Of particular relevance to this report is the revenue received under contract from the Florida Departmentof Children and Families for foster care and related services. For FY 2000, this contract amount is$14,182,561; for FY 99/00, $5,243,397. (Source: DCF, Office of Administration/Privatization Initiatives)


For its most recent fiscal year, the Sarasota Family Young Men’s ChristianAssociation, Inc. has reported a $307,187 decrease in available cash due to operatingcosts, leaving an ending cash balance of $866,972 (as shown in its Statement ofConsolidated Cash Flows). This is 73% of its previous fiscal year's cash reserves.However, it appears to be within the range of previous years and, given its large currentasset balance, does not appear to pose any problems.

Debt Ratio: (total liabilities/total assets) – This is the extent to which any organizationutilizes and manages debt (i.e., financial leverage). Debt can assist an organization increating new program opportunities, such as the recently implemented Sarasota andManatee program locations, yet can also signal if an organization assuming too muchfinancial risk. As illustrated in Appendix B, the parent company's ratio of total liabilitiesto total assets has been steadily increasing from .35 in FY 1998, .45 in FY 1999, and .64in FY 2000. Although this has been increasing at an increasing rate, a debt ratio of .64shows that the parent organization has enough assets to cover its obligations. Thesubsidiary, which includes, among other programs, the Sarasota and Manatee programlocations, has maintained a much higher debt ratio. From its low in FY 1998 of .80, itsdebt ratio climbed to a high of .97 during FY 1999. It has since dropped close to itsearlier ratio, and is now .81. Although there are no comparisons, an overall debt ratioapproaching 1 should be closely monitored to ensure that the organization is not over-extended.

Current Ratio: (current assets/current liabilities) – The purpose of this ratio is todetermine an organization’s level of liquidity, and can be utilized to determine its abilityto meet operating costs. In general, the ratio should be a minimum of 1, the higher theratio the better. The parent company, as shown in Appendix C, had a current ratio of2.69 which means that their current assets can cover over 2 ½ times their immediate debt.This change is largely due to their recent bond offering. Their current ratio for FY 1999was only .82, and .50 for FY 1998. This could be a cause for some concern and will bediscussed further below. The subsidiary organization has never surpassed the '1'benchmark, with ratios hovering in the high 80's/low 90's. If this organization were a'stand alone' program, this may signal potential difficulties. However, the parentorganization has the resources to support the subsidiary, especially during this time ofgrowth.

Long-Term Solvency Ratio: (total assets/total liabilities) – This ratio assesses the abilityof an organization to pay its annual expenses as they become due. As the name implies,it analyzes an organization’s long-term financial position. As opposed to the previousratio, this ratio examines the long range ability of an organization to pay its obligations.In contrast to the current ratio, the long-term indicator for both the parent company andits subsidiary are both higher than the '1' benchmark needed to cover all debt. The parentcompany has maintained this ratio since FY 1998 (2.86), as well as FY 1999 (2.23) andFY 2000 (1.56). The subsidiary has also maintained this achievement, from FY 1998(1.25) to FY 1999 (1.03) and FY 2000 (1.24). Thus, taking the current ratio above in thecontext of the parent organization and the subsidiary's long-term ability to pay debt


reduces (but does not eliminate) concern regarding the subsidiary's ability to meet itsobligations.

Contribution Ratio: (specific revenue source/total revenues) – This ratio assesses anorganization’s dependence on each revenue source. As a general rule, the morediversified the better. Thus, the negative impact of revenue change from any one sourcecan be minimized. If the contribution ratio from any one source is greater than .5, anorganization may be disproportionately dependent. For this ratio, only the subsidiaryorganization was examined. As the pie charts in Appendices D, E, and F illustrate, theprogram is less than 50% dependent on any one source. Although it was not possible todetermine the specific amounts of each attributable to the Sarasota and Manatee programlocations.

For FY 1998, 67% of revenue and support was derived from a combination oflocal, state and federal grants (excluding foster care). Foster care grant money accountedfor an additional 28%. The remaining 5% was split between contributions (3%) andfoundation grants (2%). Less than 1% was received from interest income, United Wayand the parent organization.

During FY 1999, the contribution mix remained relatively unchanged, with 68%of revenue and support coming from a mixture of local, state and federal grants(excluding foster care). An additional 27% was received through foster care grants. Theremaining 5% was split among interest (less than 1%), contributions (2%), the UnitedWay (less than 1%), foundations grants (1%), and the parent organization (less than 1%).It is important to note that although contributions remained a small percentage of theentire revenue and support picture, in actual dollars it increased 8% from the previousfiscal year. However, this fell short of keeping pace with the overall growth of revenueand support (up 26% from the previous fiscal year) and accounted for its decline inoverall contribution to the budget.

For FY 2000, the amount of funds generated from the combination of local, stateand federal grants (excluding foster care) dropped to 48%. Foster care grant moneyincreased to 48%, matching the revenue and support generated by all other grants. Theremaining 4% was split between contributions (3%) and foundation grants (1%). Lessthan 1% was received from interest income, United Way and the parent organization.Contributions jumped 83% this year and outpaced the overall revenue and supportgenerated which increased 61%.

Contributions and Grants Ratio: (contribution and grant revenue/total expenses) - Thisratio illustrates the extent to which any specific sources of revenue and support covers theoutstanding expenses. Thus, in years where the combined value of all revenue andsupport sources exceeds total expense an excess is generated. Fiscal year 2000 was sucha year for the subsidiary, with revenue and supports totaling 103% of expenses. Asshown in Table 6 below, half of all costs were covered by the foster care grant, with othergrants and contracts covering the other half. Thus, the marginal amounts contributed bythe other sources resulted in a surplus for FY 2000. Conversely, the subsidiary fell short


of meeting expenses by these sources in previous fiscal years, totaling 98% of expensesin both FY 1998 and FY 1999.

YMCA Children, Youth & Family Services, Inc. (in %)Table 5

2000 1999 1998interest 00 00 00contributions 03 02 03united way 00 00 00foster care 50 27 28foundation grants 02 01 01parent company 00 00 00other misc.grants/contracts 49 67 66

% of other misc. grants/contracts Local 0.07 0.07 0.08 State 0.24 0.25 0.33 Federal 0.69 0.68 0.59

As can be seen in Table 5, the mix of local, state and federal funding has remainedrelatively stable, despite the enormous growth experienced by the subsidiary. From 5.3%(FY 1998) to 3.4% (FY 2000) of its expenses are typically covered by local grants andcontracts by Sarasota and Charlotte counties for such services as child care and otherchild related programs.8 State contracts and grants, from, for example, the Department ofJuvenile Justice and the Department of Education, have fallen from covering 21.7% ofthe expenses (FY 1998) to 11.8% in FY 2000.9 The percent of expenses covered byFederal grants and contracts has also fallen slightly, from 38.9% in FY 1998 to 33.8% inFY 2000. Thus, the subsidiary’s dependence on these other grants and contracts hasdiminished over the three fiscal years, while other sources (such as foster care funds)have filled the void.

Increase in Support Over Time: (support (yr. 2 - yr. 1)/support yr. 1) – This ratiodemonstrates the fluctuations of specific revenue and support sources over time. Asillustrated in Table 6, all sources of support increased from fiscal year to fiscal year.Foster care grant money increased 21% from FY 1998 to FY 1999, which was followedby an increase of 185% between FY 1999 and FY 2000. More modest gains wererecorded for other grants and contracts, with 29% and 11%, respectively, over time. Thisis further significant, as the proportion of foster care money as a total of all grants andcontracts also increased from 28% to 50% from FY 1999 to FY 2000. Lastly, in keepingwith the community-based care model employed by the organization, private

8 Calculated by taking, for example, FY 2000 – other misc. grants and contracts that contributes 49%towards covering expenses. 7% of the 49% (i.e., .07*.49=.034) is covered by local grants and contracts.9 It is important to note that these funds do not directly support the foster care programs in Manatee orSarasota Counties, and are instead utilized by the subsidiary’s other programs.


contributions increased a slight 8% from FY 1998 to FY 1999, but 83% from FY 1999 toFY 2000.

YMCA Children, Youth & Family Services, Inc. (in %)Table 6

1999-2000 1998-1999foster care 185 21other misc.grants/contracts 11 29

contributions 83 08

Support Cost Ratio: (support expenses [i.e., general & administrative, fund-raising]/totalexpenses) – This ratio illustrates the extent to which funds are utilized for indirectsupport activities. In calculating this ratio, the general and administrative expenses, aswell as the fund-raising costs, were combined and examined as a portion of the parentorganization’s total expense structure. These costs were consistent over time, withsupport costs totaling 7% in FY 1998 and rising slightly to 8% for FY’s 1999 and 2000.

General and Management Expense Ratio: (total general and managementexpenses/total expenses) – The purpose of this calculation is to determine the proportionof an organization’s expenses that go toward the administration. This ratio can beexpressed as a form of management efficiency. This calculation is a sub-set of thesupport cost ratio and breaks management and general expenses apart from fund-raisingto explore the efficiency of management in cost containment. The costs attributable tomanagement and general activities for the parent organization mirrors those for totalsupport costs; 7%, 8% and 8% respectively, across the fiscal years. The proportion ofmanagement and general costs is well within established parameters of acceptablepractice.

Fund-Raising Expense Ratio: (total fund-raising expenses/total expenses) – This ratioillustrates the amount of financial resources expended on fund-raising activities. Inaddition, the amount of funds generated as a proportion of fund-raising expenditures willbe examined to provide an overall picture of the organization’s fund-raising efforts. Asstated above, the proportion of fund-raising expenses to total costs for the parentorganization is negligent and totals much lower than 1% for each fiscal year.

Fund-Raising Ratio: (contribution revenue/fund-raising expenses) - This ratio examinesthe efficiency of the funds utilized by the fund-raising program in its efforts to generatecontributions for the parent organization. Utilizing less than 1% of all expense dollars,the fund-raising efforts were able to demonstrate their effectiveness by securing funds inexcess of their costs for each year. In fact, as stated previously, fund-raising accountedfor 4% of all revenue and support generated. As a function of expense, fund-raisingefforts generated a ratio of 8.61 of income to costs for FY 1998. This proportion grew to9.17 in FY 1999, and continued to climb in FY 2000 to 11.55. As such, any number over’1’ is successful. It is clear that this number was far exceeded in each year. In specific,


although it is not clear how much effort was targeted toward generating revenue andsupport for the subsidiary, approximately 40% of all revenue and support obtained wasfor this program (.40 – FY 1998, .36 – FY 1999, and .46 – FY 2000).

Revenue/Expense Ratio: (total revenues/total expenses) – This ratio can beconceptualized as the organization’s ‘profit margin’. In order for the organization todevelop and remain stable, its level of revenues to expenses should be at least 1.However, a ratio that is too high may signify funds that are not utilized to the greatestbenefit. Utilizing the year-end revenue and expense statements for the Sarasota andManatee program locations for FY 1999 and FY 2000, it was found that both departmentsfluctuated around the ‘1’ benchmark established. The Sarasota program location’s ratiofor FY 1999 was .90, with revenue falling 10% short of meeting expenses. Theyrecovered during the next fiscal cycle, with a ratio of 1.04 and exceeded their costs by4%. The Manatee program location’s revenue exceeded their costs by 25% in FY 1999,but dropped to a ratio of 1.02 in FY 2000.

Fixed Cost Ratio: (total fixed costs/total expenses) – This ratio illustrates the financialobligations the organization holds irregardless of the number of children it serves. Thus,with no variable costs (which will rise as the number of clients increases), this amount iswhat is needed to pay to maintain the organizational structure. It includes such costs asthose associated with maintaining the program location field office, as well asoutstanding contractual obligations. In general, a lower fixed cost amounts are better.For FY 1999, the Sarasota foster care program location had a fixed cost ratio of .69,which decreased to .57 in FY 2000. Thus, for FY 2000, 57% of all costs were inflexibleand not dependent on the number of children served. Similarly, the Manatee foster careprogram location’s fixed costs decreased over time, from .73 in FY 1999 to .40 in FY2000.

Summary

This report documents the first component of an evaluation of two community-based care program locations providing foster care and related services. (The secondcomponent and other deliverables for this project are discussed on page 4 of this report.)The two program locations are in Sarasota and Manatee counties. The Sarasota programlocation became operational in January 1997 and the Manatee program location beganserving clients in June 1999. Both programs are operated under one contract betweenthe department and the YMCA Children, Youth and Family Services, Inc. The programlocations have similar approaches in the provision of services by supporting a child-centered orientation and an emphasis on continuity in care. Reducing the number offoster care placements is also promoted at both program locations. This summarypresents several findings related to the research questions specified in an earlier sectionof the report. Insights or recommendations regarding the future steps for this researchproject are also included.


Key Observations and Findings

Recognizing the limitations in the information available for this component of theevaluation of the community-based care programs, selected findings and answers toseveral research questions are presented. (Refer to discussion on page 4 for explanationof the second component of the evaluation and other deliverables included in thisproject.)

♦ Are children and families receiving timely and adequate assessments of theirservice needs?

Relying on the case file review, it was unclear if assessments of all needs of thecases were completed. Staffing documents that were expected in each file were notlocated in all files. Other assessment instruments, such as, the initial child safetyassessment, were not available in all files reviewed. There was no information availablein the data files on the assessment of service needs.

♦ Are children and families receiving services based on their needs in a timelymanner?

Relying on the case file review, a variety of services were provided for childrenand the biological parents. Documentation of services in the case files referred tomedical care, drug treatment programs, mental health assessments, and referrals toHealthy Start. This documentation also indicated that services were provided by agenciesother than the lead agency, representing the implementation of a community-based caremodel. There was no information in the program data files or other data files on servicesreceived.

♦ Was the program performance consistent with the Adoption and Safe Families Act?

Relying on the case file review, it was evident that efforts were made to addressat least two of the program performance emphases in ASFA. In only 3 of the 46 filesreviewed was there documentation indicating there was verified maltreatment after theESI (early services intervention) staffing date identified by the program. Effort to ensurepermanency for the children was evident through the specification of primarypermanency goals, the use of concurrent planning, and a relatively small number ofchildren with a high number of placements (5 children with 5 or more placements sincethe ESI date).

Relying on the information in the program data files, it was found that around40% of the cases had temporary placement/reunification as a permanency goal. Theaverage number of placements for the children in the Manatee program location was 2.84and for the children in the Sarasota Program location, the average was 2.7. Table 8displays a comparison of key figures referring to permanency for the Manatee andSarasota programs:


Table 8Permanency Outcomes Calculated from the Database Maintained

by the YMCA Children, Youth and Family, Inc.Permanency Indicator Sarasota Program

locationManatee Program

locationPermanency Goals Temporary Placement/Reunification Long-term Foster Care Adoption

37.8%3.5%

10.5%

40.7%5.8%9.1%

Average Number of Placements 2.7 2.8

Regarding safety, the data base information indicated that the percent of clients who weresafe from abuse and neglect during services was 98.3% in Sarasota and 96.5% inManatee. The comparable figure for the state was 97.1%.

♦ What is the cost/financial structure of the Sarasota Family Young Men’s ChristianAssociation, Inc. and its subsidiary, the YMCA Children, Youth & Family Services,Inc. (including the Coalition and Partnership)?

It appears that the Sarasota Family Young Men’s Christian Association, Inc. andits subsidiary, the YMCA Children, Youth & Family Services, Inc. (including theCoalition and Partnership) are financially stable, with relevant calculations showinggenerally positively trends.

♦ How has the financial mix changed over the project’s life cycle?

In general, all ratios calculated over the community-based care project’s life cycleindicate either positive trends or continued amounts that fall within acceptable ranges.

♦ What is the level of financial support demonstrated by the community?

From the information obtained, it appears that community support has remainedstable, as a percentage of the total revenue and support, since the project’s inception.Based on the information obtained, contributions increased 8% from 1998 to 1999 and83% from 1999 to 2000. Relying on this funding source as an indication of communitysupport, it appears that community support has been evident and increasing. However,this source of financial support continues to represent a relatively small amount.

Subsequent Review of Case Files in this Project

As indicated earlier in the report, additional case files will be reviewed. Ifpossible, the review will yield an equal number of files in each program. Emphases inthe subsequent case file reviews will be on the assessment of cases when referred to eachprogram and the services provided. Because the case files are the only source ofinformation for several of the components in the logic model in which the entire


experience of the client is covered, it is important that the review of additional case filesbe completed.

Subsequent Analysis of the Program and DepartmentData Files in this Project

Further refinement and adjustment of the descriptive statistics generated using theelectronic data files may be advisable. Values that are extreme may be errors in thesystem and selected records might need to be corrected or omitted for certain analyses.Improvements in the data analysis using the available data files will occur with additionaltime to review and analyze the available information. Key variables referring topermanency and maltreatment will be compared across data sources when refinementshave been completed. In addition, information available from each data source will bemerged into one dataset to allow the computation of inferential statistics and multivariateanalyses that determine significant relationships and effects.

Subsequent Cost Analysis in this Project

Absent the ability to calculate costs for children based on a variety of factors,including gender, age, race/ethnicity, type/severity of abuse, as well as various family andcommunity variables, it is difficult to calculate an accurate cost per child. Additionally,allocated costs must be broken into fixed and variable portions and apportionedappropriately. Thus, many of the current methods employed, such as dividing thenumber of children in care over the fiscal year by that year's expenses, fail to includenumerous potentially significant variables.

For example, a district or organization may utilize $10,000,000 to care for 1,000 children;while another location may expend $12,000,000 to care for another 1,000 children. Atfirst glance, the second organization appears to be less efficient, spending an additional$2,000 per child in care. However, when examining the costs at the child level, asopposed to the aggregate organization level, it may be found that the second organization,given the specific factors at play, may actually be the more efficient of the two. Thesecond organization may have custody of children who have had more severe earlychildhood trauma due to physical and sexual abuse than those in the first organization, orother deprivations. In fact, based on the child, family and larger system characteristics itmay be possible to discern which agencies address specific types of challenges in a morecost efficient and effective manner. As such, the cost averaging system distorts thesefactors and loses the detail that may help to illustrate the strengths of specific agenciesand communities.

Attempts are being made to utilize existing cost-related data to calculate the costper child based on several potential data structures. Efforts are underway to obtain copiesof the ICWSIS database from Districts 6 and 8. A merging of datasets will be attemptedin order to match costs to client characteristics. Thus, it is planned to create variousstatistical models to explain a significant portion of the cost variance.


In addition, other financial performance measures that attempt to identify suchthings as cost-reducing innovations, resources expended to comply with the contractrequirements, benefits produced by the project, and the difference between the agency'scost structure and those of other districts providing foster care and related services, aswell as the extent to which the community-based care model may have increased theefficacy of permanency planning for children and families, are all unknown under thecurrent system of accountability. Efforts are being made to work in collaboration withthe agency to identify these factors.

Lastly, community-based care models utilize a collaborative web of agencies toprovide client services. This is the case with both the Sarasota and Manatee programlocations. However, by evaluating the financial structure of the lead agency only oneslice of the collaborative pie is being examined. Thus, the findings contained herein onlypaint a piece of the overall financial picture, because each agency is inter-dependent uponthe others within the collaborative framework. For example, although the subsidiary andparent organizations may appear financially healthy, a key collaborative organizationcould be in a precarious financial position. In this case, does the lead agency have theresources to cover not only its own obligations, but its partnering agency? If not, whatmay happen to the children in its care? The converse may also be true. Cost reducinginnovations and community support may not be adequately represented by the exclusionof other collaborating agencies that are basic to the community-based care model. It isrecommended for future evaluations that the financial records of all participatingagencies be examined to discern the full financial picture. To assist in providing acomplete picture, the agency is attempting to provide the evaluators with limited financialdata from their collaborative network.


References

Alter, C. & Egan, M. (1997). Logic modeling: A tool for teaching criticalthinking in social work. Journal of Social Work Education, 33(1), 85-102.

Berry, M., Bussey, M. & Cash, S.J. (in press). Evaluation in a dynamicenvironment: Assessing change when nothing is constant. In Mannes, P. Sandau-Beckler, and E. Walton (Eds.) Setting direction for family centered services in childwelfare in the twenty-first century: Theory, practice, policy, and research. New York:Columbia University Press.

Bruns, E.J., Buchard, J.D., & Yor, J.T. (1995). Evaluating the Vermont systemof care: Outcomes associated with community-based wraparound services. Journal ofChild and Family Studies, 4(3), 321-339.

Courtney, M.E. (2000). Managed care and child welfare services: What are theissues? Children and Youth Services Review, 22(2), 87-91.

DiLeonardi, J. W & Yuan, Y-Y.T. (2000). Using Administrative Data. ChildWelfare: Journal of the Child Welfare League of America, Inc., LXXIX(5), 441.

Feild, T. (1996). Managed care and child welfare. Public Welfare, summer, 4-10.

Florida Department of Children and Families. (1999). Community-based careimplementation plan. (Printed for circulation by the Florida Department of Children andFamilies).

McCullough, C. (1997) Child welfare: Defining the classic issues of managedMedicaid. Behavioral Health Management (March/April), 14-21.

Pecora, P.J., Seelig, W.R., Zirps, F.A., & Davis, S.M. (Eds.) (1996) Qualityimprovement and evaluation in child and family services: Managing into the nextcentury. Child Welfare League of America: Washington, D.C.

YMCA, Children, Youth, and Family Services. Descriptions of Program Sites inSarasota and Manatee Counties, Community-based care model: Partnership for safefamilies; and Community-based care model: Sarasota county coalition for families andchildren.


Appendix A

Program Principles for theSarasota and Manatee Program Locations.

Sarasota program location principles are the following:

• Services will be provided with the safety and best interest of the child as our firstconsideration.

• Foster care adoption and protective services is a community effort and issue. Weshall involve the community through a Stakeholders Advisory Committee, theinvolvement of volunteers, the solicitation of donations, and annual participationin the evaluation of services.

• This system of care will be held accountable for the provision of high quality carein the most efficient manner. We shall establish internal standards of care foreach service being provided. There will be a continuous quality improvementsystem throughout the continuum of care. Measurable outcomes will beestablished. There will be an annual independent audit of the entire system.There will be competency based training for foster parents and staff.

• All resources will be used in the most efficient method to reach the statedoutcomes with families receiving services expected to contribute, wheneverfeasible.

• We believe the State of Florida, the school system, the courts, law enforcement,foster parents, local governments, churches, the child and family, local businessesand foundations as well as other community organizations are critical partners inattaining successful outcomes.

• Services will be delivered through a rapid response and attentive approach. Nofamily or child receiving services will go more than a week without a directcontact (phone or face to face visit) unless a decision to reduce services is madeby a formal staffing process or court order.

• The system of services will develop concurrent planning that assures strategiesfor service and permanency regardless of the turns a particular family may takeover the course of their involvement with this Coalition.

• There will be a “single point of entry” approach that assures the children andfamilies consistency of treatment, reduction of duplication of services and efforts,a match of children and their alternative care provider to allow for a successfulplacement, and establishment of a plan of service based upon a comprehensiveassessment.


• There will be an individualized case plan developed for each child and familyreceiving services, including input from the child and family, which will direct thecourse of intervention throughout the time of service.

The principles for the program in Manatee County are the following:

• Services are provided according to upfront and ongoing needs-basedassessments of the child and family’s progress towards benchmarks andgoals.

• A family focused intervention; the unit of intervention is the family, butthere is recognition of the urgency of achieving permanency for the childin placement.

• Community-based services; supportive persons and associations areorganized on behalf of the family.

• Parent/child involvement; families are the co-designers of their ownservices and are invested in achieving the permanency goal.

• Strength based work; intervention emphasizes strengths of the family, notthe pathology; weaknesses and deficits.

• Families often have solutions to their own problems; efforts are made toenable families to look to their own strengths.

• Flexibility; willingness to change approach as needs of the family change.• Team work; a team of people who know and care about the child and

family is organized to ensure that the child is protected and nurtured.• Team commits to “unconditional care” services are modified based upon

families’ needs.• Cultural competence; ability to understand different cultures and values;

family advocates are usually recruited from the families’ community.• Outcome measures are identified and measured often.• Flexibility delivered in terms of time, quantity and approach.• The service plan is financially supported by the flexible use of dollars that

are easily accessible to the team members.


Appendix B

Ratio of Liabilities to Assets

0.64

0.81

0.45

0.97

0.35

0.80

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

YMCA of SarasotaCounty

Children, Youth & FamilyServices

FY2000 FY1999 FY1998


Appendix C

Ratio of Current Assets to Current Liabilities

2.69

0.870.82 0.86

0.50

0.92

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

YMCA of Sarasota County

Children, Youth & FamilyServices

FY1998FY1999FY2000


Appendix D

Contribution RatioThe percent contributed from each revenue and support source (FY1998)

contributions

3%

foster care28%

foundation grants2% other misc

grants/contracts67%

United Way, interest, parent company < 1% each


Appendix E

Contribution RatioThe percent contributed from each revenue and support source

(FY1999)

contributions

2%

foster care28%

other miscgrants/contracts

69%

foundation grants1%

United Way, interest, parent company < 1% each


Appendix F

Contribution RatioThe percent contributed from each revenue and support source

(FY 2000)

foster care48%

other miscgrants/contracts

48%

United Way, interest, parent company <1 % each

contributions3%

foundation grants1%


Appendix GResearch Team Members

Institute for Health and Human Services ResearchSchool of Social WorkFlorida State University

Dr. Mary Kay Falconer, Principal InvestigatorDr. Scottye Cash, Principal InvestigatorDr. Scott Ryan, Principal Investigator

Graduate Student AssistantsChris EpplerSarah LewisDawn TannerAshley BennettShelly KirschKerri SnyderAlison Glover

Florida Department of Children and Families

Becky LyonsKeith PerlmanColeman ZuberDrucilla CarpenterAdditional staff provided data extracts and other technical assistance.

Community-Based Care Foster Care and Related Services Programs

YMCA Children, Youth and Family Services, Inc.Chris Card

Sarasota County Coalition of Families and ChildrenChristy KaneBarbara Simmons

Manatee County Partnership for Safe FamiliesRuss Kitching