serendipity:
DESCRIPTION
- PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
CQI in IdahoAugust 20, 2013
Presenters:
Debra Alsaker-Burke, Statewide Child Protection Manager, Idaho Supreme Court
Sarah Siron, Mgmt. Analyst, Sr. for Child Welfare, Department of Health and Welfare
Dr. Gene Flango, National Center for State Courts
Lisa Portune, National Center for State Courts
Di Graski, NRCCWDT
Serendipity:
The occurrence and development of events by chance in a happy
or beneficial way.
2
The Opportunity
3
• Advancing Justice
• Idaho, in consultation with the NCSC, embraced the High-Performing Courts Framework.
• Improved administration of justice
• Mobilizing people to address challenges
• Focused AOC and state courts on the use of data to measure and manage court performance.
• Concurrently, the decision was made to move from current ISTARS platform to a new, web-based case management system.
Judicial Districts and Child Welfare Regions
4
• 1.6M Residents• 428,000 Child Residents
• Statewide Systems:• 44 Counties• 7 Judicial Districts• 7 Child Welfare Regions
• 3 “Hubs”
• Technology:• ISTARS = Idaho Statewide Trial
Court Automated Records System
• iCARE = IDHW Statewide Information Management System
2012 Child Welfare Data
• 1,289 Children in Foster Care
• 562 Families Served In-Home
• 739 Child Protection cases filed in FY12
• 274 Adoptions
5
Technology Structure• Idaho Courts and Child Welfare have statewide data
systems
• SACWIS System moved to web-based iCARE
• Courts in process of transitioning to statewide web-based data platform
• Department of Juvenile Corrections and Medicaid have statewide data systems
• State Department of Education does not have a statewide system, but can collect statewide data.
6
Current Data Sharing
• Child Welfare supervisors have access to Idaho Supreme Court Data Repository
• Unique child identifier matching
• Adopted children case closure for Child Protection cases
• Courts share, on a daily basis, data with Department of Juvenile Corrections
• Ad hoc reports from Child Welfare7
First Step: How are we doing?
8
January – May 2012:
• Assistance from NCSC
• Survey judges
• Focus on case management needs
• What judges like/don’t like about current reports
• Ideas for improvement
• Magistrate’s Institute
• Engaging the Judges: Alicia Davis presentation on need for data to “tell the courts’ story”
• Judges approve Advancing Justice child protection time standards
Time Standards
9
• Time Standards for Child Protection Cases:
• Adjudicatory Hearing: 90% w/in 30 days; 98% w/in 60 days (measured from filing of petition to completion of hearing)
• 1st Permanency Hearing: 98% w/in 365 days (measured from filing of petition to completion of hearing)
• Subsequent Permanency Hearings: 98% w/in 365 days (measured from the earlier of the date of the previous permanency hearing or the last date on which the previous permanency hearing would have been timely heard, to completion of hearing).
• Termination of Parental Rights: 90% w/in 150 days; 98% w/in 180 days (measured from order approving TPR/adoption as permanency goal to order granting or denying TPR)
Step Two: What Are Our Data Needs Going Forward?
January 2013:
• In consultation with NCSC, representatives from the Court, Dept. of Health and Welfare (Child Welfare and Medicaid), Dept. of Juvenile Corrections, County Probation, and Dept. of Education
• Courts first asked group about their data needs from ISTARS
• Group developed a list of data measures and subset that all agencies need
10
Measures for CIP Grant• Time to First Permanency Hearing (4G)
• Time to all Subsequent Permanency Hearings
• Time to Permanent Placement (4A)
• Time to Termination of Parental Rights Petition (4H)
• Time to Termination of Parental Rights (4I)
11
Courts and Child Welfare Joint Measures
• Toolkit Measures:
• % of children who are abused or neglected within 12 months after case closure.
• % of children who return to foster care pursuant to court order within 12 and 24 months of case closure following adoption or placement with a legal guardian.
• % of cases for which there is documentation that written notice was given to parties in advance of every hearing.
• % of cases for which there is documentation that written notice was given to foster parents in advance of every hearing.
12
Courts and Child Welfare Joint Measures
• Educational Well-Being Measures:
• % of children under court jurisdiction who did not have a school change when they had a change in living placement.
• Median number of school transfers while under court jurisdiction.
• Median number of school days between the last day attended at old school to first day attended at new school.
• % of school-aged children performing at or above grade level at case closure. 13
Courts and Child Welfare Joint Measures
• Physical and Emotional Well-Being Measures:
• % of children and youth under court jurisdiction that received a mental health screening within 30 days of first hearing.
• % of court-ordered child or youth mental health assessments that occur within 60 days of order.
• % of children placed with at least one but not all siblings who are also under court jurisdiction.
• % of youth who have a court-approved transition plan within 90 days prior to aging out of care.
14
Courts and Child Welfare Joint Measures
• Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) Measures:
• % of ICWA compliant placements.
15
Step Three: Business Process Mapping
May 2013:
• NCSC and NRCCWDT (Di Graski) facilitated business process mapping for Courts and IDHW
• Confirmed the selected toolkit measures
• Identified points in process where data could/should be exchanged
• Highlighted additional data needs and elements
• Memorialized decisions made16
Process Map
17
Data Elements
18
Data ElementPerformance Measure(s)
When Known to Juv Ct? Which System? By Whom? Example, Notes
Child Identifier1B, 2E, 5A, 5B, 5C, 5F
ICARE (from Medicaid) DHW - FACS
Match records over time and across systems (court, DHW, Education, mental health) - especially critical for safety, reentry, and education well being. Is it possible for DHW to supply the Child ID on the Family Information Sheet that the Prosecutor files with the court at case initiation (BPM 1A and 1B)?
Child's date of birth
3E, 5A, 5B, 5C, 5F, 6O
Family Information Sheet; Petition
Could be LE, could be DHW
Validate child's identity; determine whether to include child in age-dependent performance measures
Date of Removal All
LE Notice of Removal; Affi davit in Support of Order of Removal; Order of Removal
Often, Law Enforcement
Start date for timeliness measures; some performance measures are only relevant to cases involving children and youth in out-of-home care
Court Case Number All Case Creation ISTARS Court Clerk
Court's ability to link family members, siblings
Date Petition Filed
Time to Adjudication for Protective Supervision Case Creation ISTARS Court Clerk
"Start" date of timeliness measures for cases without removal date
Date Case Closed All except 3D, 4B
Define cases to be included in calculation of performance measure (most analyze closed cases)
Reason for Case Closure 2D, 4A, 6O Safety, time to permanency, and IL measures
Who Will Use the Data?
• Judges – case management
• Child Welfare Stakeholders (Quarterly HUB Meetings)• Identify opportunities for system growth• Measure success
• System administrators:
• Trial Court Administrators• Child Protection Committee• Child Protection Advisory Team (CPAT)• Administrative Conference
• Justice Partners:
• Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (FACS)• Department of Juvenile Corrections • State Department of Education
19
How Will Data be Shared?
• Juvenile Information Sharing Project
• Global Reference Architecture
20
Next Steps?
• Multi-agency work group will refine data needs (Fall 2013)
• Business process mapping: DJC/Courts and DJC/IDHW (Fall 2013)
• Multi-agency group will develop a strategic plan for sharing data (Fall 2013)
• Differentiated case management (2013-2014)
• Design process for child protection in new court CMS (2014)
• Juvenile Current Legal Status Pilot Project (Completed August, 2014)
21
