Data Are Your Friends:
California’s Child Welfare
Outcomes and Accountability System
Barbara Needell, MSW, PhD
Center for Social Services Research
University of California at Berkeley
The Performance Indicators Project is a collaboration of the
California Department of Social Services and the University of California at Berkeley,
and is supported by the
California Department of Social Services and the Stuart Foundation
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
3 Key Data Samples
Entry
Cohorts
Data
Point
in Time
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
Exit
Cohorts
2002-2007
California:
Referrals, Substantiations & Entry Rates
(per 1,000 Children)
50.7
50.3
49.6
48.3
48.3
49.2
Referral Rates
(-2.8%)
Substantiation Rates
(-10.6%)
12.0
11.4
11.2
11.0
10.9
10.7
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.8
3.7
3.6
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
Entry Rates
(-3.0%)
1998 to 2008
California:
Entry Events by Placement Type
(entries lasting 8 or more days)
25,000
Entry Frequency
20,000
36,777
TOTAL Entries
30,884
15,000
10,000
Foster
Kinship
Group/Shelter
5,000
0
FFA
1998
1999
2000
2001
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
2002
2003
2004
Entry Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
1998 to 2008
California:
Foster Care Caseload by Placement Type
60,000
104,325
Placement Frequency
50,000
Kinship
TOTAL Caseload
40,000
70,423
30,000
20,000
Foster
FFA
10,000
Group/Shelter
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
2002
2003
Point in Time
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
1998 to 2008
California:
Entries, Exits, and Caseload
(entry and exit events after 8 days or more in care)
60,000
104,325
Total Caseload
Entry / Exit Frequency
50,000
40,000
70,423
Entries
30,000
Exits
20,000
10,000
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
2002
2003
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Tracking Child Welfare Outcomes
Rate of Referrals/
Substantiated Referrals
Reentry to Care
Permanency
Through
Reunification,
Adoption, or
Guardianship
Counterbalanced
Indicators of
System
Performance
Length
of Stay
Stability
of Care
Home-Based
Services vs.
Out of Home
Care
Use of Least
Restrictive
Form of Care
Positive
Attachments
to Family,
Friends, and
Neighbors
CENTERC.L.,
FOR SOCIAL
SERVICES
Source: Usher,
Wildfire,
J.B., RESEARCH
Gogan, H.C. & Brown, E.L. (2002). Measuring Outcomes in Child Welfare.
School of Hill:
Social Welfare,
UCInstitute
Berkeley
Chapel
Jordan
for Families,
Outcomes, outcomes, everywhere
• Government Performance Results Act of 1993 (GPRA)
• Annual Outcomes Report to Congress mandated by Adoption and Safe
Families Act (ASFA) of 1997
• Statewide Data Indicators in Child and Family Services Reviews -- a
subset of the Annual Outcomes—from National Child Abuse and Neglect
Data System (NCANDS) and Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and
Reporting System (AFCARS)
• Round 1 of CFSR FFY 2001-2004 (CA 2002)
• Round 2 of CFSR FFY 2007-2010 (CA 2008)
• California Child Welfare Outcomes and Accountability System (2004)
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
Purpose of CFSRs
To assess State conformance with title IV-B and IV-E State plan
requirements such that:
The State is achieving
desired outcomes for
children and families in the
areas of safety,
permanency, and well-being
(7 outcomes)
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
The State system is
functioning at a level that
promotes achievement of
the identified outcomes
(7 systemic factors)
CFSR Review Process

Statewide Assessment

Onsite Review

Determination of substantial conformity

Program Improvement Plans
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
Changes to the CFSR
• Round 1 of the CFSRs
– 2 of the “outcomes” = 6 items (2 for safety, 4 for permanency)
– National Standards attached: based on the 75th %tile of
reporting states
– States failing to meet a given standard had to include that item
in their Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs)
• Round 2 of the CFSRs
– Also comprised of 6 items with standards attached
– BUT…this time the permanency standards are comprised of 15
different measures distilled into four composites
– TOTAL of 17 FEDERAL MEASURES
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
CA CWS Outcomes System
•
California Child Welfare System Improvement and Accountability Act (AB636)
became law in 2001 and went into effect in January 2004—quarterly outcomes reports
at state and county level.
–Includes federal measures, has changed to reflect federal changes
–Provides additional measures needed to understand performance (e.g., % of
siblings placed together).
–We are working on additional measures of well-being.
• Mirrors Family to Family Outcomes
• Retains key process measures (e.g., child visits, time to investigation)
• Began with county self assessments and System Improvement Plans (SIPS) that
identified key challenges and strengths, updated periodically
• Peer Quality Case Reviews (PQCRs) are being conducted in each county to dig
deeper into specific issues
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
CFSR: Seven Outcomes
Safety
• Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect.
• Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and
appropriate.
Permanency
• Children have permanency and stability in their living arrangements.
• The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for
children.
Child and Family Well-Being
• Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children's needs.
• Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs.
• Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental
health needs.
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
CFSR: Seven Systemic Factors
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Statewide information system
Case review system
Quality assurance program
Staff and provider training
Service array
Agency responsiveness to the community
Foster and adoptive parent licensing, recruitment and
retention
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
National Standards
• National standards for both the safety indicators and permanency
composites are based on State performance in 2004, 75th percentile
• In California, we at CSSR attempt to replicate each of the measures
and composite scores, break them out by child welfare and probation
agencies, and report/update quarterly.
• Although national standards have been set for the composites rather
than individual measures…
– The goal is to improve State performance on all measures (every
improvement reflects a better outcome for children)
– Improvement on any given measure will result in an increase in the
overall composite score
– We post the 75th percentile performance for each
indicator/measure and call it the national goal
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
Indicator 1
Safety
Indicator 2
Composite 1
Component A
Component B
Measure
Measure
Measure
Measure
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
Composite 2
Component A
Component B
Component C
Measure
Measure
Measure
Measure
Measure
Composite 3
Component A
Component B
Measure 1
Measure 2
Measure 3
Permanency
Composite 4
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
Measure 1
Measure 2
Measure 3
S1.1
Safety
S2.1
Composite 1:
Reunification
Composite 2:
Adoption
Permanency
C1.1
C1.2
C1.3
C1.4
C2.1
C2.2
C2.3
C2.4
C2.5
Composite 3:
Long-Term
C3.1
C3.2
C3.3
Composite 4:
Stability
C4.1
C4.2
C4.3
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
Measure Contributions to Composites
100%
80%
C1.4 (46%)
Reentry Following Reunification
(Exit Cohort)
C1.3 (11%)
Reunification Within 12 Months
(Entry Cohort)
C1.2 (21%)
Median Time To Reunification
(Exit Cohort)
C1.1 (22%)
Reunification Within 12 Months
(Exit Cohort)
60%
40%
20%
0%
Composite 1
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
Measure Contributions to Composites
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
C2.5 (26%)
Adoption Within 12 Months
(Legally Free)
C2.4 (18%)
Legally Free Within 6 Months
(17 Months In Care)
C2.3 (22%)
Adoption Within 12 Months
(17 Months In Care)
C2.2 (19%)
Median Time To Adoption
(Exit Cohort)
C2.1 (15%)
Adoption Within 24 Months
(Exit Cohort)
0%
Composite 2
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
Measure Contributions to Composites
100%
80%
In Care 3 Years Or Longer
(Emancipated/Age 18)
C3.3 (42%)
Exits to Permanency
(Legally Free At Exit)
C3.2 (25%)
Exits to Permanency
(24 Months In Care)
C3.1 (33%)
60%
40%
20%
0%
Composite 3
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
Measure Contributions to Composites
100%
80%
Placement Stability
(At Least 24 Months In Care)
C4.3 (33%)
Placement Stability
(12 To 24 Months In Care)
C4.2 (34%)
Placement Stability
(8 Days To 12 Months In Care)
C4.1 (33%)
60%
40%
20%
0%
Composite 4
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
Measure Contributions to Composites
100%
80%
C2.5 (26%)
C3.3 (42%)
C1.4 (46%)
C4.3 (33%)
C2.4 (18%)
60%
C1.3 (11%)
40%
C2.3 (22%)
C3.2 (25%)
C4.2 (34%)
C1.2 (21%)
C2.2 (19%)
20%
C1.1 (22%)
C3.1 (33%)
C4.1 (33%)
Composite 3
Composite 4
C2.1 (15%)
0%
Composite 1
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
Composite 2
Percent Change
Time Period 1
Time Period 2
10%
12%
% %
% %
% %
% %
% %
 12%  
% Change  
  1  100
 10%  
% %
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
 20%
% %
% %
% % %
% % %
January 2004-October 2008
California CWS Outcomes System:
AB636 Measures, % IMPROVEMENT
(+) or (–) indicates direction of desired change
PR: Referral Rate (-)
PR: Substantiation Rate (-)
PR: Entry Rate (-)
PR: In Care Rate (-)
2B: Timely Response (1 day) (+)
2B: Timely Response (10 day) (+)
2.8%
10.6%
3.0%
15.8%
2.4%
8.4%
2C: Timely Social Worker Visits (+)
20.0%
4A: Siblings (All) (+)
19.8%
4A: Siblings (Some or All) (+)
7.0%
4B: Entries First Placement (Relative) (+)
4B: Entries First Placement (Group/Shelter) (-)
4B: PIT Placement (Relative) (+)
4B: PIT Placement (Group/Shelter) (-)
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
Decline in Performance
8.3%
9.8%
28.0%
25.0%
Improvement in Performance
January 2004-October 2008
California CWS Outcomes System:
Federal Measures, % IMPROVEMENT
(+) or (–) indicates direction of desired change
S1.1: No Recurrence of M altreatment (+)
S2.1: No M altreatment in Foster Care (+)
**REUNIFICATION COM POSITE
C1.1: Reunification w/in 12m (Exit Cohort)
C1.2: M edian Time to Reunification
C1.3: Reunification w/in 12m (Entry Cohort)
C1.4: Reentry Following Reunification
(+)
(+)
(-)
(+)
(-)
**ADOPTION COM POSITE
C2.1: Adoption w/in 24m
C2.2: M edian Time to Adoption
C2.3: Adoption w/in 12m (17m In Care)
C2.4: Legally Free w/in 6m (17m In Care)
C2.5: Adoption w/in 12m (Legally Free)
(+)
(+)
(-)
(+)
(+)
(+)
**LONG TERM CARE COM POSITE
C3.1: Exits to Permanency (24m In Care)
C3.2: Exits to Permanency (Legally Free)
C3.3: In Care 3+ Yrs (Emancipated/Age 18)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(-)
**PLACEM ENT STABILITY COM POSITE
C4.1: Placement Stability (8d-12m In Care)
C4.2: Placement Stability (12-24m In Care)
C4.3: Placement Stability (24m+ In Care)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
2.9%
-0.4%
6.9%
11.3%
14.0%
8.8%
-5.4%
34.1%
26.7%
16.5%
33.2%
10.5%
3.3%
5.8%
-1.2%
-15.1%
6.9%
1.5%
3.7%
7.4%
Decline in Performance
Improvement in Performance
68.5%
October 2008
California CWS Outcomes System:
Performance Relative to Federal Standard/Goal
Federal Standard/Goal
S1.1: No Recurrence of M altreatment
S2.1: No M altreatment in Foster Care
100%
**REUNIFICATION COM POSITE
C1.1: Reunification w/in 12m (Exit Cohort)
C1.2: M edian Time to Reunification
C1.3: Reunification w/in 12m (Entry Cohort)
C1.4: Reentry Following Reunification
**ADOPTION COM POSITE
C2.1: Adoption w/in 24m
C2.2: M edian Time to Adoption
C2.3: Adoption w/in 12m (17m In Care)
C2.4: Legally Free w/in 6m (17m In Care)
C2.5: Adoption w/in 12m (Legally Free)
**LONG TERM CARE COM POSITE
C3.1: Exits to Permanency (24m In Care)
C3.2: Exits to Permanency (Legally Free)
C3.3: In Care 3+ Yrs (Emancipated/Age 18)
**PLACEM ENT STABILITY COM POSITE
C4.1: Placement Stability (8d-12m In Care)
C4.2: Placement Stability (12-24m In Care)
C4.3: Placement Stability (24m+ In Care)
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
100%
2002 to 2008
California:
C4.1,2,3: Placement Stability
Stability (8d to 24m)
Stability (12m to 24m)
Stability (24m+)
# Children (8d to 24m)
# Children (12m to 24m)
# Children (24m+)
60,000
Count
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
2002
2003
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2007
California:
Ethnicity and Path through the Child Welfare System
(Missing Values & Other Race Excluded from % Calculations, <18 years of Age)
100%
10.3
0.5
80%
60%
50.4
Native
American
Asian/PI
Hispanic
40%
20%
0%
32.7
6.2
Population
(10,007,501)
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
White
Black
2007
California:
Ethnicity and Path through the Child Welfare System
(Missing Values & Other Race Excluded from % Calculations, <18 years of Age)
100%
10.3
0.5
3.9
Native
American
80%
60%
50.4
0.8
51.8
Asian/PI
Hispanic
40%
20%
0%
28.6
White
14.9
Black
32.7
6.2
Population
Referrals
(10,007,501)
(492,810)
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
2007
California:
Ethnicity and Path through the Child Welfare System
(Missing Values & Other Race Excluded from % Calculations, <18 years of Age)
100%
10.3
0.5
3.9
0.8
4.1
Native
American
80%
60%
50.4
1.2
51.8
52.8
Asian/PI
Hispanic
40%
20%
0%
28.6
27.3
White
14.9
14.6
Black
Population
Referrals
Substantiations
(10,007,501)
(492,810)
(107,372)
32.7
6.2
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
2007
California:
Ethnicity and Path through the Child Welfare System
(Missing Values & Other Race Excluded from % Calculations, <18 years of Age)
100%
10.3
0.5
3.9
0.8
4.1
1.2
3.5
Native
American
80%
60%
50.4
1.6
51.8
52.8
50.1
Asian/PI
Hispanic
40%
20%
0%
26.2
28.6
27.3
14.9
14.6
Population
Referrals
Substantiations
Entries
(10,007,501)
(492,810)
(107,372)
(36,011)
32.7
6.2
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
18.6
White
Black
2007
California:
Ethnicity and Path through the Child Welfare System
(Missing Values & Other Race Excluded from % Calculations, <18 years of Age)
100%
10.3
0.5
3.9
0.8
4.1
1.2
3.5
60%
2.4
1.4
Native
American
80%
50.4
1.6
51.8
52.8
50.1
44.6
Asian/PI
Hispanic
40%
25.3
28.6
20%
0%
32.7
27.3
26.2
18.6
White
26.3
14.9
14.6
Population
Referrals
Substantiations
Entries
In Care
(10,007,501)
(492,810)
(107,372)
(36,011)
(72,199)
6.2
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
Black
2007
California:
Ethnicity and Path through the Child Welfare System
(Missing Values & Other Race Excluded from % Calculations, <18 years of Age)
100%
10.3
0.5
3.9
0.8
4.1
1.2
3.5
60%
2.4
1.4
3.0
1.4
Native
American
80%
50.4
1.6
51.8
52.8
50.1
44.6
49.7
Asian/PI
Hispanic
40%
25.3
28.6
20%
0%
32.7
27.3
27.3
26.2
18.6
26.3
18.6
14.9
14.6
Population
Allegations
Substantiations
Entries
In Care
Exits
(10,007,501)
(492,810)
(107,372)
(36,011)
(72,199)
(32,541)
6.2
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
White
Black
2007
California:
Referrals per 1,000
by Age and Ethnicity
170
129
122
121
102
66
81
52
50
54
49
47
43
41
(113.0*)
*Series Total
ALL
(49.2*)
39
42
52
40
49
47
46
34
Black
60
41
15
White
(41.1*)
Hispanic
(48.4*)
Asian/PI
(17.8*)
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
17
<1 yr
1-2 yrs
3-5 yrs
6-10 yrs
11-15 yrs
16-17 yrs
20
18
19
15
2007
California:
Substantiated Referrals per 1,000
by Age and Ethnicity
71
33
30
25
23
25
20
11
13
9
11
11
10
9
7
(25.4*)
*Series Total
ALL
(10.7*)
11
7
12
13
7
4
3
Hispanic
(11.3*)
Asian/PI
(4.3*)
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
4
<1 yr
1-2
yrs
5
3-5 yrs
6-10 yrs
11-15 yrs
16-17 yrs
5
White
(9.0*)
7
9
5
Black
24
13
2007
California:
Entries to Foster Care per 1,000
by Age and Ethnicity
40
15
13
13
9
12
9
5
6
2
Black
(11.1*)
*Series Total
3
3
4
4
5
3
2
3
3
1
White
(3.0*)
1
Hispanic
(3.7*)
Asian/PI
(1.3*)
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
1
<1 yr
1-2 yrs
1
3-5 yrs
6-10 yrs
11-15 yrs
16-17 yrs
1
2
ALL
3
4
2
2
(3.6*)
12
2007
California:
Children in Foster Care per 1,000
by Age and Ethnicity
42
31
36
26
26
25
8
8
9
8
6
7
6
(31.7*)
*Series Total
6
(7.2*)
6
2
<1 yr
1-2 yrs
1
3-5 yrs
6-10 yrs
11-15 yrs
16-17 yrs
2
2
Hispanic
(6.6*)
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
2
6
White
(5.8*)
8
7
5
7
ALL
9
5
7
Black
7
Asian/PI
(1.7*)
2
2007
California:
Exits from Foster Care per 1,000 (In Care Population)
by Age and Ethnicity
776
719
723
684
504
660
737
447
718
534
679
656
545
427
559
507
367
375
375
321
275
247
(577.5*)
*Series Total
Hispanic
(502.2*)
416
345
292
Asian/PI
574
470
544
220
164
White
(485.7*)
ALL
(452.4*)
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
Black
(319.3*)
<1 yr
1-2 yrs
3-5 yrs
6-10 yrs
11-15 yrs
16-17 yrs
2007
California:
Referrals, Substantiated Referrals, Entries, & In Care Rates
per 1,000 by Age and Ethnicity
Black Children
White Children
Hispanic Children
Asian/PI Children
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
2007
California:
Racial Disparity Indices
(group compared to White)
2.75
2.83
3.73
Black
0.66
1.93
Native American
2.83
4.11
3.75
0.90
Asian/PI
0.29
0.43
0.48
0.42
Underrepresented
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
Allegations
Substantiated
1.18
1.26
1.24
1.14
1.03
Hispanic
5.46
Entries
In Care
Exits
1.19
1.00
Overrepresented
1998 to 2007
California:
Children Entering Care by Race/Ethnicity
25,000
39,644
TOTAL Entries
Entry Frequency
20,000
15,000
10,000
36,011
Hispanic
White
Black
5,000
Asian/PI
Native American
0
1998
1999
2000
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
2001
2002
2003
Entry Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
1998 to 2008
California:
Foster Care Caseload by Race/Ethnicity
60,000
104,325
Placement Frequency
50,000
40,000
30,000
TOTAL Caseload
Black
Hispanic
70,423
White
20,000
10,000
0
Asian/PI
Native American
1998
1999
2000
2001
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
2002
2003
2004
Point in Time
2005
2006
2007
2008
2000 July-December First Entries
California:
Percent Exited to Permanency 84 Months From Entry
N=11,831
100%
90%
80%
57
70%
87%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20
20%
10
10%
0%
3
In Care
6
12
Other
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
24
Emancipated
36
48
Guardianship
60
72
Adopted
84
Reunified
2000 July-December First Entries
California:
Percent Exited to Permanency 84 Months From Entry
White (n=3,830)
Black (n=2,430)
100%
80%
50
60
60%
81%
90%
20
40%
21
20%
11
9
0%
3
6
In Care
12
24
36
Other
48
60
72
84
Emancipated
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
3
6
12
Guardianship
24
36
48
Adopted
60
72
84
Reunified
2000 July-December First Entries
California:
Percent Exited to Permanency 84 Months From Entry
by Relative vs. Non-Relative Placement
White Relative Placements (n=1,417)
Black Relative Children Placements (n=989)
44
57
=94%
20
19
23
18
12
24
36
48
60
72
84
12
White Non-Relative Placements (n=2,413)
24
36
48
60
72
54
=77%
=85%
20
3
21
3
24
36
48
60
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
In Care
Other
72
Emancipated
84
Black Non-Relative Placements (n=1,441)
61
12
=87%
84
12
Guardianship
24
36
Adopted
48
60
Reunified
72
84
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
Using the UCB/CDSS Website
 Quarterly reports, including dynamic compare feature
 New Composite Planner (coming soon!)
 Ability to examine breakouts (age, race, gender, etc.) and performance over
time
 Additional reports above and beyond CA Child Welfare Outcomes System
and CFSR
(enhanced recurrence and entry cohort tables, entry cohort stability table)
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
Using the UCB/CDSS Website
 Child Welfare Course Curriculum?
Student Research?
Faculty Research?
Field Work Preparation?
IVE Placement Preparation?
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley
Barbara Needell
[email protected]
510-290-6334
CSSR.BERKELEY.EDU/UCB_CHILDWELFARE
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman, K.,
Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Winn, A., Lou, C., & Peng, C. (2008). Child Welfare
Services Reports for California. Retrieved [month day, year], from University of California at Berkeley Center for Social
Services Research website. URL: <http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare>
Presentation Developed by
Emily Putnam-Hornstein and Christine Wei-Mien Lou
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH
School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley