County of __________
Welcome to our System
Improvement Planning Process!
 Facilitated by:
Introductions:
Please tell us your name and
why you are here today.
Agenda
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Welcome and Introductions
Overview of the Child Welfare Outcomes and
Accountability System
Overview of Child Abuse Prevention
Why are you here?
What is the process?
What is the anticipated outcome?
Questions and Answers
Next Steps
Vision for Children in California
Every child in California lives in a safe,
stable, permanent home, nurtured by
healthy families and strong
communities.
CWS Redesign: The Future of California’s Child Welfare Services. Final Report September 2003, page 3.
California – Child and Family Services Review
County Self-Assessment
Improved
OUTCOMES:
System
Improvement Plan
Safety
Permanency
Child Well Being
Family Well Being
Peer Quality Case
Review
Overview of Child Welfare Outcomes
and Accountability System
 Quarterly data reports
 Peer Quality Case Review (PQCR)
 County Self Assessment (CSA)
 System Improvement Plan (SIP)
Guiding Principles
 The entire community is responsible for child,
youth and family welfare.
 To be effective, the child welfare system must
embrace the entire continuum of prevention,
intervention and services.
 Engagement with consumers and the community
is vital to promoting safety, permanence and wellbeing.
Guiding Principles (continued)
 Arrange fiscal strategies so that services reflect
the needs of all children and families.
 Transforming the child welfare system is a process
that involves removing traditional barriers within
our system, and other systems.
California’s Outcomes and
Accountability System
 Includes 17 federal outcome measures and
several state measures addressing Safety,
Permanence & Stability, and Well-Being
 Strengthens the accountability system to
monitor and assess the quality of services
 Encourages continuous quality
improvement, interagency partnerships,
community involvement and public
reporting of program outcomes
 Provides technical assistance to counties
County Self-Assessment Changes
 Merges the California Outcomes and Accountability




System (COAS) with the Office of Child Abuse
Prevention (OCAP) 3-year planning process
Expands the number of partners
Streamlines duplicative processes
Increases partnerships and communications
Coordinates OCAP planning with the County System
Improvement Plan (SIP)
Overview of Prevention Funding
streams and prevention programs
 Child Abuse Prevention Intervention and
Treatment (CAPIT)
 Community Based Child Abuse Prevention
(CBCAP)
 Promoting Safe & Stable Families (PSSF)
PQCR Focus Area
 List your focus area here for Probation and Child
Welfare
County Self Assessment
 Describe your CSA process here.
System Improvement Plan
 Three year promise to the State to
improve outcomes in selected areas
 County is measured on 17 Federal
(Safety/Permanence) and 8 State (WellBeing) outcomes.
 County required only to select a portion
of the above outcomes (2-4 to be
addressed in the SIP)
System Improvement Plan –
3 components
 Narrative Section
 Part I - CWS/Probation
 Part II - CBCAP/CAPIT/PSSF
The SIP is approved by the BOS.
The SIP is sent to CDSS.
The SIP is a public document.
The C-CFSR is a transparent process for continuous quality improvement.
Why are you here?
We need your expertise to develop a plan to improve
outcomes for children, youth and families across the
entire continuum of prevention, intervention, agency
services and after care.
SIP Team Members
 Community partners
 Cross disciplinary subject matter experts
 Law enforcement
 Native American representatives
 Parents/Consumers
 Youth
 Child Abuse Prevention stakeholders
 County staff (CWS and Probation)
Membership
 Core Membership
 Subject Matter experts invited for specific
outcome discussions.
What is the process?
 List meeting schedule or process the county has
decided to use here.
Tasks
 Select 2-4 Outcomes
 For each Outcome select 1-4 Improvement Goals
 For each Improvement Goal select 2-4 Strategies
 Each Strategy has a Rationale, Milestones and
Timeframes
Choosing outcomes
 Counties will focus on three to four outcomes or
systemic factors.
 Priority will be given to Safety and Permanency,
followed by Well-Being and Systemic factors.
Choosing Improvement Goals
The Composite Planner is designed to assist counties
with outcome improvement planning for those
measures which involve a composite.
It allows for adjustments to be made to the previous
quarter’s numerators, denominators, and performance
percentages to establish new targets.
Visit the Center for Social Services research at
http://cssr.berkeley.edu for further information.
Choosing Strategies
 During the CSA process the outcomes were thoroughly
assessed.
 Outcomes in which the county is struggling were
reviewed in terms of




Data entry issues
Evidence Based Practice (what does the research tell us about
this outcome area in terms of successful practice?)
Existing programs that are targeted to improve the outcome
area
Other pertinent points
Choosing Strategies (continued)
 SIP Planning team needs to brain storm strategies
that can improve the outcomes
 Prioritize which strategies will have the most
impact (maximum 2-4 per each improvement
goal)
 When there is no current program in the county
to address the need, the use of a Logic Model will
assist the SIP planning team in developing a
method to clarify thinking about programs and
services.
Composite Planner Example
County PIP Baseline
(Q3 07)
Measure
Number
Most Recent (Q3 08)
Direction
Weight
Num.
Denom.
Perf.
Num.
Denom.
Perf.
C2
+
100%
--
--
98.5
--
--
101.9
C2.1
+
15%
2,460
7,564
32.5
2,237
7,631
29.3
C2.2
-
19%
--
7,564
29.6
--
7,631
30.4
C2.3
+
22%
5,320
32,810
16.2
5,593
30,483
18.3
C2.4
+
18%
1,461
25,101
5.8
1,537
22,796
6.7
C2.5
+
26%
4,277
7,925
54.0
4,385
7,644
57.4
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. (2009). Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved April 14, 2009 from University of
California at Berkeley Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
Adjustments
Compare To: National Standard
or Goal
Target (Q1 11)
PIP
Multip
lier
Std. /
Goal
N.A.
106.4
98.2
Num.
Denom.
Perf.
Num.
Denom.
Perf.
Baseli
ne
--
--
--
--
--
105.4
N.A.
2,237
7,631
29.3
36.6
80.1
--
7,631
30.4
27.3
89.8
5,593
30,483
18.3
22.7
80.8
2,052
20,516
10.0
10.9
91.7
4,385
7,644
57.4
53.7
106.8
--
20,516
10.0%
% Achieved
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. (2009). Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved April 14, 2009 from University of
California at Berkeley Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
Logic Model
 Step by step process to construct programs to meet
identified needs by defining key program
components such as
 Program vision
 Population served
 Population needs
 Associated services
 Required resources
 Related assumptions
 Measurement tools
Sample Logic Model
Program Name:
Young Parents Building
Strong Families
Program Vision:
Young parents in our county will use positive,
age-appropriate, disciplinary techniques with
their children.
Population Served:
Any youth under the age of 21 who have transitioned out of the child
welfare or probation system and are parenting in our county.
Population Needs to be Addressed by Services:
We serve youth under the age of 21 who have transitioned out of the child
welfare or probation system and are raising their children in our county.
The youth have specific needs regarding child development and parenting
practices related to their children.
Retrieved on March 30, 2009 from http://toolkit.childwelfare.gov/toolkit/
Outcomes
Indicators
Measurement
Services
Resources
Long term:
Participants
know how to
manage child
behavior in a
nurturing and
effective manner
(behavior
management,
discipline).
Participants
demonstrate
knowledge of
the importance
of noticing and
encouraging
their children's
positive
behaviors.
Keys to
Interactive
Parenting
Scale (KIPS)
Participants will
attend bi-monthly
parenting groups
and weekly one on
one mentoring
which includes
role-playing
followed by
feedback and
reinforcement.
Youth parenting
class facilitator,
youth mentors,
facilitator
training in use of
curriculum,
meeting space,
supplies and
equipment for
child enrichment activities,
child care,
transportation
for parents, food
for snacks.
Retrieved on March 30, 2009 from http://toolkit.childwelfare.gov/toolkit/
Logic Model
Visit the Child Welfare Information Gateway logic
model builder at
http://toolkit.childwelfare.gov/toolkit/home.do
- or http://www.freindsnrc.org/outcome/toolkit/evalplan
/logic
Strategy Rationale
 The Strategy Rationale explains why a particular
strategy was chosen and how this strategy will help
reach the improvement goal for a specific outcome.
 Logic models and research (literature reviews) can
help determine both the strategy and strategy
rationale.
Milestones
 Milestones are the steps that lead to he completion of
the strategy. They break the strategy into smaller, more
easily attainable intermediate goals. This can include
 Further data pulls
 Data clean ups
 Policy review
 Policy development
 Training
 Pilot implementation
 Evaluation
 System wide implementation
Time Frames
 Develop attainable and realistic time frames
 Remember to allow for staggered
implementation of new practices across all
strategies!
Today’s Meeting
 List what you are working on today
Thank you for your
participation!
Your presence will help
change the life of a family in
__________ County!