CMP Outcomes Workgroup February 28, 2011

1. CMP Outcomes WorkgroupFebruary 28, 2011

2. Goals for the day • Understand the rationale for the proposed process and outcome targets • Review the measurement plan and surface remaining issues • Reach consensus on measurement plan and indicators • Identify needs for dissemination and implementation of plan

3. Today’s agenda • Summarize goals and activities to date • Review core components from the legislation that guided development of measurement plan • Discuss proposed measurement plan • Discuss data collection processes • Process indicators • Outcome indicators • Plan next steps

4. Why we are doing this work • Make stronger statements about the Program’s efforts and successes • Improve the collection of outcome data • Be able to compare different local processes to similar outcomes • Help improve local CMP models through a review of successes and challenges • Support refinement of the incentive formula • Promote greater likelihood of ongoing support at the state level

5. Activities to date • Discussed ways to improve measurement processes • Identified CMP core components for measurement • Developed a measurement approach to implement across CMPs • Selected process and outcome indicators in child welfare and juvenile justice areas • Surfaced issues, challenges, solutions

6. Some key assumptions about measurement • It is possible to identify a set of common indicators across projects • Measuring common indicators is beneficial to local projects and on-going support • Data should be collected on those who receive CMP services… • …which also means that the data need to be collected at the client level • These indicators will represent only a part of local project efforts and impacts

7. Improving measurement: Alignment of interdependent relationships Population Program Model Outcomes

8. Population • Broadly stated in the legislation • Functional definition is embedded • Suggests that intended core target population of the CMP is children and families who are currently involved, or at risk for involvement, in multiple service agencies

9. Program Models • Two levels: IOG and ISST • IOG is described in legislation • Specified participating service agencies • Includes family advocacy organization • Focus is on establishing ISST • Developing shared processes • Collaborative processes can be measured

10. Program Models • ISST not fully described in legislation • Core elements are suggested by language • Family involvement in service planning • Development of a single plan that integrates services across multiple agencies • ISSTs represent a common model across CMPs and these ISST elements and processes could be uniformly measured

11. Outcomes • Legislation outlines key process outcome areas • Requires that CMPs assess improvements on child and family outcomes • Does not define specific outcomes but SSC outlined four domains

12. Outcomes • A set of common outcomes should be identified and measured with standard indicators across CMPs • Each CMP selects 3-4 indicators • Indicators should assess key CMP outcomes

13. Implications for measurement • Measures will focus on children and families referred to and served by ISSTs • A minimum set of defined process indicators will be uniformly measured across all CMPs • CMPs will select 3-4 CW and JJ indicators from a defined set • Education and health/mental health indicators will be defined next year

14. Data collection processes • Individual client-level database will be implemented for process indicators • Child welfare and juvenile justice outcomes will be collected state data systems, where possible • May require local data collection

15. Timeline • Meet today to finalize measurement plan and process and outcome indicators and plan • Present to SSC in March • In time for MOU planning with IOGs • Further refinement of outcome indicators • Build data system and conduct trainings by July 2011