260 likes | 271 Views
This presentation provides an overview of using data for system improvement in probation agencies. It covers key concepts, longitudinal administrative data analysis, performance indicators, and measures of central tendency. The presentation also includes examples of computing rates and percentages, as well as the importance of disaggregation in data analysis. The data presented is from the California Department of Social Services and the Stuart Foundation.
E N D
Applying Data for System Improvement: Probation Agency Staff Daniel Webster, MSW PhD Center for Social Services ResearchUniversity of California, Berkeley UC Davis Resource Center for Family-Focused Practice Project Code 123FAM260 Sacramento, CA January 2013 The Performance Indicators Project at CSSR is supported by the California Department of Social Services and the Stuart Foundation Slides in this presentation from: Emily Putnam-Hornstein, PhD Data 101: Numbers, Graphs and More Numbers http://cssr.berkeley.edu/cwscmsreports/presentations/
Key Concepts: Longitudinal Administrative Data Analysis
The Current Placement System*(Highly Simplified) A bunch of stuff happens Child In Child Out *adapted from Lyle, G. L., & Barker, M.A. (1998) Patterns & Spells: New approaches to conceptualizing children’s out of home placement experiences. Chicago: American Evaluation Association Annual Conference
3 Key Data Samples Data
How long do children stay in foster care? January 1, 2012 July 1, 2012 January 1, 2013 Child 1 Child 2 Child 3 Child 4 Child 5 Child 6 Child 7 Child 8 Child 9 Child 10
The Cycle of Experiences Rate of Referrals/ Substantiated Referrals Home-Based Services vs. Out-of-Home Care Reentry to Care Permanency Through Reunification, Adoption, or Guardianship Counterbalanced Indicators of System Performance Use of Least Restrictive Form of Care Shorter Lengths Of Stay Maintain Positive Attachments To Family, Friends, and Neighbors Stability Of Care Source:Usher, C.L., Wildfire, J.B., Gogan, H.C. & Brown, E.L. (2002). Measuring Outcomes in Child Welfare. Chapel Hill: Jordan Institute for Families,
Tracking an Entry Cohort for 1 Year 2011 2012 Dec. 31 Dec. 31 Jul. 7 Jul. 7 Mar. 1 Mar. 1 Jan. 1 Dec. 31 Jan. 1 Dec. 31
What the !#@* is a Rolling Year ? 2010 2011 2012 2013 ENTRY COHORT ENTRY COHORT April 1, 2011-March 31, 2012 Oct. 1, 2010 – Sept. 30, 2011 Jan. 1, 2011 – Dec. 31, 2011 Jan. 1 Dec. 31 Jan. 1 Dec. 31 Jan. 1 Dec. 31 Jan. 1 Dec. 31 Last day of data prior to cut-off Sept. 30, 2012 Last day of data prior to cut-off Dec. 31, 2012 Last day of data prior to cut-off March 31, 2013
POP QUIZ !! O M G !!!
Measures of Central Tendency Mean: the average value for a range of data Median: the value of the middle item when the data are arranged from smallest to largest Mode: the value that occurs most frequently within the data 12 4 15 63 7 9 4 17 4 4 7 9 12 15 17 63 = 9.7 7 = 9
Computing a Percent Answers.com Dictionary: Rate • A measure of a part with respect to a whole; a proportion: the mortality rate; a foster care entry rate. What Percentage of Children who were reunified in 2011 went home within 12 months of entering care? Raw Numbers (counts) # Reunified w/in 12m = 290 # Reunified (total) = 440
Computing a Rate per 1,000 Answers.com Dictionary: Rate • A measure of a part with respect to a whole; a proportion: the mortality rate; a foster care entry rate. What was the foster care entry rate in 2011? (i.e., how many children entered care out of all possible children?) Raw Numbers (counts) # Entered Care = 1,333 Scales for a meaningful interpretation… # Child Population = 363,376
Percent Change Time Period 1 Time Period 2 10 children 11 children
10% 12% Percent Change Time Period 1 Time Period 2 % %
Exercise: Percent Change Calculation 50.7 48.3 -4.7% 12.0 10.8 -10% Baseline Referral Rate (time period 1): Percent Change: Comparison Referral Rate (time period 2): Minor Differences due to Rounding…
Disaggregation • One of the most powerful ways to work with data… • Disaggregation involves dismantling or separating out groups within a population to better understand the dynamics • Useful for identifying critical issues that were previously undetected Aggregate Permanency Outcomes Race/Ethnicity County Age Placement Type
2000 July-December First EntriesCalifornia (Child Welfare)Percent Exited to Permanency 72 Months From Entry 85%
2000 First EntriesCalifornia (Child Welfare)Percent Exited to Permanency 72 Months From Entry 79% 88%
2000 First EntriesCalifornia (Child Welfare)Percent Exited to Permanency 72 Months From Entry by Relative vs. Non-Relative Placement =84% =94% =84% =75%
S1.1 Safety S2.1 C1.1 C1.2 C1.3 C1.4 Composite 1: Reunification C2.1 C2.2 C2.3 C2.4 C2.5 Composite 2: Adoption Permanency Composite 3: Long-Term C3.1 C3.2 C3.3 Composite 4: Placement C4.1 C4.2 C4.3
CSSR.BERKELEY.EDU/UCB_CHILDWELFARE Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Williams, D., Yee, H., Hightower, L., Lou, C., Peng, C., King, B.,& Henry, C. (2013). Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved 1/25/2013, from University of California at Berkeley Center for Social Services Research website. URL: <http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare>