1 / 22

Serendipity:

hadassah-nolan
Download Presentation

Serendipity:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CQI in IdahoAugust 20, 2013Presenters:Debra Alsaker-Burke, Statewide Child Protection Manager, Idaho Supreme CourtSarah Siron, Mgmt. Analyst, Sr. for Child Welfare, Department of Health and WelfareDr. Gene Flango, National Center for State CourtsLisa Portune, National Center for State CourtsDi Graski, NRCCWDT

  2. Serendipity: • The occurrence and development of events by chance in a happy or beneficial way.

  3. The Opportunity • 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.

  4. Judicial Districts and Child Welfare Regions • 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

  5. 2012 Child Welfare Data • 1,289 Children in Foster Care • 562 Families Served In-Home • 739 Child Protection cases filed in FY12 • 274 Adoptions

  6. 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.

  7. 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 Welfare

  8. First Step: How are we doing? • 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

  9. Time Standards • 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)

  10. 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

  11. 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)

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. Courts and Child Welfare Joint Measures • Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) Measures: • % of ICWA compliant placements.

  16. 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 made

  17. Process Map

  18. Data Elements

  19. 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

  20. How Will Data be Shared? • Juvenile Information Sharing Project • Global Reference Architecture

  21. 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)

  22. Questions?Debra Alsaker-Burkedburke@idcourts.netSarah Sironsirons@dhw.idaho.gov

More Related