1 / 20

Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts Child Protection Data Courts Project Using Data to Continuously Improve Ill

Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts Child Protection Data Courts Project Using Data to Continuously Improve Illinois Courts. Why Did Illinois Choose To Collect The Toolkit Measures?. Did not have the ability to know how our systems were doing

zlhna
Download Presentation

Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts Child Protection Data Courts Project Using Data to Continuously Improve Ill

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. Administrative Office of the Illinois CourtsChild Protection Data Courts ProjectUsing Data to Continuously Improve Illinois Courts

  2. Why Did Illinois Choose To Collect The Toolkit Measures? • Did not have the ability to know how our systems were doing • Can't improve system and target improvement without data • Check and balance with agency data • Need a deeper understanding of why the delays in time to permanent placement (CFSR findings) • Identify good practice with replication possibilities • Toolkit measures provide a starting point and roadmap

  3. Can't Wait For Centralized CMS • Data needs assessment found limitations in the ability to collect data • In Illinois, no centralized case management system • Local case management systems do not collect necessary data elements • Court Capacity to collect data • Chose not to rely on Child Welfare Agency Data • Agency court related data is limited and not reliable • Does not track many performance measures (such as judicial and attorney continuity, service, all hearing types) • Creation of the Child Protection Data Courts Project • Two prong approach

  4. "Simply Giving Someone a Data Report Is Not CQI" Building a foundation: • Getting everyone "on the same page" • Developing an understanding of the reports • Creating excitement • Alleviate fears • Stress data findings are important to all stakeholders- not as a result of one person or organization

  5. Data Sharing-CQI Process Stages of Grief Stages of Data Sharing "Every case is different, you can't collect performance measures in child protection cases" "I'm not going to change my practices to fit within timelines, etc. if it is not in the best interest of the child" "The data says this because…" "I'm really surprised-I thought we were doing better than this" "We are doing some things really well and we need to improve in some areas- where do we go from here?" • Denial • Anger • Bargaining • Depression • Acceptance

  6. Examples Of Type Of Data Reported • Court performance measures 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 3G, 3I, 3J, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 4G, 4H, 4I • Demographic information (e.g. gender, age and race/ethnicity of the child, petition allegation(s), number of intact cases, related cases, pro se parents, incarcerated parents and number of putative fathers) • ICWA, ICPC, parent in the military • Age of the cases • Frequency of petition allegations • Time to file service plan

  7. Examples Of Type Of Data Reported • Measure of workload and court delay • Percentage of specific hearings resulting in a continuance by continuance reason • Everyone's Favorite- County Comparisons

  8. Things Learned From The Data • Children aged 6-12 are more likely to be reunified than other ages and have the longest time to case closure • Children aged 13 and older are more likely not to achieve permanency than any other age cohort and have the shortest times to case closure • Cases with incarcerated parents had longer times to adjudication, first permanency hearing, TPR and case closure • Cases with fewer judges had shorter times to achieve adjudication, first permanency hearing, TPR and case closure • The more post-dispositional review hearings in a case, the shorter the time to overall case closure (permanent placement)

  9. Things Learned From The Data • Cases with fewer changes in the child's attorney had shorter times to adjudication, first permanency hearing, submission of service plan and case closure • Cases with a CASA had shorter times to adjudication, first permanency hearing and case closure • Cases with fewer changes in mother's attorney had shorter times to adjudication, first permanency hearing and case closure • Cases with fewer changes in father's attorney had shorter times to adjudication, first permanency hearing and case closure • Cases with fewer changes in state's attorney had shorter times to adjudication, first permanency hearing, TPR and case closure

  10. CQI For County "B" • What is the need and how was it identified? • What do you propose to do about it? • What changes do you hope to achieve? • What will you look to see if change is occurring- you are achieving the intended impact/results? • How will you use that data/information you collect/learn to create a feedback loop for ongoing improvement?

  11. Sample County Comparisons Average Days to Achieve Permanency Outcome

  12. County B

  13. SampleCounty B: Average Days to TPR

  14. What We Intend To Do In County B After Seeing Data • Develop, implement and evaluate a Pre-Trial Conference Model between the Shelter Care Hearing and Adjudication • Develop, implement and evaluate a Pre-Trial Conference Model prior to TPR Hearing • Implement and evaluate video visitation with incarcerated parents • Expand CASA into County B

  15. County B Goals • Improve Timely Adjudications and TPRs (set trials/hearing earlier, identify discovery and service issues, etc.) • Improve Coordination with the Dept. of Corrections to ensure transport/appearance of parties • Improve understanding of expectations for Hearings • Improve Timely Sharing of Information Needed for TPR (service, caseworker reports and procedures, etc.)

  16. How We Will Know If We Are Making a Difference In County B • Comparison of data pre and post intervention • Time to adjudication • Time to TPR • Time from TPR petition filing to TPR hearing • Number of continuances: adjudication and TPR hearings • Timeliness measures for incarcerated parents • Timeliness measures for children with a CASA • Qualitative feedback from stakeholders

  17. How We Will Ensure CQI in County B Comparison data and feedback results alone are not CQI • Determine if interventions are "making a difference" • Adjust interventions as necessary based on results

  18. Using Data To Identify Illinois CIP Priorities • Using significance findings from the CPDC Project to support best practice guidelines and inform CIP initiatives • Judicial training on TPR • Judicial training on Permanency Hearings • Training on front-loading • Encouraging attorney and judicial continuity through establishing attorney and judicial networks, training and grant funding opportunities

  19. We Have Learned… • The C's- Collaboration, Coordination, Communication and Cooperation are important! • Can't use data in a vacuum- all system players need to be at the table • Don't start with you hardest or most troubled county • Even basic information can be "eye-opening" • Time consuming, slow process- but worth every minute

  20. For more information… Contact: Kristie Osborn Data Program Specialist 217-557-7246 kosborn@court.state.il.us

More Related