Vol.
9, No. 4
July 2004
The
CFSR, Outcome Data, and You
In child welfare change
and the power to influence things often flows from above: congress makes
laws, laws affect federal policy and funding, which affect the States,
which affect counties, right on down to you.
Sometimes this top-down
flow is so dominant we forget that influence also goes the other way:
what we do has an impact not only on our corner of the world but on the
child welfare system at the state and national levels.
As the following look
at the federal Child and Family Services Review illustrates, this is especially
true when it comes to the power and influence frontline workers and supervisors
have as generators of data.
The
CFSR
In response to the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act, the federal government
created the Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) to help it evaluate
child welfare in all 50 States. Much of the CFSR looks at outcomes data
and other sources to assess each States ability to achieve safety,
well-being, and permanency for children.
Since it began in 2001,
no State has passed the CFSR. In fact, 16 Statesincluding
oursfailed to meet all seven outcomes measured by the CFSRs
review of case records (GAO, 2004). (Note: NC did pass every one of
the state-level systemic factors assessed by the CFSR.)
Program
Improvement
States whose data do not meet the national standard in the CFSR are put
on what is essentially a probationary status and required to develop a
Program Improvement Plan (PIP) to address their shortcomings. The
PIP allows the State to identify issues that contribute to nonconformity
and plan steps to improve its performance on the data indicators in question.
North Carolina created its
PIP in August 2001. As part of this plan, it agreed to meet certain federal
outcome benchmarks by a certain time, or face financial sanctions. Since
then the NC Division of Social Services has made significant changes to
child welfare policy and procedure in an effort to comply with our PIP.
Changes that have directly affected county DSSs include:
- Multiple Response System
(MRS), an effort to make our child welfare system more consistent, effective,
and family-centered.
- Structured Decision-Making
Tools. In April 2002 all county child welfare agencies began using
a set of research-based assessment tools that enhanced their ability
to evaluate child safety and to consistently assess families using a
strengths-based approach.
- Structured Intake.
In April 2003 a mandatory tool was introduced to make screening of reports
of child maltreatment more consistent across the state.
- County-Level CFSRs.
After the federal CFSR, the Division changed the way it reviews child
welfare in North Carolinas 100 counties. It changed the name and
the characteristics of what was once known as the biennial review
process to reflect the emphases of the CFSR and our States
PIP. Now, just like the State, counties found to be out of compliance
on the NC-CFSR must create their own PIP.
- Data Support. The
Division is providing support to county DSSs that do not meet
federal and state benchmarks to help them address coding errors and
problems with data entry.
Where
We Stand Today
When it created its PIP, North Carolina agreed to meet certain benchmarks
in the statewide data indicators over the course of its PIP. The following
figures reflect North Carolinas performance as of September 30,
2003 with respect to a national set of child welfare outcomes:
1.1Recurrence
of maltreatment
NCs PIP Benchmark:
7.1%.
NCs Current Performance: 9.0%
Status: Needs Improvement
2.1Incidence
of child abuse and/or neglect in foster care
NCs PIP Benchmark:
0.69%.
NCs Current Performance: 0.95%
Status: Needs Improvement
4.1Length of
time to achieve reunification
NCs PIP Benchmark:
60%.
NCs Current Performance: 60.2%
Status: Substantially Achieved
4.2Foster care
re-entries
NCs PIP Benchmark:
8.6%.
NCs Current Performance: 1.2%
Status: Substantially Achieved
5.1Length of
time to achieve adoption
NCs PIP Benchmark:
28.9%.
NCs Current Performance: 32%
Status: Substantially Achieved
6.1Stable foster
care placements
NCs PIP Benchmark:
63.2%.
NCs Current Performance: 58%
Status: Needs Improvement
Your
Role is Vital
North Carolinas ability to get out of program improvement depends
not only on its ability to correct the shortcomings identified in the
federal review, but on its ability to document progress in these areas
using valid outcomes data.
Thats where you
come in. As frontline workers, supervisors, and data entry people, you
are the ones who enter information into the county and State data systems.
This information ultimately becomes part of AFCARS (Adoption and Foster
Care Analysis and Reporting System), NCANDS (National Child Abuse and
Neglect Data System), and other national datasets used to determine whether
a State will emerge from program improvement or face financial sanctions.
The data you generate is also used to guide other important funding and
policy decisions.
The implications of this
for practice are clear. Though the documentation connected to your work
with families may sometimes seem like an unwanted and even pointless obligation,
it actually gives you significant power in our child welfare system.
Thus, if you are ever
filling out documentation and find yourself tempted to guess about the
childs grade in school or to skip a field altogether, think twice.
Though they might not be felt for some time, the consequences of fudging
paperwork could negatively affect decisions about law, policyand
fundingthat could have a major impact on you, your agency, and the
families you serve.
Your
Part Matters
|
Providing complete, accurate, and timely case documentation:
- Helps capture family
progress
- Ensures key data
is available when caseworkers or supervisors change, become
ill, or there is an emergency
- Provides documentation
for court
- Verifies activities
for which county DSSs can claim reimbursement
- Enables agencies
to demonstrate their effectiveness to State and federal agencies,
county and community representatives, and other stakeholders
Source:
NCDSS, 2002; Muskie, 2001
|
References
for this and other articles in this issue
|