1 - American Bar Association

Report
CQI in Idaho
August 20, 2013
Presenters:
Debra Alsaker-Burke, Statewide Child Protection Manager, Idaho
Supreme Court
Sarah Siron, Mgmt. Analyst, Sr. for Child Welfare, Department of
Health and Welfare
Dr. Gene Flango, National Center for State Courts
Lisa Portune, National Center for State Courts
Di Graski, NRCCWDT
Serendipity:
The occurrence and development
of events by chance in a happy or
beneficial way.
2
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.
3
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
4
2012 Child Welfare Data
•
1,289 Children in Foster Care
•
562 Families Served In-Home
•
739 Child Protection cases filed in FY12
•
274 Adoptions
5
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 webbased 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.
6
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
7
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
8
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)
9
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
10
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)
11
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.
12
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.
13
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.
14
Courts and Child Welfare Joint Measures
•
Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) Measures:
•
% of ICWA compliant placements.
15
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
16
Process Map
17
Data Elements
Data Element
Performance
Measure(s)
Child Identifier
1B, 2E, 5A, 5B,
5C, 5F
Child's date of
birth
3E, 5A, 5B, 5C,
5F, 6O
When Known to
Juv Ct?
Which System?
ICARE (from
Medicaid)
Family
Information
Sheet; Petition
LE Notice of
Removal;
Affidavit in
Support of Order
of Removal;
Order of
Removal
Date of Removal All
Court Case
Number
All
Case Creation
Time to
Adjudication for
Date Petition
Protective
Filed
Supervision
Case Creation
Date Case
Closed
All except 3D, 4B
Reason for Case
By Whom?
DHW - FACS
Could be LE,
could be DHW
Often, Law
Enforcement
ISTARS
Court Clerk
ISTARS
Court Clerk
Example, Notes
Match records over time and across systems
(court, DHW, Education, mental health) especially critical for safety, reentry, and
education well being. Is it possible for DHW
to supply the Child ID on the Family
Information Sheet that the Prosecutor files
with the court at case initiation (BPM 1A and
1B)?
Validate child's identity; determine whether
to include child in age-dependent
performance measures
Start date for timeliness measures; some
performance measures are only relevant to
cases involving children and youth in out-ofhome care
Court's ability to link family members,
siblings
"Start" date of timeliness measures for cases
without removal date
Define cases to be included in calculation of
performance measure (most analyze closed
cases)
18
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
19
State Department of Education
How Will Data be Shared?
•
Juvenile Information Sharing Project
•
Global Reference Architecture
20
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)
21
Questions?
Debra Alsaker-Burke
[email protected]
Sarah Siron
[email protected]

similar documents