USE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DATA TO IMPROVE SERVICE OUTCOMES ISPCAN Working Group on Child Maltreatment Data Collection Calgary, 2016 Jill K. Stoddart, MSW, RSW, PhD (c)
[email protected]
Benefits of Measuring Outcomes • Aligns organizational practices with public expectations. • Creates motivation for continuous improvement. • Enables organizations to promote and sustain values
regarding the provision of excellence in service delivery. • Improves communications for internal and external stakeholders. • Provides tangible, documented evidence for those accountable for the organization’s actions.
Administrative Data Integrity and Utilization • Data from the case management system is pulled
daily using Business Intelligence software for data quality and other reports to discover discrepancies and omissions within case data. • Monthly case load lists and other lists are generated from the case
management system for staff to check for accuracy. The Human Resources, Finance, Innovation and Research areas work closely together to identify data errors and follow up with the worker, supervisor or senior manager to correct them quickly.
Administrative Data Integrity and Utilization • Regular reports are generated from administrative data
which are used by staff and the Leadership team for all decision-making processes within the agency. • Administrative data is used to examine service outcomes
for all internal research and evaluation projects
Importance of Research Utilization in Child Welfare • Promotes best practice • Links to policy initiatives • Creates organizational change
• Consumers of knowledge become more invested in
challenging practice and seeking change • Research grants and new initiatives help us learn to better meet the needs of children and families
8
Family Finding: Comparison study of two implementation methods
9
Introduction Goal #1 – Permanency for Children • Family Finding is an EIP model which seeks to build or maintain the Lifetime Family Support network for youth who are disconnected or at risk of disconnection through placement outside of their home and community. Goal #2 – Strengthen Child and Family Support Networks • Having a social support network is known to help parents with their childrearing, make it more likely for parents to seek help for issues such as mental health and substance use and can improve overall physical and emotional wellbeing (Anooshian, 2005; Lyons, Henly, & Schuerman, 2005; Kotch et al, 1997).
Family and Children’s Services of Waterloo(FACSW) and the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa(CASOTT) partnered to do a comparison study of integrated (FACSW) and delegated (CASOTT) implementation methods. Agencies are statistical neighbors allowing for comparison between agencies. Integrated method = 2 Connection Facilitators coached and mentored all staff on the family finding tools. The agency’s goal was to integrate Family Finding as part of casework from point of first referral to permanency. Delegated method = A specific set of 7 workers were delegated as the “Family Finding team” to see referrals through on in-care children till permanency was found.
11
STUDY METHODOLOGY The goal of the research project was to compare two implementation methods of Family Finding (Delegated and Integrated) over the course of eighteen months (Oct 1st, 2013 to February 28th, 2015).
•Multiple Data Elements • Administrative Outcome Data • Qualitative Interviews with Families • Staff Attitudes Survey Data (pre and post) • Cost Benefit analysis
12
Administrative Data: Sample Size
FACSW: Integrated Method (2 Connection Facilitators)
CASOTT: Delegated Method (Team of 7 workers + supervisor )
• N = 120 Families • N = 230 Children
• N = 141 Families • N = 198 Children
13
PLACEMENT AT TIME OF REFERRAL •For families located within the FACSW region, children’s placement at time of referral was typically in the home or in care of the agency. In contrast, families located within the CASOTT region, children’s placement at time of family finding referral was typically when children were in care of the agency.
FACSW
CASOTT
Home
108(47%)
16 (8%)
In Care
89 (39%)
171 (86.4%)
Kin Home
33 (14%)
10 (5%)
Other
--
1 (.5%)
14
Administrative Data Outcomes FACSW – Integrated Method
CASOTT – Delegated Method
• 219 days to permanence
• 375 days to permanence
• 47% (n=108) children still at
• 8% (n= 15) children still at home
home at time of FF referral (89% remained at home) • 25% (22/89) discharged from care into permanent placements • 66% (152/230) living in permanent family placements at conclusion of project • M=8 family members attending family meetings
at time of FF referral • 18% (31/171) children discharged from care into permanent placements • 27% (53/192) living in permanent family placements at conclusion of project • M=3 family members attending meetings
Cost Benefit Analysis Using Administrative Data - FACSWLOO Compare Group Note: children who were admitted to care during the same range of dates that the family finding children were (starts November 2013 to February 2015), who did not receive a family finding referral. Salary cost per day – OSW,CSW, Resource worker Days in Care – boarding rate costs
• FF children = 219 days to
permanency • Compare Group = 325 days to permanency
FF vs comparison group $142 x 106 = 15,052 per child x 22 children = $331,144 total savings
16
