Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
© FSG |
COLLECTIVE IMPACT FOR CHILD SAFETY & WELL-BEING IN ARIZONAARIZONA GRANTMAKERS FORUM | MARCH 7, 2017
2© FSG |
Today’s goals
• Review findings from the collective impact feasibility assessment report
• Assess current trends and opportunities in child safety
• Understand collective impact concepts
• Review progress to date on collective impact for child safety and wellbeing in Arizona
3© FSG |
Workshop agenda
11:30 – noon Welcome & Lunch
noon – 12:15 Feasibility assessment report
12:15 – 12:30 Trends in child safety
12:30 – 1:00 Collective impact overview
1:00 – 1:30 Moderated discussion / Q&A
4© FSG |
Feasibility Assessment ReportJANET GARCIA, CASEY FAMILY PROGRAMS
5© FSG |
Background and approach
• Engaged senior level executives and managers to inform the Feasibility Assessment
– Included interviews with 121 individuals from 77 organizations
– Included collaborative initiatives, governmental agencies, community organizations, foundations, and businesses
• Interviews focused on exploring:
– Critical issues facing Arizona’s vulnerable children and families at risk of entering the child welfare system
– Viable strategies for integrating safety, well-being and permanency
– Opportunities for cross-sector collaboration and potential for a collective impact approach
6© FSG |
Key findings of the feasibility assessment report
Sources: 1 Recent reports dated January 2016. Since then, numbers have decreased modestly. 2 Kids County Data Book for 2015 by Annie E. Casey Foundation and Children’s Action Alliance. 3 Department of Child Safety Independent Review by Chapin Hall at University of Chicago, 2015.
Arizona’s child welfare system was in crisis: overwhelmed and lacking capacity to provide appropriate services to insure positive outcomes for children
and families
19k children in care 12/2015
46thnational ranking in key indicators of child wellbeing 2
44%surge in maltreatment reports between 2010-2014 3
50%increase in time spent in out-of-home care 3
Arizona is placing proportionally more children into care than other states
7© FSG |
One Year later
Sources: 1 Recent reports dated February 2017. Since then, numbers have decreased modestly. 2 Kids County Data Book for 2016 by Annie E. Casey Foundation and Children’s Action Alliance. 3 Department of Child Safety data report
Arizona’s child welfare system has made positive progress in stabilizing the department and improving outcomes. Child well-being Arizona continues to
lag behind other states.
17k children in care 12/2016
45thnational ranking in key indicators of child wellbeing 2
3%decrease in maltreatment reports between 2015-2016 3
50%increase in time spent in out-of-home care 3
Arizona is placing proportionally more children into care than other states
8© FSG |
Critical issues facing vulnerable children and familiesat the
Arizona’s safety net for poor families is inadequate.
Department of Child Safety is developing new infrastructure while dealing with historically high numbers of children in care.
Lack of available services for parents (e.g., parent education, substance abuse treatment or mental health services)
Increase in foster homes has not matched increase of children in care.
Child well-being compromised. Neglect reports resulting from an inability to meet basic needs.
High turnover and high caseloads impact quality of service.
Adequate services are not available to prevent family crisis and disruption. Children spend months in foster care unnecessarily.
Rate of children placed in congregate care has increased. Placement often driven by demand & availability rather than child’s needs
IMPLICATIONSISSUES
9© FSG |
Viable strategies proposed by community leaders (1/2)
1Ensure children are maintained with family, or placed in the least restrictive, most family-like setting when this is not possible • Front end funding for child abuse prevention and neglect and adverting out of
home placements is essential
2Maximize and leverage federal, state and private funding to align with efforts to support safety and permanency• Continue to implement Arizona’s IV-E waiver proposal submitted by DCS in
2014• Support expansion of programs and services that mitigate poverty issues
3 Insure access to essential data on children and families at risk of entering the child welfare system to inform and guide policy
10© FSG |
Viable strategies proposed by community leaders (2/2)
4 Examine opportunities to leverage Medicaid (AHCCCS) benefits to improve care delivery
5 Increase emphasis and capacity for family finding and engagement services especially during the early stages of DCS involvement prior to placement
6 Expand resources and support for kinship placements
Child welfare structure should further best practices in child welfare, meet all requirements of federal and state law, and serve the best
interests of children and families
11© FSG |
Collaborative initiatives
• Arizona Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Consortium • Arizona Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence• Arizona Families F.I.R.S.T (Families in Recovery Succeeding Together (AFF)• Arizona Human Trafficking Council• Arizona Youth Opportunities Initiative – Fostering Advocates (FAAZ)• Juvenile Justice Improvement Project (Crossover Youth)• Foster-Ed• Arizona KIDS Count• Safe Reduction Work Group• Healthy Families Arizona• Arizona Friends of Foster Children Foundation (AFFCF)• Family Housing HUB• Read On Arizona• Strong Families Arizona• Thriving Together
12© FSG |
Key findings related to Arizona’s readiness for a Collective Impact approach
Community leaders agree on a framework where responsibility for child safety, permanency and well-being extends beyond DCS
A collective impact approach may be viable because of the scope, urgency and complexity of issues facing the child welfare system
Interviewees were intensely interested and willing to participate in planning efforts, workgroups, a steering committee, data sharing, and backbone structure
Success would require strong leadership and support from DCS, other State agencies and community leaders
13© FSG |
Trends in Child SafetyDIRECTOR MCKAY, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY
Department of Child SafetyData charts as of week beginning 2.20.17
14
Communications & Reports to the Hotline
NOTE: Communications, Hotline Communications, and Reports include calls/reports that are no jurisdiction reports. Screen In % shows reports as a percentage of total Hotline Communications.Data Source: DCS Tableau Dashboard, Communications Received by Weekday and Hour Reports, 2.20.17
50.0%
55.0%
60.0%
65.0%
70.0%
75.0%
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
Perc
ent
Com
mun
icat
ions
& R
epor
ts
Sep-15
Oct-15
Nov-15
Dec-15
Jan-16
Feb-16
Mar-16
Apr-16
May-16
Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-
16Sep-16
Oct-16
Nov-16
Dec-16
Jan-17
Communications 11,92 11,59 10,91 10,38 11,15 11,35 11,58 12,04 11,47 10,49 10,29 12,62 12,30 11,24 11,67 10,97 11,74Hotline Communications 6,225 5,839 5,371 5,104 5,666 5,869 5,970 6,567 5,974 5,267 5,112 6,645 6,581 5,900 6,148 5,777 6,113Reports 4,605 4,320 3,906 3,709 4,176 4,211 4,214 4,538 4,139 3,687 3,638 4,442 4,339 3,861 4,037 3,746 3,871Screen In % 74.0% 74.0% 72.7% 72.7% 73.7% 71.7% 70.6% 69.1% 69.3% 70.0% 71.2% 66.8% 65.9% 65.4% 65.7% 64.8% 63.3%
Hotline Performance
Response Timeliness
Inactive Cases and Total Open Reports
NOTE: Investigations may contain one or more reports. Current open reports is through 2.20.17, current inactives through 2.20.17.Data Source: Weekly Completed/Assigned Report, and Weekly DCS Inactives Report
Significantly reduced investigations caseloads to a manageable volume.
Investigative Case Loads Down
In April 2015, there were about 230 investigators for 33,245 open reports, a caseload ratio of 145:1.
In December 2016, there were about 441 investigators for 9,611 open reports, a caseload ratio of 22:1
Children in Out-of-Home Care
NOTE: January 2017 data is preliminaryData Source: DCS Monthly Out-of-Home Care Report, 2.21.17
Jun2015
Sep2015
Dec2015
Mar2016
Jun2016
Sep2016
Nov2016
Dec2016
Jan2017 *
Unlicensed (Primarily Kinship) 7,558 7,796 7,789 7,848 7,468 7,502 7,071 6,945 6,804 Foster Care 6,762 7,017 6,956 7,111 6,986 6,837 6,667 6,607 6,651 Congregate Care 2,535 2,724 2,694 2,742 2,727 2,546 2,463 2,394 2,369 Independent Living 485 527 529 505 495 512 526 519 515 Other 719 593 768 711 611 649 686 684 924Total in Out-of-Home Care 18,059 18,657 18,736 18,917 18,287 18,046 17,413 17,149 17,263
719 593 768 711 611 649 686 684 924485 527 529 505 495 512 526 519 5152,535 2,724 2,694 2,742 2,727 2,546 2,463 2,394 2,369
6,762 7,017 6,956 7,111 6,986 6,837 6,667 6,607 6,651
7,558 7,796 7,789 7,848 7,468 7,502 7,071 6,945 6,804
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
Out-of-Home Care Projection
NOTE: Current OOH population reflects preliminary January 2017 data Data Source: DCS Monthly Out-of-Home Care Report, 2.21.17
Entries and Exits
January 2017 data is preliminaryData Source: Removals & Returns Dashboard, 2.20.17.
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000Ju
l-14
Aug-
14
Sep-
14
Oct
-14
Nov
-14
Dec-
14
Jan-
15
Feb-
15
Mar
-15
Apr-
15
May
-15
Jun-
15
Jul-1
5
Aug-
15
Sep-
15
Oct
-15
Nov
-15
Dec-
15
Jan-
16
Feb-
16
Mar
-16
Apr-
16
May
-16
Jun-
16
Jul-1
6
Aug-
16
Sep-
16
Oct
-16
Nov
-16
Dec-
16
Jan-
17
Child
ren
in O
OH
Entr
ies a
nd E
xits
Entries Exits Total in Out-of-Home Care
17,102
18,736
17,318
CY2014 CY2015 CY2016
# Children in Out-Of-Home Care
Permanency Exits Up, Out-of-Home Care Down
UP 9%UP 14%
UP 10%
DOWN 8%
24© FSG |
Collective Impact OverviewFSG
25© FSG |
FSG overview
• Nonprofit consulting firm specializing in strategy, evaluation and research with offices in Boston, Seattle, San Francisco, DC, Geneva, and Mumbai
• Partner with foundations, corporations, nonprofits, and governments to develop more effective solutions to the world’s most challenging issues
• Recognized thought leader in social impact, philanthropy and corporate social responsibility
• Staff of 160 full-time professionals with passionand experience to solve social problems
• Advancing Collective Impact via publications, conferences, speaking engagements, client projects
26© FSG |
HANDS ON SUPPORT
FSG works on collective impact in three mutually reinforcing ways
Juvenile justice in NY State Substance abuse on Staten
Island Cradle to career in King County Health in the Rio Grande Valley Early childhood in Houston
THOUGHT LEADERSHIP
LEARNING COMMUNITY
www.collectiveimpactforum.org
The Collective Impact Forum is a field-wide digital resource designed to help curate and disseminate knowledge, tools, and best practices that support effective collective impact
27© FSG |
FSG has used collective impact to address a variety of complex challenges in different geographies
Pre-term birth in Fresno, CA
Cradle to career
education in Seattle,
WA
Juvenile justice in Omaha, NE
Juvenile justice in New York State
Teen substance abuse on Staten
Island, NY
Early childhood education in
Alexandria, VA
Diabetes prevention in Minnesota
Children’s asthma in Dallas, TX
Early childhood education in Houston, TX
Healthy childhood in Washington state
Healthcare and college success in the
Rio Grande Valley, TX
Economic development in Northeast Ohio
Childhood obesity in Dallas, TX
Cradle to career in Kent Co, MI
Community development in Dallas, TX
Child protection in Cambodia
Social mobility in Israel
Human slaveryin Brazil
Child welfare and juvenile justice in
Houston, TX
28© FSG |
Juvenile justice in New York
$286,000 89% recidivism rate
29© FSG |
Family and Community Engagement
ArrestProbation
Intake/Detention
Decision to
Prosecute
Family Court
ProcessDispositionOutcomes
Initial Referral/
Police Contact
Connections to Education, Mental Health and Substance Abuse, and Child Welfare Systems and Organizations
Reentry and
Aftercare Services
Integration into the Community
30© FSG |
There are several different types of problems
Source: Adapted from “Getting to Maybe”
technical solutions
Complicated Complexemergent systemsstep-by-step recipes
Simple
baking a cake building a rocket to send to the moon raising a child
The social sector often treats problems as simple or complicated
31© FSG |
Traditional, programmatic approaches are not solving our most complex social problems
Source: FSG SSIR Collective Impact Article, Winter 2011; FSG Interviews; FSG Interviews & Analysis
• Funding processes are focused on individual entities
Isolated Impact• Community organizations work
separately and compete
• Corporate and government sectors are often disconnected
• Measurement and evaluation outcomes are not shared
32© FSG |
Imagine a different approach
• Understand that social problems –and their solutions – arise frominteraction of many organizations within larger system
Collective Impact• Cross-sector alignment with
government, nonprofit, philanthropic and corporate sectors as partners
• Organizations actively coordinating their action and learning
• All working toward the same goal and measuring the same things
33© FSG |
Collective impact is a structured, multi-sector approach to address complex problems
Collective impact is the commitment of a group of important actors
from different sectorsto a common agenda for addressing
a specific complex problem
Collective impact is not the best approach for addressing simple or complicated problems
34© FSG |
Snapshot of NYJJ initiative
Source: FSG interviews and analysis
Vision: Across New York State, the juvenile justice system promotes youth success and ensures public safety
Community safety & quality of life
Youth Outcomes
Just and fair to youth
Services to meet youth development needs
Successful reintegration of youth
Community Outcomes
Victims have a voice in the process
Delinquent acts
System Governance and
Coordination
Effective Continuum of
Diversion, Supervision, Treatment, & Confinement
Accountability of System &
Organizations Within the
System
Shared Data and Information
Driven Decisions and Policy
Components of System Excellence1 2 3 4
35© FSG |
In three years, the New York juvenile justice system transformed for youth and public safety
24% decline in juvenile arrests
45% decline in juveniles in state custody
Between 2010 and 2012…
No change in public safety
36© FSG |
Collective impact has been successfully applied to many different complex challenges
Education Health
Child Safety & Wellbeing
Youth Development
Environment
Community Development
*
*
*
Source: FSG research and analysis
37© FSG |
Collective impact has five elements
COMMON AGENDA
SHARED MEASUREMENT
MUTUALLYREINFORCING
ACTIVITIES
BACKBONE SUPPORT
CONTINUOUS COMMUNICATION
38© FSG |
The key for success in collective impact is understanding several mindset shifts
Technical solutions to problems
Adaptive solutions to problems
One solution Many coordinated solutions
Credit hoarded Credit as shared currency
Focus on evidence Focus on evidence and relationships
Source: Channeling Change: Making Collective Impact Work, 2012; Essential Mindset Shifts for Collective Impact; 2014.
Content expertise Content and context expertise
39© FSG |
Funders can take on a wide variety of roles within a collective impact initiative
Sample Funder Role Description Examples
Catalyst• Funder initiates collective impact strategy
as champion, financier, and convener, potentially playing a key role in attracting resources throughout the effort
Backbone Support
• Funder organizes and coordinates the actions of cross-sector stakeholders to advance collective impact effort
Participant• Funder actively participates in collective
impact effort, and aligns funding and measurement to the effort
Source: FSG Interviews and Analysis
Funders can play a wide range of roles in Collect Impact efforts, even within these categories
40© FSG |
Applying collective impact to child safety and wellbeing in Arizona
Develop strategies
Sustain action and impactScope issue and assess readiness
Organize for impact
Initiate action
1 2 30
Who needs to be at the
table?
How do we break up the work?
Is collective impact the right
approach?
How do we build and sustain momentum for the
long haul?
COLLECTIVE IMPACT PROCESS
Workshop #1• Feasibility
assessment report• Child welfare update• CI overview• CI readiness
Workshop #2• Steering Committee
membership• CI structure• Scope and next
steps
TO BE DETERMINED
41© FSG |
Discussion and Q&AMODERATED BY BELEN GONZALEZ, NINA MASON PULLIAM CHARITABLE TRUST
42© FSG |