© 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 |