Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts
Child Protection Data Courts Project
Using Data to Continuously Improve
Illinois Courts
Why Did Illinois Choose
To Collect The Toolkit Measures?
• Did not have the ability to know how our systems
were doing
– Can't improve system and target improvement
without data
• Check and balance with agency data
– Need a deeper understanding of why the delays in
time to permanent placement (CFSR findings)
• Identify good practice with replication
possibilities
• Toolkit measures provide a starting point and
roadmap
Can't Wait For Centralized CMS
• Data needs assessment found limitations in the ability
to collect data
– In Illinois, no centralized case management system
– Local case management systems do not collect necessary
data elements
• Court Capacity to collect data
– Chose not to rely on Child Welfare Agency Data
• Agency court related data is limited and not reliable
• Does not track many performance measures (such as judicial and
attorney continuity, service, all hearing types)
• Creation of the Child Protection Data Courts Project
– Two prong approach
"Simply Giving Someone a Data
Report Is Not CQI"
Building a foundation:
• Getting everyone "on the same page"
• Developing an understanding of the reports
• Creating excitement
• Alleviate fears
• Stress data findings are important to all
stakeholders- not as a result of one person or
organization
Data Sharing-CQI Process
Stages of Grief
• Denial
• Anger
• Bargaining
• Depression
• Acceptance
Stages of Data Sharing
• "Every case is different, you can't
collect performance measures in
child protection cases"
• "I'm not going to change my
practices to fit within timelines,
etc. if it is not in the best interest
of the child"
• "The data says this because…"
• "I'm really surprised-I thought we
were doing better than this"
• "We are doing some things really
well and we need to improve in
some areas- where do we go
from here?"
Examples Of Type Of Data
Reported
• Court performance measures 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B,
3C, 3D, 3G, 3I, 3J, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 4G, 4H, 4I
• Demographic information (e.g. gender, age and
race/ethnicity of the child, petition allegation(s),
number of intact cases, related cases, pro se parents,
incarcerated parents and number of putative fathers)
• ICWA, ICPC, parent in the military
• Age of the cases
• Frequency of petition allegations
• Time to file service plan
Examples Of Type Of Data
Reported
• Measure of workload and court delay
• Percentage of specific hearings resulting in a
continuance by continuance reason
• Everyone's Favorite- County Comparisons
Things Learned From The Data
• Children aged 6-12 are more likely to be reunified than other
ages and have the longest time to case closure
• Children aged 13 and older are more likely not to achieve
permanency than any other age cohort and have the shortest
times to case closure
• Cases with incarcerated parents had longer times to
adjudication, first permanency hearing, TPR and case closure
• Cases with fewer judges had shorter times to achieve
adjudication, first permanency hearing, TPR and case closure
• The more post-dispositional review hearings in a case, the
shorter the time to overall case closure (permanent
placement)
Things Learned From The Data
• Cases with fewer changes in the child's attorney had shorter
times to adjudication, first permanency hearing, submission
of service plan and case closure
• Cases with a CASA had shorter times to adjudication, first
permanency hearing and case closure
• Cases with fewer changes in mother's attorney had shorter
times to adjudication, first permanency hearing and case
closure
• Cases with fewer changes in father's attorney had shorter
times to adjudication, first permanency hearing and case
closure
• Cases with fewer changes in state's attorney had shorter
times to adjudication, first permanency hearing, TPR and case
closure
CQI For County "B"
1.
2.
3.
4.
What is the need and how was it identified?
What do you propose to do about it?
What changes do you hope to achieve?
What will you look to see if change is
occurring- you are achieving the intended
impact/results?
5. How will you use that data/information you
collect/learn to create a feedback loop for
ongoing improvement?
County E
Sample County Comparisons
Average Days to Achieve Permanency
Outcome
1266
680
622
County D
1070
501
1180
1190
1163
County C
County B
1797
701
County A
1388
722
Guardianship
Adoption
Reunification
County B
Average Days from Petition Filing to Major Court Event
(n=213)
175
Adjudication
414
First Perm Hearing
1150
TPR
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Sample
County B: Average Days to TPR
Original Petition to TPR Petition
TPR Mom
716
TPR to Case Closure
212
318
TPR Petition to TPR Hearing
TPR Dad
667
182
275
What We Intend To Do In
County B After Seeing Data
• Develop, implement and evaluate a Pre-Trial
Conference Model between the Shelter Care
Hearing and Adjudication
• Develop, implement and evaluate a Pre-Trial
Conference Model prior to TPR Hearing
• Implement and evaluate video visitation with
incarcerated parents
• Expand CASA into County B
County B Goals
• Improve Timely Adjudications and TPRs (set
trials/hearing earlier, identify discovery and
service issues, etc.)
• Improve Coordination with the Dept. of
Corrections to ensure transport/appearance of
parties
• Improve understanding of expectations for
Hearings
• Improve Timely Sharing of Information Needed
for TPR (service, caseworker reports and
procedures, etc.)
How We Will Know If We Are Making
a Difference In County B
• Comparison of data pre and post intervention
– Time to adjudication
– Time to TPR
– Time from TPR petition filing to TPR hearing
– Number of continuances: adjudication and TPR
hearings
– Timeliness measures for incarcerated parents
– Timeliness measures for children with a CASA
• Qualitative feedback from stakeholders
How We Will Ensure CQI in
County B
Comparison data and feedback results alone are
not CQI
• Determine if interventions are "making a
difference"
• Adjust interventions as necessary based on
results
Using Data To Identify
Illinois CIP Priorities
• Using significance findings from the CPDC
Project to support best practice guidelines and
inform CIP initiatives
– Judicial training on TPR
– Judicial training on Permanency Hearings
– Training on front-loading
– Encouraging attorney and judicial continuity
through establishing attorney and judicial
networks, training and grant funding
opportunities
We Have Learned…
• The C's- Collaboration, Coordination,
Communication and Cooperation are important!
• Can't use data in a vacuum- all system players
need to be at the table
• Don't start with you hardest or most troubled
county
• Even basic information can be "eye-opening"
• Time consuming, slow process- but worth every
minute
For more information…
Contact:
Kristie Osborn
Data Program Specialist
217-557-7246
kosborn@court.state.il.us