Feedback Generated from the EBI Outcomes Report Webinars/Conference Calls
10/8/2014
· Between August 6 and September 3, three conference calls / webinars were held to orient stakeholders to the FY 13/14 EBI Outcomes Report and generate suggestions for next steps.
· Participants included representatives from OCYF, PCCD, OMHSAS, JCJC, Cumberland County JPO, CCBH (managed care organization), and the JJSES Stage 3 Committee.
Findings & Discussion Points
Using feedback from call participants, we have identified several possibilities for next steps. The table below highlights these possibilities as well as the rationale (“why,” based on participant feedback) and how these goals might be carried out (“how”).
What / Why / How1 / Get information into the hands of local stakeholders via webinar series & direct mailings / The information being created by EPISCenter, such as the FY 13/14 report, can be valuable to local stakeholders but isn’t necessarily reaching them through existing means (website, email list serve). / More engaging and proactive outreach, such as webinars & direct mailings, as well as continuing the bimonthly e-newsletter. Topics could include:
· Highlight exemplary programs and counties
· Share FY 13/14 and 3-year EBI outcomes
· A panel of participants who are using EBIs successfully
· Questions and Answers about EBIs in PA
2 / Update cost-benefit information and present cost-benefit specific to each system / Current cost-benefit information is based on delinquency placement costs and a conservative estimate of length of stay (90 days). Update would use the best available data at this point in time. Making it system-specific will take into account that placement costs vary across systems, as well as make the information meaningful/useful to each system. / · Use JCJC data on average length of stay for delinquency placements (coordinate with JCJC on available information)
· Need similar numbers for OCYF and OMHSAS placements (average per diem rate, average length of stay) - Is this data available?
3 / Examine impact of EBIs on recidivism / There is currently a great deal of data available for the EBIs, but follow-up data remains limited. Data from county systems seems to hold more weight with stakeholders than self-report data. / · Statewide recidivism for youth receiving EBIs is not available, but some counties are collecting this data à Identify counties that are collecting this information (start with SPEP counties) & reach out to see how we might work together
· How can we best identify counties that are collecting this information?
4 / Highlight exemplary programs and counties / Statewide data is important but at times obscures important trends at the local level. In addition, highlighting processes in successful agencies and communities can serve as a roadmap for others as well as motivation to “do EBIs well.” / · 3-year outcomes reports will include information about the range of provider-level outcomes
· Create “provider profiles” or “county profiles” for a select subset programs
· Share via webinars, newsletters, and on the website
5 / Dig deeper with the data. / Discussion of the FY 12/13 Outcomes Report generated positive feedback but also several new questions, most of which require more complex analysis of the data.
· Are we seeing right-sizing or underutilization?
· Examine changes in placement rates and dispositions/allegations in relation to change in youth served in EBIs since 2006.
· Does EBI saturation level in a given county correspond to changes in placement and juvenile crime rates?
· Does decrease in placements in one system correspond with an increase in another system? / Address these questions by partnering with other systems around available data. Present findings in brief resources (1-2 pages).
6 / Consider changes to the definition/measurement of “risk” in INSPIRE. / “Risk” as defined by the YLS is not the same as “risk” as defined in INSPIRE - with the roll out of JJSES, the term “risk” now has specific meaning in the juvenile justice system, different than when INSPIRE was launched. In addition, “diversion from placement” looks different than it did 4 years ago. Bringing the measure of risk in line with tools and definitions used by counties would likely be more meaningful than the current either/or definition in INSPIRE. / Explore 3 options & bring to RCSC for discussion:
1. Add a brief, standard measure directly to INSPIRE – same measure would be used across all youth. Need to explore what is available and if this is even feasible.
2. Use measures already in place (e.g., YLS for JJ-referred youth) and have users enter scores into INSPIRE. What tools are being used most widely in the child welfare & mental health system? How feasible is it to expect providers to have access to scores?
3. Keep as-is.