You are hereSkip Navigation Links > Home > Professionals > Child welfare > Residential Services > Because Young People Matter > Recommended service and outcome indicators > Continuity of Care

Continuity of Care

Tracking trajectories of care across residential services provides critical information about the residential service delivery system. These indicators could be tracked either through a dedicated residential care CPIN module that would be used for all young people in residential care, or by combining data from the Youth Offender Tracking and Information System (OTIS) system and CPIN.

Stability

The number of placement changes should be tracked for all young people in care, excluding family visits, summer camps or respite placements. Although this is often measured on an annual basis (# of moves in a year) we recommend that it also be tracked over a 3-year period.

Data Source

Timeframe for reporting

Examples from other jurisdictions

CPIN

Within one year

Proportion of children on an order exiting care after less than 12 months, who had one or two placements (Australian Government, 2015: see Figure 15.7)

In First Year of Current Episode of Care - CYIC That Did Not Move (British Columbia, 2015b: See Performance Indicator 5.11)

Average moves in care within 36 months of placement (Quebec, Trocmé et al., 2013: See Figure 8)

The percentage of children in care for 24 months or longer who experienced two or fewer placement settings (U.S Department of Health and Human Services, 2014: See Measure 6.1c)

Permanence

Tracking permanence includes tracking where young people end up when they leave residential care, and how much time they spend in temporary care and stability of reunification or alternate “permanent” placement. Rates of breakdown in permanent placements, adoptions, guardianships or family reunifications should be tracked as well.

Data Source

Timeframe for reporting

Examples from other jurisdictions

CPIN

Within one year

Of all children reunified with their parents or caretakers at the time of discharge from foster care during the year, what percentage were reunified in less than 12 months from the time of entry into foster care? (U.S Department of Health and Human Services, 2014: See Measure 4.1)

Proportion of children reunified within 36 months of initial placement (Quebec, Trocmé et al., 2013: See Figure 10)

Home-based Care

For young children there is growing evidence that group care should be an option of last resort. Several jurisdictions report on the proportion of young people under 12 in home-based care. This should be tracked in Ontario as well. The placement where the young person has spent the most time should be used in instances where a young person has been in multiple placements.

Data Source

Timeframe for reporting

Examples from other jurisdictions

CPIN

Within one year

Proportion of children aged under 12 years in out-of-home care who were in a home-based placement (Australian Government, 2015: see Figure 15.9)

Proximity to Home

Young people placed near their home communities are better able to maintain important ties with family, friends and their communities. Distance to home is a simple indicator of the residential system’s ability to support these ties. When a young person has been in multiple placements use the average distance relative to the time spent in each placement.

Data Source

Timeframe for reporting

Examples from other jurisdictions

CPIN

Within one year

Percent of all children looked after living more than 20 miles from their Local Authority boundary (UK Government, 2015: See Paragraph 33 and Chart 5)

Distance in miles between a child’s removal address and placement address at 12 months (California Child Welfare Indicators Project, 2016)

Keeping Siblings Together

For sibling groups who are placed in out-of-home care it is important to track the extent to which siblings are placed together. This indicator would record the proportion of sibling groups in care who are kept together. For very large sibling groups use the proportion of young people who are placed with at least one other sibling.

Data Source

Timeframe for reporting

Examples from other jurisdictions

CPIN

Within one year

Proportion of children who are on orders and in out-of­home care at 30 June who have siblings also on orders and in out-of-home care, who are placed with at least one of their siblings (Australian Government, 2015: See Box 15.17)

Count of sibling groups in foster care who are placed with all or some of their siblings (California Child Welfare Indicators Project, 2016)

School Changes

In addition to maximizing placement stability, every effort needs to be made to minimize school changes for young people in residential care. For all school-aged children this indicator should measure the average and median number of school changes during their spell in care, including suspensions and expulsions.

Data Source

Timeframe for reporting

Examples from other jurisdictions

CPIN and OCANDS

Within two years

Percentage of looked after children with a permanent exclusion compared to all children (UK Government, 2014: See Chart 10)

Aboriginal Care

In addition to tracking placement rates to First Nations, Métis and Inuit children and youth, the proportion of young Aboriginal people placed in Aboriginal care should be tracked. This will require asking family-based placements self-identify their Aboriginal identity. Group homes operated by Aboriginal organizations would also count as an Aboriginal match. Operationalization of this indicator should be developed in partnership with Aboriginal service providers.

Data Source

Timeframe for reporting

Examples from other jurisdictions

CPIN / OTIS

Within two years

Aboriginal Children Cared for by Aboriginal Communities and Service Providers (British Columbia, 2015b: See Performance Indicator 5.61)

Children in out-of-home care placed with relatives/kin by Indigenous status (Australian Government, 2015: See Table 15A.23)

Ethno-Cultural/Religious Matching

For ethno-cultural or religious communities that have raised concern about the placement of their young people, placement rates and placement matching rates should be tracked. The Panel heard from several members of the Black community that this was a priority concern. Operationalization of this indicator should be based on consultation with the concerned communities.

Data Source

Timeframe for reporting

Examples from other jurisdictions

CPIN / OTIS

Within two years

NA

Cross-Over Youth

In addition to tracking placement changes and charging rates (see “restrictiveness”), it is important to report separately on the proportion of youth moving from child welfare or children and youth mental health to youth justice facilities to ensure that youth justice placements are not being over-used to place young people whose behaviour is seen as problematic in CW or CMH placements.

Data Source

Timeframe for reporting

Examples from other jurisdictions

CPIN / OTIS

Within two years

NA