Speaker 1: Hi, my name is Jamie LeDoux, and I'm with the Technical Assistance Unit with KC Family Programs, and I've had the honor of working in the field of child welfare for 18 years now. So, the field of child welfare to me is something that I'm very passionate about, and there's no more important work than what we do, because the work that we do is seeking to improve outcomes on behalf of kids and families by empowering them to be able to make decisions around their children's safety and well-being needs. It's some of the most important work that there is. The field of child welfare is ever-evolving, and we're always seeking to improve the work that we're doing. There's a lot of talk about systems across the country transforming in order to be able to improve the outcomes for kids and families. And so, I'm going to talk about three key drivers for systems transformation and how those three drivers are connected. The first one to me that is critically important is, are we as systems, members of systems, are we making decisions on behalf of kids and families that are values-driven? So the decisions all the way from the frontline caseworker all the way up to the top of the organization and even up to the legislature, are we making decisions that are based on the values we say we represent for kids and families? So if we say we want kids to be home with families, do our decisions reflect that? And do we empower staff at the frontline level to be able to make decisions that reflect those values? The second one is collaboration. The Child Welfare Agency cannot do it alone. We have to rely on partners, and we have to be able to successfully collaborate in a way that encourages people to want to be at the table with us. So if we say we value partners, for example, are we approaching them in a way that asks them what their needs are in terms of being able to meet the needs of kids and families? Or are we approaching them in a way that reflects us just specifically asking them what we – telling them what we need? So it has to be a two-way street. Having effective feedback loops in place is a critical important of continuous quality improvement, so you have to know what's working and what's not working, and that occurs through communication at all levels of the system. The third one is creating a culture of continuous learning. So what I mean by that is changing the way that we think about continuous quality improvement. So many people think of continuous quality improvement as something that's done to them, so many times it's a team of people or a group of people with an organization that is responsible and dedicated for continuous quality improvement, but we need to change our thinking in a way that allows us to believe and represent that every single person within an organization is responsible for continuous quality improvement. So CQI is a management style, it's a way of acting, it's a way of thinking, it's the way that you interact with other people both internally and externally, it's the way that you communicate, it's the way that you behave, it's everything about the way that you operate within the context of your work every day. So how do we know that we've created a culture of continuous learning? It's important to assess your environment, so to be able to assess how people within an organization or within a system are experiencing their world. So is our organization or is our system corrective or is it punitive in nature? So are we learning what's working and what's not working so that we can be punitive? For example, is it to be used to discipline somebody, for example, when something goes wrong to hold somebody accountable, or are we learning what's working and what's not working so that we can make corrections, so that we can do the work better in the future? It's important to know how people doing the work at the front line experience their environment. Do they experience it as corrective or do they experience it as punitive? The second one would be, is our environment proactive or is it reactive? So are we reviewing data on the back end after things have already occurred to be able to determine and tell us how things worked, or are we consistently reviewing data to be able to get upstream so that we can make mid-course corrections when needed to be able to prevent outcomes from trending in the wrong direction? So is our data looking at our system in a proactive way versus a reactive way? The third one would be, is our system outcome-driven or is it compliance-based? And one of the ways that you can assess that is by looking at your data. So what data sets are reviewed on a regular basis? There's a time and place for reports that are management reports that count certain things such as, you know, how often are worker visits occurring? What is our timeliness rate for completing investigations? Those things are important, but those things really are about compliance. They tell us nothing about the quality of the work that we're doing. So it's important to also have measures that reflect outcomes that tell us, is what we're doing making a difference in the lives of kids and families? So it's important to assess what data is being reviewed on a regular basis. Are we putting data sets out there that reflect outcomes for kids and families that can tell us whether what we're doing is working or not? Or are we strictly looking at data from a compliance-based focus? One of the other ways that you can tell that is when we're talking about what data we're reviewing, does the data reflect the values back to the first driver of systems transformation? So if we say, for example, that we value children being with families, are we reviewing data and putting data out there that reflects that, that measures are we keeping children with families or are we just reviewing data, for example, that tells us once kids come into the system, are they exiting in a timely manner? So those are two very different values. Not that we don't value children exiting to permanency in a timely manner, but we also value keeping children at home when that can be safely done first and foremost. So that's an example of, are we reviewing data that reflects, that reflects the value? And are we collaborating with others back to the second driver? Are we collaborating with others to assess and review the data on a regular basis to be able to have stakeholder involvement, stakeholder input to how we make those midcourse corrections? The field of child welfare is ever evolving and it's critically important to know whether what we're doing is working or not. And if we don't have consistent CQI processes in place, and if we don't have a culture that allows for people to learn from the work that we're doing at every level of the organization, then we're not set up to be able to maximize our potential related to the data that we have available that represents what's working for kids and families.