Is my appeal taking a long time? Probably not.

Our office has been handling more appeals lately, and I am learning the rhythm of the process a little better each day. Appeals seem to go like this: (1) you lose or win at trial and feel really emotional about it, (2) you file your appeal or get noticed that someone filed one on you, and (3) you wait until you don’t feel anything at all anymore. Somewhere in there you file a brief. Then you wait some more and file other briefs. Sometimes a court reporter loses your transcripts and tells you your trial never happened. That can rouse some feelings, but they pass. Because mostly you just wait.

And while you’re waiting, everyone is constantly asking you how much longer they’ll have to wait. I haven’t yet mastered delivering earnest but vague statements of reassurance, such as “waiting is good because it means you haven’t lost yet.” I’ve heard that’s what appellate lawyers do. The people waiting don’t think waiting is good, because it means they haven’t won yet either.

I wanted a real answer to the question how much longer? I looked all over the internet. There were reports (cited below) on dependency and TPR apppeals from 2010 and 2015, but no follow-ups or ongoing data on whether those reforms were successful. There were also lengthy reports on trial court clearance statistics. There was nothing (that I could find) on the district courts. So I decided to create something.

But first, an answer to How long do I have to wait on my appeal?

Probably at least 122 days for a dependency or TPR case.

Probably at least 293 days for anything else. 

Probably a little longer if your case is in the Second DCA.

There. Quit asking.

I put it all in a tableau so you can play with it.

The details are really interesting, if you’re into numbers. I put it all into a tableau, a quick version of which should appear here:

A full version with more stats is available here. (You can also use the link if the embedded tableau above didn’t show.) The full version breaks things down by DCA, case type, wins and losses, and originating divisions. I will commit to updating it for a few months to test for stability. I can’t promise after that.

The process – also, why didn’t this already exist?

My plan was basically to dive in, coming up for air every now and then to run the same “florida district court statistics” google search to see if I missed something. If anyone wants to recreate (or check) my work, here’s how it went.

Step 1 to finding an answer was to see what information I even had access to. All of the DCAs report their opinions on their websites. Three of them use a searchable system that creates spreadsheets by month. Two publish weekly text lists that you have to go through on your own.  All of the DCAs use an online docket system that has a very convenient URL interface for going right to the case you want, unless that case is a dependency case.

Step 2 was figuring out how many cases they’re even putting out. My curiosity knows no bounds, but my actual time to spend on this was limited to a week or so.  The answer was about 200 cases per month per DCA. That wasn’t bad.  I planned to do a 10% sample of three months anyway, so 60 cases per DCA felt reasonable.

Step 3 was dealing with the fact that dependency cases are restricted from the public, so they are not available on the online docket system. Instead, I had to look them up on Westlaw and pull out their appellate case numbers and the outcomes. Fortunately, all of the DCAs use a linear case numbering system (for example 15-001 was filed earlier than 15-055 in the year 2015). Once I had case numbers and filing dates of known cases, I could interpolate the dependency filing dates to within a few days. That was good enough for these purposes.

Step 4 was pulling all of the data on 459 cases and punching it into a spreadsheet. I then crunched some probabilities, ran some ANOVAs, generated a few survival reports, and made some tableaus based on what was statistically relevant. Some people have other hobbies, I guess.

What I could tell you about appellate cases would not fill a book

The sample size of three months was enough to get a big picture number, but not enough to do a lot of fine parsing of the data. As I add months in the future, maybe things will stand out. In the meantime, here is what I can say with a reasonable amount of confidence.

More people won than I expected, but still not that many. About 11% of the cases were “wins.” I defined win very broadly to include anything that wasn’t a straight affirmance or dismissal of a petition.

The DCAs were surprisingly similar.  I was concerned that a 10% sample would result in garbage. It didn’t. All of the samples were roughly normal. The 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th all had numbers that were statistically indistinguishable. (A bigger dataset may eventually tease them apart, but this one didn’t.) Only the 2nd DCA stood out as statistically higher than the rest. For example, the 2nd DCA processed half of its cases in 282 days (+/- 18), while the statewide average was 208 days (+/- 11).

Below is a survival graph. Imagine the top left corner as the starting line, and each district racing to the bottom. The cumulative survival of 1.0 equals 100% of cases still open (“surviving”), and 0.4 would equal 40% of cases still open. The first to the bottom (measured in days across the bottom) is the fastest. As you can see below, four of the DCAs reach the bottom at about the same time.  The 2nd DCA stands out as statistically different, in large part because it was slower off the line and struggled with its last 20% of cases compared to other districts.

There wasn’t much variation among the types of cases, except for dependency. The average of 208 days also applied to case types, but dependency stood out as significantly faster. It took the DCAs only 121 days (+/- 2) to process half of their dependency cases. Civil and criminal were indistinguishable in this dataset, though more info later may tease them out as well. There weren’t enough probate, worker’s comp, family, or administrative appeals to say much about them individually yet.

You can see below that dependency cases resolved much faster than anything else. Civil, criminal, and family are pretty consistent in the middle. (Civil starts out slower, but eventually catches up to criminal.) The jaggy curves are probate and worker’s comp cases, which only had a few examples of each.

There was no measurable difference between writs and appeals. Again, a larger dataset may tease out a difference, but the line for writs and appeals were indistinguishable in this one.

Dependency “wins” follow the curve, but exaggerate it a little.  Again again, there aren’t that many dependency wins either. But in this dataset at least, they tended to come out faster at first, then move closer to the win curve above after a case has already taken about 150 days. This is a slight exaggeration of the full win curve above, which also flips somewhere around 150 days.

You can’t predict a win based solely on amount of time open.  Again, I want to stress that there are very few wins in general (11%) and they are scattered across the timeline. Knowing that an appeal has been open for 600 days doesn’t tell you much about its eventual outcome because the last 10% of the “loss” line accounts for far more cases than the last 10% of the “win” line.

Even though wins are a little faster or slower as a group, you can only know that after you know the outcome of the case. I ran the numbers — if you only know how many days the appeal took, you can predict a win with 5% accuracy. Adding in the DCA, appeal type, and division only gets you to 11% accuracy. That’s worse than guessing.

The takeaway

The good news is that this data supports a claim that the Court’s previous efforts (below) to speed up dependency appeals actually worked. Only time will tell if that is a stable finding or if I just happened to look at a particularly fast few months.  Stay tuned.

More info on the appellate courts

Recommendations for Dependency and Termination of Parental Rights Appeals (Florida Supreme Court – Commission on District and Trial Court Performance & Accountability – April 2016)

Dependency and Termination of Parental Rights Appeals (Florida Supreme Court – Commission on District and Trial Court Performance & Accountability – June 2014)

A Review of the Florida District Courts of Appeal Boundaries and Workload (OPPAGA – February 2017)

Examining the Work of State Courts: An analysis of 2010 state court caseloads (Court Statistics Project – December 2012)

Clearance Rate Dashboards ( – September 2009 to present)

The Florida foster care stats you’ve been waiting for: 24,152 kids in out-of-home care & which CBC is the biggest?

It’s been awhile since I posted a pile of graphs, so here we go. Out-of-home care numbers are still rising. That’s probably not a good thing.

Oct Supervision Size
The number of children in out-of-home care continues to rise. The number of children in their homes under DCF supervision is a little down. This suggests we’re removing kids faster than we can obtain permanency for them.


All is not equal in the types of placements. Relatives are still shouldering most of the burden for foster care.

Placement Type Breakdown Oct 2017
Relative placements continue to be the largest single placement type for kids, growing faster than licensed family care. Facility placements have been flat for some time. Non-relative placements have seen an over 60% increase since funding was authorized for these placements in 2014.


Finally, which CBC is really the biggest? It has always depended on how you measure.

regino by size
The relative ranking of each region has been fairly consistent, even with increases and decreases in the statewide number of children in care. Most regions are rebounding to their pre-2007 days, with the exception of the Southern Region which is still comparatively low.


cbc by size
The rankings of CBCs by size has also been fairly consistent over time. Our Kids and Eckerd Hillsborough have consistently supervised the largest number of children. Again, some CBCs have rebounded, others haven’t. (Note these numbers don’t show where new CBCs took over for closed ones.)


Sheet 13
The rankings are very different when viewed as children in care per 1,000 children in the community. For example, Our Kids has consistently ranked as one of the smallest CBCs in proportion to its geographic area.


The numbers here are from DCF’s Child Welfare Trend Reports. DCF keeps their own visualizations at the Child Welfare Dashboard. If you see anything wrong, interesting, or that-I-missed, let me know.  Have a great weekend!

Florida DCF contracts are worth billions – where does the money go?

I was wondering who holds the largest DCF contracts in Florida. The answer was right on the Florida Department of Financial Services website (thank you, Mr. Atwater), which lists public contracts with an ending date of February 29, 2012 or later.

I created a tableau where you can explore the DCF vendors by name, and see the list of contracts with details on their purpose, dates, and amounts. Click on the contracts to see their entry in the Florida Accountability Tracking System, including the contract documents, deliverables, payments, and audits.

The answer is that (depending on how you count) 12 organizations have received about half of DCF’s business since DFS started keeping track online.  Of that dozen, six organizations were CBCs, four were behavioral health networks, and the final two work with sexually violent offenders and psychiatric patients. Smaller CBCs and BHNs make up the next 25%, with the final quarter split among hundreds of small organizations, all the way down to air conditioner repair jobs and copying fees.


The total contract amounts need to be understood with a dose of context. Our Kids, for example, is the vendor for $1 billion over 10 years (5 years original, with 5 years renewed). The payment amounts get adjusted year to year based on statutory and contractual terms. And the contract amount is not the total cost of the child welfare system when you also factor in state, county, municipal, and charitable funding for all of the people and organizations who make their living adjacent to the system (including, for now at least, me).

Still, a billion dollars is a huge contract and the question of how it is being managed in Miami is particularly relevant today when Our Kids’ leadership team has resigned but not left office and DCF is holding stakeholder interviews to determine how people fighting to drink from that spigot think things are going.

Florida foster care numbers in historical context

I’ve added a new tab to the Child Welfare System Dashboard that shows the out-of-home care population annotated with historical events: governors’ tenures, legislative history, and Florida Supreme Court opinions. Each picture tells a different part of the story about what drives child welfare policy and the rise and fall of the OOHC population.


The saying goes “personnel is policy.” The chart below shows historical trends in the statewide out-of-home care numbers as a factor of both who was secretary and who was governor. Be careful about the vertical axis — it starts at 14,000 to make room for the labels, so the proportions may be misleading. The current OOHC population is 19% lower than when Governor Crist took office and 30% higher than when Governor Scott took office.




The next chart shows major state legislative enactments. It’s a little hard to read because the major overhaul bills do lots of things all at once. That’s not exactly how you want to run an evidence-based system. (The chart below is just major legislation — the version lets you view all legislation during the tenure of each secretary.)

The chart shows that Secretary Butterworth took over right after the passage of SB 1080, which greatly expanded both the permanency options and case planning procedures. OOHC plummeted during this time. Secretary Sheldon took over right after the passage of HB 7077, which restricted case plan duration to 9 months before triggering a TPR ground. The size of OOHC continued to decrease through this period. At the end of Secretary Sheldon’s tenure, the Legislature passed HB 5303, which changed the funding and risk pool models for CBCs.

With a new governor and a new secretary in 2011, the Legislature passed SB 2146 creating the Equity Allocation Model in statute, which based funding on proportions of children in the CBC’s area (30%), proportion of children in care (30%), proportion of hotline workload (30%), and proportion of reductions in the size of OOHC (10%). (This is a gross oversimplification.) By 2015, the formula had been tweaked multiple times to condition 80% of funding on the CBC’s size of OOHC, 15% on the hotline workload, and only 5% on the size of the child population. Between January and June 2015 when the bill that cemented OOHC as the primary driver of funding was being considered in the legislature, CBCs permitted their OOHC populations to grow by 2,000 children in what appears to be the largest and steepest consecutive increase in documented history. Aside from seasonal variations, OOHC rates have increased ever since.




This last chart shows Florida Supreme Court opinions. You can see that in the early 2000’s, when the OOHC population was still high, the main issue was the level of due process afforded parents in dependency and TPR proceedings. (Very little.) Most opinions were answered with a legislative amendment. In 2004, the Court issued an opinion requiring a showing of substantial risk of harm to a child in order to terminate their parents’ rights. That was the Court’s last substantive child welfare opinion until 2015, when the Court held that parents have a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in TPR proceedings. The next year, the Court ruled that the existence of a bond between the parent and the child is not fatal to a TPR under Least Restrictive Means analysis.

It’s difficult to say that any particular Florida Supreme Court decision had a steering effect on child welfare policy. Instead, the opinions seem to have nudged the Legislature and Department to modify existing procedures to achieve their desired results.



I suppose the take-away is that if you want to shift child welfare policy you should become the Governor or Secretary. If you can’t do that, you should at least become a legislator. If you’re not interested in all that work, filing a lawsuit here or there can’t hurt. I’m apparently in the wrong business.

Florida DCF numbers for Nov: up 5.2% over last year, racial disparity dropping, Suncoast and NW still on fire


The DCF trend report numbers are out, and the expansion is continuing statewide. You can see in the chart below that, due to its size, the Suncoast Region continues to be the largest driver of the statewide expansion, but the Northwest Region continues to show the largest individual growth. The two Southeast Region contracted again this month, and the Southern Region flattened and may be entering an expansion soon.

The statewide racial disparity index has been dropping, driven largely by an increase in white children entering care in the northern parts of the state. That raises the question of whether policy changes are removing any “white bonus” that may factor into the decision to remove children. The southern areas still show incredibly high racial disparity indices that are worth digging into deeper.

I’m running short on time today, so the rest of the charts are below. Or you can explore in unbearably more detail at

Region Nov 2015 Nov 2016 Change % of OOHC Contribution to Change
Statewide 22556 23737 5.2% 100.0% 5.2%
Suncoast 6063 6774 11.7% 28.5% 3.3%
NW 1894 2291 21.0% 9.7% 2.0%
Central 4959 5267 6.2% 22.2% 1.4%
NE 3232 3438 6.4% 14.5% 0.9%
S 2094 1930 -7.8% 8.1% -0.6%
SE 4314 4037 -6.4% 17.0% -1.1%


Does Florida have enough foster homes? (It’s at 2/3 capacity.)

I have read a lot in the news lately about the foster care crisis. By many accounts, the growth in out-of-home care (OOHC) has been driven in part by a growing epidemic of drug cases. In previous posts, I’ve shown that the data does not exactly bear that out and the growth is more likely a result of policy changes, especially policies on how cases with available relatives are handled.  I don’t deny there’s been an uptick in drug cases, but the expansion is probably a result in fewer cases being referred to voluntary services while the children stay with a relative under a safety plan.

Another theme in these news reports is the lack of foster homes. So let’s take a look at those numbers. In March 2016, I requested the count of licensed beds in each zip code in Florida. The data went into the Licensed Placements by CBC & Zip Map. Last week I made the same request again, and can now compare the numbers between March and now.

The results: the number of licensed beds has grown 0.8% while the number of children in OOHC has grown 3.9%, or almost 5x as fast.

While 0.8% is probably a non-significant change, the numbers are higher and lower around the state. Losing 16 beds in Miami-Dade County is essentially no change, while gaining 60 beds in Duval County is an almost 8% expansion.


The chart below shows the changes in licensed bed numbers against the changes in OOHC placements. Non-relatives continue to make up the fastest growing placement type, which may be concerning if agencies are using this category to avoid licensing and support while also reducing board payments. I would be curious to know how many of these placements would convert to licensed placements if given an efficient way to do so. I would also be curious to know how many of these “non-relatives” would be more appropriately licensed as group homes.

On the other end, both facility placements (actual kids placed in a facility) and therapeutic beds are decreasing. The number of Child Caring Agency beds has remained almost even.

Description Mar-16 Most Recent Change
Nonrelative Placements 2498 2740 9.7%
Family Foster Placements 7162 7533 5.2%
OOHC Placements 22876 23770 3.9%
Relative Placements 10213 10532 3.1%
Family Foster Beds 10155 10294 1.4%
All Licensed Beds 16419 16546 0.8%
Child Caring Agency Beds 4409 4415 0.1%
Therapeutic Foster Beds 1122 1104 -1.6%
Facility Placements 2472 2396 -3.1%

Another way to view these numbers is by how full-to-capacity each type is. The placement data and the licensing data isn’t broken up in exactly the same way, so I’ve combined family foster beds and therapeutic beds. The result is that only two-thirds of family foster beds are actually filled, and that number has crept up since March 2016. Simultaneously, a little over half of child caring agency beds (i.e., group homes) are filled by child welfare kids.

Description Mar-16 Most Recent Capacity Change
Family Foster + Therapeutic Capacity 63.5% 66.1% 2.6%
Child Caring Agency Capacity 56.1% 54.3% -1.8%

The 33% vacancy rate is probably due to lots of factors. Some families are licensed for more children than they want to take in at any given time. Other beds cannot be filled because a child in the home has a safety plan that prevents other children from being placed there. Still other homes are temporarily not accepting children at all.  In group homes, not all kids in those homes are child welfare placements. What is important is that we’re pushing deeper into the foster home capacity and reducing the reliance on group home programs.

Below are the breakdowns for foster beds, therapeutic beds, and group home beds. You can explore the data in more detail on As always, if there’s something you want to see or know, just leave a message in the comments.


October DCF numbers: 5% rise continues, non-licensed placements growing


Florida’s statewide out-of-home care population rose 232 children in October, maintaining a consistent 5% growth over October of last year. In-home-care numbers decreased by 29 children and are expected to remain flat. Growth was largest in the Northwest and Suncoast regions, while the Southeast and Southern regions experienced contractions. Only the Southeast region is projected to continue to experience its contraction into next year. More details are below.

Oct-15 Oct-16 Year-to-Year Change Dec 2017 (Projected) Projected Change % of OOHC (Oct 2016)
NW 1946 2270 17% 2886 27% 10%
Suncoast 6019 6725 12% 7469 11% 28%
NE 3213 3473 8% 4033 16% 15%
Central 4933 5285 7% 5647 7% 22%
Statewide 22635 23770 5% 25059 5% 100%
SE 4367 4075 -7% 3491 -14% 17%
S 2157 1942 -10% 2150 11% 8%

The Northwest region appears to be continuing its massive expansion, growing 17% over last year, the highest of any region. The expansion appears driven by an increase in removals concurrent with a flattened discharge rate. Relative placements have expanded the fastest, while permanent guardianships are nearing zero. Without some change in either removal rates or discharge rates, the Northwest is currently projected to grow another 27% in the next year.

The Suncoast region continues its OOHC expansion that began around January 2014 and its IHC expansion that began in June 2015. The massive expansion appears driven by increased removal rates concurrent with flattened discharge rates. Relative placements continue to be the largest placement while discharges through permanent guardianships continue to decrease. The Suncoast region continues to be the largest region with 28% of all  children in out-of-home care.

The Northeast region continues its expansion this month, up 8% over last year. The expansion appears driven by an increase in removals concurrent with steady discharge rates beginning around June 2014. Relative and non-relative placements continued to show expansion.

The Central region continues its expansion this month, up 7% over last year. The expansion appears driven by heightened removal rates concurrent with steady discharge rates beginning around November 2014. Relative and non-relative placements show the most growth. Reunification and guardianships both have decreased as a proportion of OOHC, suggesting a bottleneck in resources.

The Southeast region’s contraction appears largely motivated by an increase in discharges, a larger reliance on permanent guardianships, and a slightly rising adoption rate. The Southeast region has also experienced a downsizing of its facility-based care population, which began a sharp drop-off in May 2016 and has decreased 19% to 501 since October 2015.

The Southern region’s contraction that began in May 2015 may finally be turning, though in-home-care placement may continue to fall. This region is projected to grow 8% in the next year. The Southern region continues to have the highest racial disparity of any region, with black youth over-represented by 4.3x the rate of white youth.

A word about placement types

Expansions in OOHC have been largely located in relative placements (pink line below), which have remained approximately 40-45% of OOHC since their initial expansion with Secretary Wilkins in June 2010. Family foster homes (green line) have risen gradually in the post-Wilkins era. Notably, non-relative placements (purple line) have continued to outnumber facility foster homes (blue line). The types of non-relatives (families, facilities, or informal group home settings) and the amount of social and financial support provided to these placements is currently unknown and probably deserves some attention as more children are placed in these settings.



September monthly update: OOHC up 5% over 2015, IHC even, expansion continues

Florida’s statewide out-of-home care population rose 309 to 23,538 in September, up 5.3% from the same time last year. IHC has remained stable for the past 12 months. Our model has now seen a long enough period of OOHC growth that it can begin separating out seasonal variations, like summer slumps and adoption months, from actual growth. The resulting picture suggests that the current expansion will continue indefinitely without some policy change.


Trends in removals and discharges support this projection. Both removal and discharge rates are seasonal and, except for the months of November (National Adoption Month) and June (beginning of summer reunification rush), removals are projected to continue to outpace discharges.

Oct 2016 - Statewide - Removal v. Discharge.png

All placement types are expected to continue to expand, with the exception of facility foster homes.

Oct 2016 - Statewide - Placements.png

The number of calls accepted for investigation by the abuse hotline are stable, verifications are down nearly 3% over the previous year, but removals are up over 3%. Hillsborough and Miami-Dade continue to have the highest absolute number of removals, while DeSoto county has the highest per 100,000 children in the county. Similarly, the Eckerds and Our Kids have the highest absolute number of removals, while CBCs in less populous regions continue to have much higher removals per 100,000 children.


Regional projections continue to show a lot of variation around the state. The Northwest Region has grown 13% over the last year and is projected to continue to grow another 30% in the next 14 months. At the other end, the Southeast Region has contracted 7% in the last year and is projected to continue this contraction through December 2017. The Suncoast Region, which comprises 28% of all children in OOHC, has grown 13% in the last year and is expected to continue expanding.

Region Sep-15 Sep-16 Change Projected Dec 2017 Projected Change Percent of Statewide OOHC
NW 1983 2235 13% 2901 30% 9%
NE 3078 3490 13% 4117 18% 15%
Suncoast 5819 6548 13% 7346 12% 28%
S 2182 1928 -12% 2014 4% 8%
Central 4894 5230 7% 5442 4% 22%
SE 4402 4107 -7% 3440 -16% 17%


A word about the importance of leadership and statewide policy. The following chart shows OOHC broken down by DCF secretaries over time. Changes in leadership correspond with changes in direction. The exceptions are the transition from Butterworth to Sheldon under Governor Crist, and the transition from Interim Secretary Jacobo to Secretary Carroll under Governor Scott. oohc-by-secretaryThe Wilkins bubble from 2011-2013 is possibly attributable to an attempt to expand OOHC when Governor Scott took over office, but without sufficient legislative structures and CBC buy-in. Secretary Wilkins, an outsider to the child welfare community, eventually resigned under pressure and in the middle of a flurry of negative press about the deaths of children who had contact with the Department. The expansion continued under Secretary Carroll.


To explore these numbers in more interactive detail, check out the Child Welfare Dashboard.

Where the therapeutic foster care placements are

I received a question the other day about the availability of therapeutic placements around the state. My gut answer at the time was that there is wide variation based on geography and CBC. Through a public records request I had done a few months ago, I was able to put together maps showing the disparity. It’s extreme.

You can view the interactive maps here on Tableau. It works best from a desktop computer.

A few caveats. The maps show the number of licensed beds, not necessarily the number of kids in those placements. The colors show which CBCs have authority over those regions, but this does not mean that those CBCs use those placements or licensed them. I’m working on another set of maps that show how CBCs place kids out-of-area.

What do we see in these maps? There are a couple of counties around the state with no licensed placements at all. There are a handful of others that have fewer than 10. Comparing these numbers to the placement maps on the Dashboard, the CBCs in these areas tend to rely on relative caregivers to a larger degree.

What is most striking is the distribution of therapeutic foster and group care (STFC and STGC) placements. They cluster in bigger cities. Some areas, like the Suncoast Region, have a large number of STFC placements available. Whereas the inside of the state, and specifically the area covered by Devereux CBC, have very few. There are no STGCs in the Northwest Region and very few in the Northeast. The two regions overseen by ChildNet have the largest concentration of STGCs.

The economic viability of running an STFC or STGC program depends completely on the local CBC to refer clients. It would be interesting to know more about how each CBC screens kids and makes referrals. This may explain a lot of the discrepancy.

I should note that I’m not advocating for more STFCs and STGCs. At least not as they’re currently implemented. The programs put kids like my clients in families and placements where they find stability and support (this is good!) — and then kicks them out as soon as they’re doing well and no longer meet medical criteria (this is bad!). Many of my clients don’t want to leave, and it seems contrary to everything we’re told about attachment and bonding to have time-limited family placements. Every foster home should be small, focused on the child, and therapeutically trained.

If anyone has specific questions about the maps, I’m happy to answer them in the comments.



Florida Child Welfare Stats for August 2016: the expansion continues


The August numbers are out and it appears the Carroll expansion is slowing down, but continuing. OOHC numbers were slightly higher than projected this month, which may be due to lower discharges during the summer holidays. Though the line is flattening, removals are expected to continue to outpace discharges for the foreseeable future and only two regions are contracting.

The charts below show the numbers for each region, sorted from most expanding to most contracting. For more details, check the Dashboard.


The Northwest Region is expected to continue its expansion, with OOHC and IHC numbers coming in close to projected values. Relative and non-relative placements are expected to continue to expand, with all other placement types remaining steady. Removals are expected to largely outpace discharges, suggesting a continued expansion.
The Northeast Region appeared to be experiencing a slowdown to its expansion, but there is some evidence this month that the expansion will continue. OOHC came in higher than expected (projected 3348, actual 3431), while IHC reduced faster than expected (projected 1840, actual 1759). Relative placements are expected to continue to expand, while other placement types remain steady. Removals are expected to largely outpace discharges, suggesting the current expansion will continue.
The Suncoast Region continued its expansion this month, with OOHC and IHC numbers in line with predicted levels. Removals and discharges are highly seasonal in this region, but removals are expected to continue to outpace discharges except in the heavy adoption months of November and June, suggesting the expansion will continue.
The Central Region is experiencing a period of slowing expansion. Its OOHC numbers are lower than expected this month (projected 5203, actual 5189), and it reduced IHC by more than expected (projected 3078, actual 2984). Relative placements appear to have peaked in February 2016 and have been on the decline since. All other placement types are steady or increasing. Removals are expected to continue to outpace discharges, suggesting that the expansion, while slowing, will continue.
The Southern Region continued its contraction this month, hitting projections for both OOHC and IHC. Discharges in this region are highly seasonal, but expected to continue to equal or slightly outpace removals. The current contraction is expected to continue.
The Southeast Region’s contractions appears to be continuing, with OOHC and IHC numbers coming in close to projected values. Contractions appear most prominent in family foster placements. Discharges are highly seasonal in the Southeast Region, but are expected to equal or outpace removals.