Key Performance Indicators

Department of Health and Social Services

• Return to Departments
• Department of Health and Social Services website

Mission

To promote and protect the health and well-being of Alaskans. AS 47.05.101

Priority 1. Health & Wellness Across the Lifespan
Priority 2. Health Care Access, Delivery & Value
Priority 3. Safe & Responsible Individuals, Families & Communities

Key Performance Indicators

• Target: Percent of child abuse/neglect assessments (investigations) that are initiated within required timeframes

• Target: Percent of assessments (investigations) completed timely

• Target: Number of months Long Term Services and Supports recipients are able to remain in their home before institutional placement

• Target: Average cost of Long Term Services and Supports per recipient

• Target: Percent of individuals served by the department with access to a regular primary care provider

• Target: Cost to provide health care services per client

• Target: Percent of Medicaid eligible individuals who utilize Medicaid Services

• Target: Cost per recipient

• Target: Number of rendering providers participating in the Medicaid program

• Target: Percent change in number of rendering providers participating

• Target: Percent of individuals receiving employment related services from the department who achieve employment

• Target: Cost of supported employment services per successful participant in Job Start or on-the-job training

• Target: Accuracy rate for open Food Stamp cases

• Target: Average time from receipt of initial SNAP application to eligibility determination

• Target: Percent of children discharged from out-of-home care who are reunified with their parents.

• Target: Percent of children who re-enter out-of-home care within twelve months

• Target: Percent of Alaska adults with substantiated reports of abuse or neglect

• Target: Average time to initiate an investigation

• Target: Cost of administering background check program

• Target: Average Days to Provisional Employment Eligibility Status

• Target: Reduce the rate of recidivism for juveniles released from Division of Juvenile Justice Probation.

• Target: Cost per day for probation services based on average daily population

• Target: Program savings per fraud investigator

Performance Detail

Target #1: Cost of injury prevention program per capita Methodology: Division of Public Health injury prevention program budget, per capita. 2017 includes one-time funding for recreational marijuana public education campaign. Source: Measure 1.1.2.1b. Division of Public Health, Section of Chronic Disease and Health Promotion and Department of Labor and Workforce Development population estimates Total Per Capita Cost of Public Health Injury Prevention Programs Fiscal Year YTD Total FY 2021 $0.68 FY 2020 $0.63 FY 2019 $0.53 FY 2018 $0.71 FY 2017 $1.38 FY 2016 $0.71 FY 2015 $0.96 FY 2014 $0.93 FY 2013 $0.72 FY 2012 $0.75 FY 2011 $0.79

Target #2: Cost to fully immunize a child 19 - 35 months of age Methodology: Cost of purchasing vaccines to meet the 4/3/1/3/3/1/4 Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended vaccine series for children 19-35 months of age. The cost of vaccine is based on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control federal pediatric vaccine contract price and use of the state recommended vaccine formulary. Cost does not reflect any staffing time, shipping costs or administration fees. Source: Measure 1.1.1.1b. Division of Public Health,. Source: Measure 1.1.1.1b. Division of Public Health, Section of Epidemiology, Immunization Program Cost to Fully Immunize a Child 19 - 35 Months of Age Year YTD Total 2021 $1,326 2020 $1,273 2019 $1,301 2018 $1,201 2017 $1,162 2016 $1,113 2015 $1,084 2014 $1,059

Target #3: Number of Alaskans experiencing unintentional injuries and poisoning. Methodology: Data Source: Alaska Trauma Registry (2009-2017) / Health Facility Data Reporting System In-Patient Discharge DataSet (2018-Present) Beginning January 1, 2011, Alaska Trauma Registry exclude hospitalizations for unintentional drug overdose and poisonings among adults unless work-related exposure. Starting with the 2018 calendar year, unintentional injury was reported using data from Health Facility Data Reporting System (HFDRS) that is incluth Facility Data Reporting System (HFDRS) that is inclusive of unintentional poisoning; however, the data does not include Department of Defense healthcare facilities. All potential population using health facilities for treatment of an unintentional injhealth facilities for treatment of an unintentional injury (most recent version of Annual Alaska Population estimates i.e., 2019 was used). 2. Data subset for ICD-10 primary diagnosis code and excludes the following ICD-10 CODES for "Intentional Seles the following ICD-10 CODES for "Intentional Self-Harm", "Legal Intervention", "Assault", and "Event of Undetermined Intent". Data subset includes percent and number of admission hospitalizations or transfers to a number of admission hospitalizations or transfers to another trauma care facility for initial encounter of an injury and excludes subsequent encounters and sequela for same injury. Current surveillance provides only hospitalization and fatalities that cnce provides only hospitalization and fatalities that can be tracked. Surveillance will need to be developed to capture patient-cases from ambulatory care facilities, clinics, and private sector health care providers. 3. Percent and number of hospitalizeh care providers. 3. Percent and number of hospitalized patients who died from an unintentional injury (provided by the Health Analytics and Vital Records Section). 4. Alaska Department of Labor-Labor Force Estimates. 5. Number of hospitalizations noteor Force Estimates. 5. Number of hospitalizations noted as work-related injury or poisoning exposure in ATR data was used for work-related hospitalizations. N/A denotes data not yet available. Unintentional Injury Rate (per 100,000 persons) Year YTD Total Target 2020 548.4 563.6 2019 568.4 569.3 2018 570.1 575.0 2017 434.7 438.1 2016 428.8 442.5 2015 426.6 447.0 2014 441.8 451.5 2013 423.6 456.0 2012 449.3 460.6 2011 455.7 465.3 2010 470.0 470.0

Target #4: Percent of children 19 - 35 months of age who are fully immunized Methodology: Children 19 - 35 months of age "active" in Alaska's Immunization Information System (VacTrAK) who are up to date with the vaccination series recommended by the national Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. "Active" is defined as having two or more vaccines reported to VacTrAK. Up to date series reported reflects 4 doses Diphtheria/Tetanus/acellular, Pertussis: 3 doses, Polio: 1 dose, Measles/Mumps/Rubella: 3 doses, Hemop, Polio: 1 dose, Measles/Mumps/Rubella: 3 doses, Hemophilus influenzae type b: 3 doses, Hepatitis B: 1 dose, Varicella: 4 doses, and Pneumococcal conjugate vaccines. Target is a gradual improvement to meet Healthy Alaskans 2020 target of 75% by the year o meet Healthy Alaskans 2020 target of 75% by the year 2020. Source: Measure 1.1.1.1a. Division of Public Health, Section of Epidemiology, Immunization Program, VacTrAK (Alaska's Immunization Information System)tion System) Percent of Children 19 - 35 Months of Age Who are Fully Immunized Year Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Target 2021 59.0% 57.0% 56.0% 0 75.0% 2020 63.0% 61.0% 59.0% 61% 70.0% 2019 64.5% 64.2% 64.0% 65% 69.7% 2018 61.4% 63.3% 65.1% 64.0% 65.3% 2017 56.3% 57.8% 61.5% 60.2% 61.0% 2016 60.6% 60.6% 60.3% 60.3% 56.7% 2015 58.9% 59.2% 60.4% 60.3% 52.4%

Target #1: Average cost of Long Term Services and Supports per recipient Methodology: This performance measure is calculated by taking the average cost of long term care services rendered during the fiscal year per Medicaid recipient. There are four categories of service that indicate the use of long term care services (010 - Short Term LTC Services; 011 - SNF Nursing Home; 012 - ICF Nursing Home; 013 - ICF/MR Service). This division utilizes MMIS Enterprise and Cognos to query long term care billing claims. It is important to note ong term care billing claims. It is important to note that providers have a year to bill from the date of service, which may bias the overall average. Average Cost of Long Term Services and Supports per Recipient Fiscal Year Average cost FY 2021 $146,133 FY 2020 $157,790 FY 2019 $156,032 FY 2018 $144,791 FY 2017 $148,024 FY 2016 $149,362 FY 2015 $153,412 FY 2014 $118,406 FY 2013 $122,330 FY 2012 $111,788 FY 2011 $102,251 FY 2010 $85,284 FY 2009 $78,421

Target #2: Number of months Long Term Services and Supports recipients are able to remain in their home before institutional placement Methodology: This performance measure is calculated by averaging the age of all the Medicaid long term services and supports recipients who were placed in an institution during a fiscal year and then converting the age into months. Recipients' age is calculated by computing the difference between their date of birth and the initial date of institutional placement (i.e., first date of service at the long term care facility). There are four categories of service tcare facility). There are four categories of service that indicate institutional placement (010 - Short Term LTC Services; 011 - SNF Nursing Home; 012 - ICF Nursing Home; 013 - ICF/MR Service). This division utilizes MMIS Enterprise and Cognos to query division utilizes MMIS Enterprise and Cognos to query long term care billing claims. It is important to note that providers have a year to bill from the date of service, which may bias the overall number of months.umber of months. Number of Months Long Term Services and Supports Recipients are able to Remain in their Home before Institutional Placement Fiscal Year Number of Months FY 2021 801.24 -0.46% FY 2020 804.96 -0.96% FY 2019 812.76 +0.84% FY 2018 806.0 -3.22% FY 2017 832.8 -1.57% FY 2016 846.12 +1.54% FY 2015 833.29 -5.21% FY 2014 879.12 +0.88% FY 2013 871.44 +0.35% FY 2012 868.36 +0.28% FY 2011 865.92 +0.77% FY 2010 859.32 +0.41% FY 2009 855.84

Target #3: Percent of assessments (investigations) completed timely Methodology: Of all initial assessments completed in the report period, the percent that were completed within 45 days Numerator: Of the assessments in the denominator, the number that were completed within 45 days Denominator: The total number of initial assessments completed during the report period Percent of Assessments (Investigations) Completed Timely Fiscal Year YTD Total FY 2021 63.6% FY 2020 26.1% FY 2019 20.5% FY 2018 25.2% FY 2017 21.8% FY 2016 20.5% FY 2015 17.0% FY 2014 18.1% FY 2013 20.8%

Target #4: Percent of child abuse/neglect assessments (investigations) that are initiated within required timeframes Methodology: Of all initial assessments completed in the report period, the percent that were initiated within the following timeframes: (one combined rate is reported) < = 1 day for Priority 1 reports < = 3 days for Priority 2 reports < = 7 days for Priority 3 reports Numerator: Number of assessments in the denominator that were initiated timely Denominator: Total number of initial assessments completed in the report period that were not cessments completed in the report period that were not closed without finding.

Target #1: Cost to provide health care services per client Methodology: Cognos decision support system. Cost to Provide Health Care Services per Client FY2010-2021 (In Dollars) Fiscal Year Cost per Client FY 2021 8,136 -2.46% FY 2020 8,341 -7.81% FY 2019 9,048 +6.4% FY 2018 8,504 -9.7% FY 2017 9,418 +3.84% FY 2016 9,070 -3.37% FY 2015 9,386 +2.62% FY 2014 9,146 -4.17% FY 2013 9,544 +5.21% FY 2012 9,071 -2.47% FY 2011 9,301 +2.13% FY 2010 9,107 Analysis of results and challenges: Analysis of results and challenges: The average cost to provide health care services for an individual client decreased slightly from 2011 to 2012. From 2012 to 2013 the cost increased, while 2013 to 2014 it decreased again only to rise when comparing 2015 to 2014. 2016 saw significant decrease in spending per enrollee as this was also the first year of Medicaid Expansion which was matched at 100% by federal dollars. 2016 to 2017 saw a small increase in cost while 2017 to 2018 saw a significant reduction in cost per enrollee, 2018 to 2019 saw an increase in cost of 6.40%. Then FY2020 saw a decrease of 7.81%.

Target #2: Percent of individuals served by the department with access to a regular primary care provider Methodology: Cognos decision support system (starting 7/1/2014); STARS decision support system (7/1/2010- 7/1/2013). Percent of Individuals Accessing Primary Care Providers FY2010-2021 Fiscal Year Percent FY 2021 76.59 -2.03% FY 2020 78.18 +10.74% FY 2019 70.6 +1.29% FY 2018 69.70 -6.92% FY 2017 74.88 -5.17% FY 2016 78.96 +1.63% FY 2015 77.69 +15.85% FY 2014 67.06 -7.63% FY 2013 72.6 -3.46% FY 2012 75.2 -0.13% FY 2011 75.3 -1.31% FY 2010 76.3 Analysis of results and challenges: There was a steady decline in the percentage of individuals accessing primary care providers from FY2010- FY2014. By FY2014, the numbers declined to 67.06%. In FY2015, the percentages grew by 10.63%. There was a slight increase in the percentage of individuals accessing primary care services in FY2016 (78.96%). From FY2017 to FY2018, there was a slight decline in the percentages (76.66% and 75.81% respectively). FY2019 saw an increase in the overall Medicaid population utilizing primary care services. The FY2020 numbers declined slightly to 78.19%. The FY2021 results decreased by 2.05%. E&M claims were identified using CPT codes 99201-99499. The unique count of recipients that accesses E&M services were divided by the number of Medicaid eligible recipients that received any service.

Target #1: Cost per recipient Methodology: Cognos decision support system. Cost per Recipient (Based on Medicaid Eligible Individuals That Utilize Services) Fiscal Year Cost per Recipient FY 2021 10,721 -0.92% FY 2020 10,821 -2.19% FY 2019 11,063 +10.9% FY 2018 9,976 -10.55% FY 2017 11,152 +14.3% FY 2016 9,757 -6.29% FY 2015 10,412 -1.81% FY 2014 10,604 +7.31% FY 2013 9,882 +0.11% FY 2012 9,871 -2.2% FY 2011 10,093 +3.48% FY 2010 9,754 Analysis of results and challenges: The cost per Medicaid recipient in FY2011 decreased by 2.29% when compared to FY2010. FY2012 saw a decrease in cost by 7.75% when compared to FY2011. The cost per recipient decreased slightly from FY2013-2014 but increased in the following year by 10.06%. FY2016 decreased by 7.96% when compared to FY2015. FY2017 cost per recipient grew by 6.18% when compared to FY2016. FY2018 saw the cost per recipient decreased slightly by 0.94%. The cost per recipient grew by 6.74% in FY2019. FY2020 saw a slight increase in cost per recipient when compared to FY2019. In FY2021, there was a significant reduction of cost per recipient which could be due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The cost per recipient was derived by dividing the total paid amounts by the count of unique recipients.

Target #2: Number of rendering providers participating in the Medicaid program Methodology: Note: The number of providers that rendered services on a paid claim for reimbursement will be obtained from a standard management report from Cognos for the reporting period. Number of Rendering Providers Participating in the Medicaid Program Fiscal Year Number of Providers FY 2021 17087 -11.69% FY 2020 19,348 +12.24% FY 2019 17,238 -4.39% FY 2018 18,029 +2.63% FY 2017 17,567 +3.98% FY 2016 16,895 +5.97% FY 2015 15,943 +0.34% FY 2014 15,889 +3.22% FY 2013 15,393 +5.09% FY 2012 14,647 +25.49% FY 2011 11,672 +45.21% FY 2010 8,038 Analysis of results and challenges: The number of participating rendering providers providing Medicaid Services in Alaska grew significantly in FY2011 (45.21%) and FY2012 (25.49%). The numbers increased steadily from FY2013 to FY2018. There was a slight decline by 4.38% in FY2019 when compared to FY2018. The number of rendering providers increased significantly in FY2020 but saw a significant decline in FY2021 which could be due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The rate of enrollment for rendering providers is expected to increase in upcoming fiscal years as new enrollment types are added to enhance visibility into Medicaid claiming.

Target #3: Percent change in number of rendering providers participating Methodology: Note: The percentage of providers that rendered services on a paid claim for reimbursement will be obtained from a standard management report from Cognos. Divide the number of participating rendering providers by the number of enrolled providers to obtain the percentage of providers providing Medicaid health care services for the reporting period. Percentage Change in Participating Medicaid Providers Fiscal Year Percent Change FY 2021 59.7 -14.96% FY 2020 70.2 +2.78% FY 2019 68.3 +4.43% FY 2018 65.4 +10.1% FY 2017 59.4 -1.33% FY 2016 60.2 +0.67% FY 2015 59.8 +3.46% FY 2014 57.8 -9.4% FY 2013 63.8 -8.2% FY 2012 69.5 +5.3% FY 2011 66.0 -5.98% FY 2010 70.2 Analysis of results and challenges: The percentage of participating rendering providers declined in FY2011 by 5.98% but increased by 5.27% in FY2012. From FY2013-2014, the participation rates gradually decreased. The numbers grew between FY2015 and FY2016. The percentages went down in FY2017 by 1.33% but climbed back up from FY2018-FY2020. The FY2021 participation rates are low which could be due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Target #4: Percent of Medicaid eligible individuals who utilize Medicaid Services Methodology: Cognos decision support system (starting 7/1/2014); STARS decision support system (7/1/2010- 7/1/2013). Percent of Medicaid Eligible Individuals Utilizing Medicaid Services FY2010-2021 Fiscal Year Percent FY 2021 75.90 -1.53% FY 2020 77.08 -5.76% FY 2019 81.79 -4.05% FY 2018 85.24 +0.92% FY 2017 84.46 -9.14% FY 2016 92.96 +3.12% FY 2015 90.15 +4.52% FY 2014 86.25 -10.7% FY 2013 96.58 +5.1% FY 2012 91.89 -0.28% FY 2011 92.15 -1.31% FY 2010 93.37 Analysis of results and challenges: The percent of Medicaid eligible individuals utilizing Medicaid services increased from FY2010 to FY2013 by approximately 11 percent. FY2012-2013 witnessed a peak utilization of 95 percent before the percentage decreased in FY2014. FY2015 held nearly steady in utilization. In FY2016 utilization increased by 2.35 percent compared to FY2015 and FY2017 had similar utilization trends with a percentage of 92.79. FY2018 had a decreased utilization of services. FY2019 and FY2020 had a decreased utilization of services by Medicaid population overall.

Target #1: Accuracy rate for open Food Stamp cases Methodology: 2021 data is preliminary. Final % for 2021 will be available next budget cycle. In FY2021, the cyberattack against DHSS delayed QA from completing each review meaning not all cases have been factored into this rate yet.

Target #2: Average time from receipt of initial SNAP application to eligibility determination Methodology: SNAP determinations. Average time from receipt of initial application to eligibility determination (in days). Fiscal Year YTD Total FY 2021 17 +70% FY 2020 10 -9.09% FY 2019 11 +52.35% FY 2018 7.22 +41.02% FY 2017 5.12 +23.37% FY 2016 4.15 -54.74% FY 2015 9.17 +43.96% FY 2014 6.37 -53.71% FY 2013 13.76 -40.92% FY 2012 23.29 +132.9%

Target #3: Cost of supported employment services per successful participant in Job Start or on-the-job training Costs of Supportive Services for Clients on Temporary Assistance Year YTD Total 2021 $641.20 2020 $653.38 2019 $630.92 2018 $251.51 2017 $215.47 2016 $721.77 2015 $825.08 2014 $985.97 2013 $973.76

Target #4: Percent of individuals receiving employment related services from the department who achieve employment Methodology: Numerator: Number of adults in the Temporary Assistance Program who have earned income Denominator: Number of adults in the Temporary Assistance Program who are work eligible. Source: Percent of Adults on Temporary Assistance with Earned Income Year YTD Total 2021 42.0% 2020 50.2% 2019 55.6% 2018 52.9% 2017 36.4% 2016 48.1% 2015 36.2% 2014 35.6% 2013 37.9% 2012 36.8% 2011 38.3% 2010 36.1% 2009 36.6% 2008 43.2% 2007 45.3%

Target #1: Average Days to Provisional Employment Eligibility Status Methodology: Background Check Program Average Days to Provisional Employment Eligibility Fiscal Year Number of Days FY 2021 15 +147.52% FY 2020 6.06 -42.4% FY 2019 10.52 +45.71% FY 2018 7.22 +41.02% FY 2017 5.12 +23.37% FY 2016 4.15 -54.74% FY 2015 9.17 +43.96% FY 2014 6.37 -53.71% FY 2013 13.76 -40.92% FY 2012 23.29 Analysis of results and challenges: The average time for a complete background check application to be worked for provisional status decreased from 10.52 days in FY2019 to 6.06 days in FY2020. Prior to the cyber-attack on May 17, 2021, the average time for a completed background check application was 4-5 days. Post cyber-attack, the average time for a complete background check application to be worked manually is 15 days. Timeframes fluctuate depending on the number of applications received.

Target #2: Average time to initiate an investigation Methodology: This performance measure is calculated by averaging the number of business days it takes Adult Protective Service investigations to conduct the initial face-to-face contact with the alleged victim of abuse, neglect, or exploitation once the report of harm is received by the Division of Senior and Disabilities Services. The division strives to conduct the initial face-to-face visit within 10 business days of receiving the report of harm. The divisioness days of receiving the report of harm. The division utilizes its database system, DS3 (Division of Senior and Disabilities Services Database System), to store and monitor all data pertaining to Adult Protective Services.ult Protective Services. Average number of Business Days to Initiate an Investigation Fiscal Year Average days to initiate FY 2021 6 -53.85% FY 2020 13 +30% FY 2019 10 +100% FY 2018 5 +25% FY 2017 4 -42.86% FY 2016 7 +16.67% FY 2015 6 +20% FY 2014 5 +25% FY 2013 4 0% FY 2012 4 -20% FY 2011 5 -28.57% FY 2010 7 -22.22% FY 2009 9

Target #3: Cost of administering background check program Methodology: Background Check Program, Health Care Services Administration - Data pulled from ALDER. Cost of Administering Background Check Program FY2014-2021 Fiscal Year Cost of Program FY 2021 $1,479,212.47 FY 2020 $1,734,715 FY 2019 $1,663,381 FY 2018 $1,701,147 FY 2017 $1,837,738 FY 2016 $1,737,200 FY 2015 $2,059,500 FY 2014 $2,169,761 Analysis of results and challenges: The cost of administering the background check program from FY2012 to FY2014 was just over $2,000,000 for each year, with a peak cost in FY2013 of $2,301,959. With the implementation of a new Background Check system (NABCS), efficiencies have been realized, lowering costs for administering the program to $2,059,500 in FY2015, a decrease of 5.08% compared to FY2014. Background check costs declined even further in FY2016 to $1,737,200 or 15.65% compared to FY2015. There was a small spike in FY2017 as there were increased IT costs. FY2018 and FY2019 showed a decrease to overall costs. FY2020 showed an increase to overall costs as there were increase core service costs. FY2021 reflects a decline in background check costs due to the public health emergency.

Target #4: Percent of Alaska adults with substantiated reports of abuse or neglect Methodology: This performance measure is calculated by taking the percentage of Alaskan adults with at least one report of harm having at least one substantiated allegation. The percentage is calculated by taking the unduplicated count of adults who had at least one report of harm filed for them with at least one allegation determined to be substantiated at the conclusion of the Adult Protective Service investigation over the estimated population of Alaska for thtigation over the estimated population of Alaska for the year being targeted. There are two important caveats to the methodology used to calculate this performance measure: first, the population estimates are taken from the U.S. Census, and it encompassemates are taken from the U.S. Census, and it encompasses the entire population of Alaska, not just adults. Secondly, the number of adults with substantiated reports of harm is subject to change at any given point in time, because investigations can take y given point in time, because investigations can take a weeks and months to close. Both of these caveats can potentially bias the overall percentage. The division utilizes its database system, DS3 (Division of Senior and Disabilities Services Database (Division of Senior and Disabilities Services Database System), to store and monitor all data pertaining to Adult Protective Services. Percent of Alaska Adults with Substantiated Reports of Abuse or Neglect Fiscal Year Quarter 1 YTD Total FY 2021 0.09% 0.09% FY 2020 0.08% 0.08% FY 2019 0.09% 0.09% FY 2018 0.08% 0.08% FY 2017 0.09% 0.09% FY 2016 0.11% 0.11% FY 2015 0.07% 0.07% FY 2014 0.07% 0.07% FY 2013 0.08% 0.08% FY 2012 0.10% 0.10% FY 2011 0.12% 0.12% FY 2010 0.08% 0.08% FY 2009 0.07% 0.07%

Target #5: Percent of children discharged from out-of-home care who are reunified with their parents. Methodology: Of all children discharged during the year who have been in out-of-home care for at least eight days, the percent that were discharged to reunification. Numerator: Of the children in the denominator, the number whose last discharge of the year had a discharge reason of reunification. Denominator: The unique number of children placed in out-of-home care for at least 24 hours (1 day). Percent of Children Discharged from Out-of-Home Care who are Reunified with their Parents Fiscal Year YTD Total FFY 2021 49.9% FFY 2020 49.1% FFY 2019 50.6% FFY 2018 55.8% FFY 2017 54.7% FFY 2016 57.2% FFY 2015 49.7% FFY 2014 50.3% FFY 2013 53.9% FFY 2012 52.2%

Target #6: Percent of children who re-enter out-of-home care within twelve months Methodology: Of all children removed from their home who have been discharged in the prior twelve months. Numerator: Children removed from the home during the reporting period. Denominator: Children removed from the home during the reporting period who have a discharge within the 12 months prior to their most recent reporting period removal date. Percent of Children who Re-enter Out-of-home Care within Twelve Months Fiscal Year YTD Total FFY 2021 9.5 FFY 2020 16.0% FFY 2019 10.3% FFY 2018 13.8% FFY 2017 13.4% FFY 2016 10.1% FFY 2015 13.9% FFY 2014 12.5% FFY 2013 8.1% FFY 2012 12.0%

Target #1: Cost per day for probation services based on average daily population Methodology: The cost per day for the Probation core service is calculated by taking the cost for each probation region and then allocating to each region portions of Director's Office and Delinquency Prevention components, and Youth Court expenditures. The population of youth receiving probation services is based on the number of juveniles with open supervision or intake records in the fiscal year. The total number of youths receiving probation services for the number of youths receiving probation services for the year is divided by 365 to come up with an average daily population. FY2012-FY2021 Cost per Day for Probation Services Based on Average Daily Population Fiscal Year Cost Per Day FY 2021 $45.76 FY 2020 $41.63 FY 2019 $36.90 FY 2018 $38.67 FY 2017 $35.66 FY 2016 $37.12 FY 2015 $40.86 FY 2014 $40.91 FY 2013 $33.91 FY 2012 $33.43 Analysis of results and challenges: The cost to provide probation services to a youth in Alaska remained fairly stable from FY2016 to FY2019. In FY2020 and FY2021, the division began to see an increase to those costs. Changes in the number of youths referred to the division from year to year is the largest factor in creating fluctuations in the cost per day for probation services. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the division saw a reduction in youth referred to the division which impacted both fiscal years. The division continues to build strong community partners in urban and rural Alaska, collaborate with behavioral health providers for youth with complex needs, increase work with education partners, and strengthen work with families. Costs to provide probation services vary depending on the regions in which these services are provided. For example, probation services in regions with many rural communities generally are more expensive than those in urban regions because of geographic differential, increased costs for travel, supplies, and other resources. In FY2021 the division was able to hire supervisory staff in regional offices with a relatively high geographic differential in rural Alaska that had been previously difficult to fill.

Target #2: Program savings per fraud investigator

Target #3: Reduce the rate of recidivism for juveniles released from Division of Juvenile Justice Probation. Methodology: For juveniles to be counted as recidivists in the data above, adjudication and conviction information on offenses that were committed 24 months after release from probation supervision must have been entered in the division's Juvenile Offender Management Information System or the Alaska Public Safety Information Network by July 3, 2020. The analysis below excludes youth who were ordered to an Alaskan juvenile treatment facility any time prior to theirkan juvenile treatment facility any time prior to their supervision end date, as these youth are included in the analysis for our juvenile treatment facilities. Non-criminal motor vehicle, Fish and Game, tobacco, and alcohol violations are not counted asame, tobacco, and alcohol violations are not counted as re-offenses. Adjudications and convictions received outside Alaska also are excluded from this analysis. FY2010-FY2021 Recidivism Rate for Juveniles Released from Division of Juvenile Justice Probation Fiscal Year Recidivism Rate FY 2021 19.8% FY 2020 23.3% FY 2019 25.4% FY 2018 23.2% FY 2017 33.8% FY 2016 35.2% FY 2015 42.9% FY 2014 45.5% FY 2013 43.0% FY 2012 40.7% FY 2011 42.1% FY 2010 42.8% Analysis of results and challenges: This measure examines re-offense rates for juveniles who received probation supervision while either remaining at home or in a nonsecure custodial placement. These youths typically have committed less serious offenses and have demonstrated less chronic criminal behavior than youth who have been committed to a juvenile treatment facility. Research has identified the factors that result in delinquent behavior. These are a history of offenses and involvement in the juvenile justice system, and challenges in these life areas: family circumstances/parenting; education/employment; peer relations; substance abuse; leisure/recreation; personality/behavior; and attitudes/orientation. The division has embarked on a number of efforts to improve our understanding of these factors and provide or refer youth to interventions that reduce the risks and needs that result in juvenile recidivism.

Current as of December 16, 2021