HFW Resource Center / County & Community Partners
An HFW Quality Dashboard: Measures That Support Decisions
Define useful measures, interpret limitations, and connect findings to a responsible improvement action.
In this article
A useful HFW dashboard helps people decide what to examine and improve. It should connect service access, model fidelity, family experience, and outcomes to the program’s responsibilities. Each measure needs a definition that allows a reviewer to understand who is included, what was counted, and what a change might mean.
The framework below is illustrative. It is intended to support discussion and local design. It does not replace county reporting specifications, official fidelity instruments, or current state requirements.
Begin with decisions the program needs to make
Identify the questions that arise in supervision and county oversight. Are families being reached promptly? Are plans usable? Are agreed services received? Do youth and caregivers influence decisions? Are crises, placement concerns, or gaps in community participation emerging?
Choose a manageable set of measures that can inform those questions. Assign responsibility for data collection, validation, interpretation, and follow-up. A large dashboard with unclear ownership can leave important findings unattended.
An illustrative measure set
| Area | Possible measure | Definition to settle locally |
|---|---|---|
| Access | Time from accepted referral to first completed family contact | Start and end events; calendar or business days; pending and unsuccessful contacts |
| Planning | Plans reviewed within the applicable interval | Population due for review; qualifying review; governing interval |
| Family influence | Youth and caregiver reports that priorities affected the plan | Question, response options, timing, respondents, and missing responses |
| Fidelity | Results from the required or selected fidelity assessment | Instrument, version, administration, sampling, scorer preparation, and limits |
| Stability | Unplanned placement disruptions during a defined period | Event definition; exposure period; planned permanency moves; repeat events |
| Functioning | Change in a relevant family-defined or validated indicator | Baseline, follow-up, comparison period, and who provides the information |
| Follow-through | Agreed improvement actions completed and checked | Action owner, due date, completion evidence, and review of effect |
Use denominators that explain the result
For a percentage, specify both the numerator and denominator. “Eighteen of twenty plans due for review were reviewed within the applicable interval” is interpretable. “Ninety percent compliant” leaves questions about scope and exclusions.
For time measures, consider the distribution and the families still waiting. An average among completed contacts can conceal long delays for referrals that remain open. Track unresolved cases and explain how they are represented.
Distinguish experience, fidelity, and outcomes
A satisfaction survey describes the responses to the questions asked. A fidelity assessment examines delivery of model practices. Outcome measures examine changes in the youth’s or family’s situation. Use each for its intended purpose and examine how the findings relate.
KFA publishes its parent survey method, counts, and limitations on the Quality & Family Experience page. That information supports discussion of reported family satisfaction. A future HFW outcome report would require a defined HFW population, measures, time periods, and verified results of its own.
Investigate a pattern before explaining it
Illustrative example: Timely plan reviews decline in one region. The manager checks the source records and learns that several reviews occurred but were entered late, while other families could not attend at the offered times. The response includes both documentation support and a change in scheduling. The next review checks whether each action addressed its corresponding problem.
Consider missing data, changes in enrollment, differences in need, and small samples. Where appropriate and privacy-protective, examine whether access or experience differs by language, geography, or other relevant factors. Seek family and community context before drawing conclusions.
Record the improvement decision
Each significant finding should lead to a documented decision: an action, further inquiry, or an explanation of why monitoring will continue. Identify the responsible person, expected timing, evidence of completion, and the measure that will be reviewed afterward.
When reporting publicly, use aggregated information and protect small groups from identification. Avoid attributing all observed change to the program without an evaluation design that supports that conclusion. The companion quality-measure framework provides a starting point for defining a measure and documenting its use.
Sources and further reading
- California Wraparound Standards, Appendix A, ACL 25-47 / BHIN 25-027 (issued July 8, 2025)
- CDSS: Fidelity to IP-CANS and Child and Family Team practices
- KFA: Quality & Family Experience
Practice examples and discussion prompts were prepared by KFA for this educational collection. Illustrations do not describe identifiable clients or establish results for KFA’s planned HFW program.
For KFA’s current certification, funding, and service availability, visit our HFW program page. For questions about a particular family or situation, contact info@mykfa.org to arrange a private conversation.
