Projections
The first chart (below) shows the size (in poll numbers) of the previous batches and this batch. Please remember that each poll has to stand by itself, you can’t compare numbers from different polls. We can still get an idea of how the sizes of the batches have gone, but you can’t do a direct comparison.
The only bright spot I can add at this point is that it seems there were a lot of expedited referrals in this batch. Just looking at the numbers, we’re right up there with the worst month ever (or, since we’ve been keeping track, anyway). But, if there were a lot of expedites, perhaps it’s not so bad? I don’t know the answer to that, but we’ll talk about it again later in the post.
Something else to keep in mind: The two previous months took as much time as three batches should have taken. Add 65 and 78 and then divide by three and you get 48. Or, add 78 and 65 and 27 and then divide by 4 and you get 43. I’m not going to officially put in another column this month, but I’ll give the info that would have been in it if I had. More on that later in this post as well.
Next we’ll take a look at how reality has looked in hindsight with the projections. The graph below shows where past referral batches have fallen on my projections. I think it is important to point out that, had the last two months been done in three months then we’d have three months of less than the lowest column.
Here are my projections:
As you can see, adding a new column wouldn’t have told us much this month because our old figures give us a one day batch as a possibility and I’m not going to project less than a one day batch without there being a precedent for that. A smaller column would have told us something for future months, so I’ll go ahead and say that if we just use numbers from the last three months as if they were four months then the projections would be: April 4, April 5, April 10, April 11, April 17. I’m putting that out there because I know people want to know, but I would caution against using those numbers yet because the day after April 3rd was large. It’s possible they could have made it (for example) 85% of the way through the next day, but since they could not, they used those dossiers to refer expedited families. With that in mind, I am not prepared to accept that we’re going to see this month as the new standard. I’m not saying months are the same size as before – if they were doing the same numbers then making it through another day would not have been a problem. I’m just saying it’s possible the numbers haven’t dropped as low as this month would have us believe. Am I making sense? I hope so, but let’s look at a specific example. On the chart above, in the 11/2 column, until we hit the last three months we saw: 85, 24, 58, 84, 80, 44, 75, 64. That averages to 64. If they had hit 64 this month then the cut off would have been April 4. However, a one day batch would have happened at 53, so we can assume their numbers this month were somewhere between (poll numbers here, not actual numbers) 27 and 53. Coming at it from another direction, if we assume they are going to do around 1100 referrals this year (real numbers, not poll numbers), then that is 92 per month, and if our polls for those about to get a referral represent 59% of total, then that would be 54 on the poll. Which means I’m leaning more and more towards the hope that this month will be an anomaly, much like the January batch from last year was. (If you’re wondering where some of these numbers and percentages come from then you probably missed this post, this post, and this post.)
The question, though, is whether the CCAA is doing this based on number of dossiers, or based on number of calendar days referred at a time. We don’t have enough information to make that determination just yet. We need a few more months before we can know that for sure, I think.
You can always find your way back to the Projections and When posts by clicking on the Analysis category in the lower right hand column.
I’ll end this with my standard disclaimer: As always, projections are based on the CCAA continuing to do what they have been doing. There is nothing to say they will follow their recent behavior. They could choose to do a lot less, or a lot more.
December 31st, 2009 at 11:49 am
thanks RQ for all that you do! this next batch is one month that i would be fine with seeing a three days batch since 4/4 and 4/5 are relatively large days.
December 31st, 2009 at 11:49 am
Nice job with the number RQ. Thanks!
In my opinion, it seems that the CCAA is not using the number of dossiers but rather the number of calendar days. How else could they have predicted that March would take all of 2009 to complete?
In fact, I expect that 2010 will see only April ‘06 referred, followed by a spike in attrition, which I think is the present goal of the program.
It looks like CCAA is trying it’s best to reduce the backlog by reducing the demand, and frustrating PAP’s is an excelllent way to reduce demand.
December 31st, 2009 at 11:56 am
“It looks like CCAA is trying it’s best to reduce the backlog by reducing the demand, and frustrating PAP’s is an excelllent way to reduce demand.”
That could be true, bt if you look at the poll results here you can see that there are not as many people logged in, so maybe they will be able to get through April and some of May in 2010. It’s possible.
December 31st, 2009 at 1:32 pm
RQ, I find it very helpful when you raise a variety of potential scenarios and allow us to draw our own conclusions.
Thanks very much for this projections post.
December 31st, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Excellent analysis RQ, thank you! I was hoping that this was an anomaly and not the new standard, and your explanation that the number of babies might have made it through most but not all of 4/4/06 is encouraging.
One question: Should the last row of the projection table be May/June instead of June/July? I was so hoping to make it to that box (5/16/06) this month, but I’ll settle for projecting that you would project 5/16/06 in the next row, if there were another row.
firstkid: Unlike us, CCAA knows how many dossiers are registered, the rate at which children come to orphanages particpating in IA, and the rate at which children are adopted within the country. They also know how many children they are planning to release for IA, so it would be pretty easy to say how long it would take to get through March or any other month, at least on the horizon of one year.
Given the poll numbers in April in general, and the small numbers from, for example, 4/27 – 5/9, it’s hard to believe that there won’t be some bigger batches in terms of days referred.
December 31st, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Yes, the last row should be May/June. Thanks for pointing it out. I can’t change it from this computer, but I’ll change it when I get a chance.
December 31st, 2009 at 2:03 pm
So, if China is so backlogged, and has more adopting parents than children available to adopt, WHY are they still excepting applications from people around the globe?
December 31st, 2009 at 2:05 pm
OK, since they did quite a few expedites and 4/4 is a big day, it is possible that they had enough dossiers to get through part of 4/4 but not all so they held back the 4/4 referrals. There’s been some evidence that they’ve done that before and then often the following month will be somewhat better. So maybe there’s just a bit of hope that next month won’t be as bad as this one???
As always, I guess everyone will just have to wait until next month’s referrals to get more of a handle on that but its possible.
Hugs to all who wait. I’m keeping my fingers crossed for you that this month is not the new normal.
susan
http://www.crowellgang.blogspot.com
December 31st, 2009 at 2:41 pm
march took 11 months, not a year. can you tell i’m clinging to ANYTHING i can!? happy new year everyone.
December 31st, 2009 at 4:07 pm
RQ, I do not know what is wrong with me today but it seems that your projection table has the numbers in reverse order. It seems that your “2006 Good Case” should be Apr 4th instead of May 15.
Also would you consider adding the two digit year for you projections dates?
Thanks.
December 31st, 2009 at 5:11 pm
how completely awesome would winter ‘08 horrid be?! never thought i’d say THAT.
December 31st, 2009 at 5:55 pm
lightiv, the dates are in the right places. Wouldn’t make sense for the good case to be worse than the horrid case.
I think everyone knows what year is being projected, don’t they? If I add years then it’s going to throw the formatting completely off.
December 31st, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Ok, maybe its the new medication. :) I reversed the columns: eg. the first column is actually the calendar months for 2010 and the columns to the right are the projected “referrals through” dates. RIGHT???
Now sure why I woke up today and did not remember this. It is a shame considering I been here for the last 3 years.