CPP newsline [Vol. 4, no. 2 (Fall/Winter 2001-02)]

Vol. 4 No. 2 Fall/Winter 2001-02
CPP Newsline
The Supreme Court of Georgia Child Placement Project Newsletter
Welcome to the CPP newsletter. The format of this newsletter will focus on the implementation of improvements to the child deprivation process and will strive to keep our readers informed of the
progress of the CPP.
TABLE OF CONTENTS The CPP Has Been Refunded!! Measuring Progress in Improving Court Processing of Child Abuse and Neglect Cases
CPP Happenings Happenings Around the Nation
Happenings in Georgia

The CPP Has Been Refunded!

By Michelle Barclay CPP Director

On December 13, 2001, Congress passed H.R. 2873, without amendment, re-authorizing the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program through FY 2006 which includes the CIP. The bill is now awaiting the President's expected signature.

Whether or not the discretionary funds are available each year depends upon the appropriations process. It will likely vary every year. This year, if things stay as they are, Georgia will likely be eligible for an additional $48K.

The CPP is Georgia's name for a federally funded program called the Court Improvement Project. The project was originally started in 1994 to allow states to evaluate the court process of civil abuse and neglects cases and to make improvements. The CIP is part of the Promoting Safe and Stables Families Program. This is a fairly unusual program in that the grant money flows directly from the federal HHS to each Supreme Court in every state. There are very few grants that flow directly from the

Other new changes passed in the Safe and Stable Families bill includes programs for mentoring children of incarcerated parents and new authority to provide education and training vouchers for youth aging out of foster care. Information about the new law will be available very soon.
While the CPP staff and committee expected this re-authorization, the events of September 11 and the subsequent war made all continued domestic spending uncertain. The delay in

executive branch to the judicial branch.
The re-authorization means that Georgia is eligible for approximately $250K per year for the next four years to focus on continued improvements. The grant program will start in March 2002. The Senate actually increased the CIP funding through a discretionary authorization. This means that an additional 3.3% is reserved each year just for CIP grants.

passage of the bill put projects on hold until the grant was authorized. However, in preparation of the re-authorization, a CPP Committee retreat was held in late September to prepare a five year progress report and a two year strategic plan for the future. This report is available in print and has been published on the CPP web site. Please contact the CPP director for a copy or see: http://www.state.ga.us/courts/supreme/cpp/
We are grateful for this re-authorization because while we have made great strides over the past six years, we welcome the opportunity to do more. We thank all juvenile court judges in GA for participating in our recent surveys and we invite continuing dialogue and improvements suggestions from those working within and outside the child welfare system.

Back to the Supreme Court Home Page

Next Page

Measuring Progress in Improving Court Processing of Child Abuse and Neglect Cases
By Victor E. Flango, Phd
Below is an excerpt of an article published on the National Center for State Courts Web Site. This excerpt is reprinted with permission. To read the full article, see: http://www.ncsc.dni.us/ICM/distance/Juvenile_Family_Justice/2001_04/index.html
Shared Outcome Goals
Courts, child welfare agencies, and treatment providers are all involved in child abuse and neglect cases, although they each play very different roles. Yet, it is clear that intervention is most likely to be successful if all organizations coordinate their efforts on behalf of children and families.
Courts do not have the same extensive role to play in the lives of children and families that child welfare agencies do, and consequently are likely to have fewer outcome goals. Nevertheless, courts do play a critical role in determining whether children will be removed from their homes, the length of time children remain in foster care, and where they will permanently reside. Accordingly, courts play a crucial role in setting and monitoring three of the child welfare goals listed above: child safety, system accountability and timeliness; and coordination of system resources. Courts must achieve the last goal by providing the leadership necessary to make the best use of resources available in the community. In other words, courts need to be part of the community team.
This goal is very important in creating partnerships to advocate for new services and resources, but that discussion is premature in this article because it comes later in the process--after goals have been set and benchmarks established.
SHARED VALUE: Children Should Live in Safe, Stable, and Permanent Homes.
Two goals are proposed to implement the shared value, each with a set of measures necessary to monitor progress toward their achievement.
Goal 1: Children Should Be Safe from Abuse and Neglect While Under Court Jurisdiction
Key Measures:
1. Percentage of children who are the subject of additional allegations of maltreatment while under court jurisdiction 2. Percentage of children who are the subject of additional allegations of maltreatment within 12 months after court jurisdiction has ended
Goal 2: Children Should Be Placed in Permanent Homes.
Key Measures:

1. Percentage of Children who are placed in permanent homes and court jurisdiction is ended within 6, 12, 18, and 24 months from removal. 2. Percentage of children who do not achieve permanency in the foster care system, e.g., court jurisdiction ends because the child reaches the age of majority. 3. Percentage of children who return to foster care pursuant to court order within 12 and 24 months of being returned to their families. 4. Percentage of children who return to foster care pursuant to court order within 12 and 24 months of being adopted or placed with an individual or couple who are permanent guardians. 5. Percentage of children who are moved from one, two, and three placements while under court jurisdiction.
Court-Specific Dependency Goals
COURT VALUE: Courts Should Give Each Case the Individual Attention It Deserves
Even though child abuse and neglect reports to child protective agencies are probably underreported, approximately three million children are reported as victims of abuse and neglect by parents or other caregivers each year. These allegations of maltreatment are investigated, and approximately 36% of the allegations are substantiated (half are not, 4% are found to be false reports, and the remaining investigations are closed by findings of "unknown" or "other"). Many of the children found to be maltreated enter and remain in the foster care system. Courts play a key role in determining whether children will be removed from their homes, how long they will remain in foster care, and where they will permanently reside.
Courts review each case involving children in foster care, partly to ensure that appropriate services are identified and then delivered in a timely manner. Courts must guarantee to families the right to express their point of view before they are required to accept services. Courts are charged by law to determine whether public agencies have made "reasonable efforts" to preserve families and prevent the removal of children from their homes. They must also conduct frequent reviews to ensure that children are placed in the "least restrictive " (most family-like) setting available and in close proximity to their parent's home.
Goal 3: To deal with cases impartially and thoroughly, based on evidence brought before the court.
This goal encompasses giving each family the individual attention necessary to make effective decisions for the child and assuring that each child receives due process, including effective legal representation. The trial court performance standard of equality, fairness, and integrity. includes adhering to trial court procedures, giving each case individual attention, deciding cases without undue disparity among like cases, and taking responsibility for the enforcement of court orders. It is the very definition of what a court should be and requires that children and families be treated with objectivity, dignity, and respect by all court employees. The ideal is that children in similar circumstances should achieve similar results regardless of the jurisdiction in which the case is heard.
Key Measures:
1. Percentage of cases in which both parents receive written service of process within the required time standards or where notice of hearing has been waived by parties. 2. Percentage of cases in which all parties receive notice of each hearing 10 days in advance of the hearing. 3. Percentage of cases in which the court reviews case plans within established time guidelines.

4. Percentage of cases where counsel for children and parents are appointed in advance of the temporary custody hearing (if applicable) or, if there was no temporary custody hearing, 15 days in advance of the first scheduled adjudication hearing. 5. Percentage of children receiving guardians ad litem or CASA volunteers in advance of the temporary custody hearing. 6. Percentage of cases in which legal counsel for parents changes between assignment of counsel and the dispositional hearing. 7. Percentage of cases in which legal counsel for children changes between assignment of counsel and the dispositional hearing. 8. Percentage of cases where legal counsel for parents, children, and agencies are present at each hearing. 9. Percentage of children whose cases are heard before one judge for all proceedings.
COURT VALUE: Children and Families should have their needs addressed by timely court decision making.
The performance principle expedition and timeliness, includes establishing and complying with guidelines for timely case processing as well as the prompt dispersal of funds. Limiting the time required to bring litigation to a conclusion limits the exposure of families to emotionally charged issues that can have a detrimental impact on children. The length of time required to resolve family issues needs to be limited and reasonable, given the due process requirements of the cases. Courts need guideposts to help them determine how well they are meeting the goals.
A case can easily remain in litigation for a year or more after the termination petition is filed, before a final decision is made. Termination cases based upon a parent's mental illness are often delayed by difficulties in obtaining court-ordered evaluations. Since the 1980 passage of P.L. 96-272, the federal deadline for holding a permanency hearing has been within 18 months of the child's placement in care. As of December 31, 1996, over half of the states have enacted laws or policies to reduce the time between the time a child enters foster care and the first judicial permanency hearing. A majority of these states require the hearing within 12 months.
Goal 4: To minimize the time from filing of the petition or protective custody order to permanency.
Key Measures:
1. Percentage of cases that are adjudicated within 30, 60, 90 days after the filing of the dependency petition. 2. Percentage of cases that receive a disposition within 10, 30, 60 days after the dependency adjudication. 3. Percentage of cases for which the termination petition is filed within 3, 6, 12, 18 months after the dependency disposition. 4. Percentage of cases that receive a termination order within 30, 90, 120, 180 days after the filing of the termination petition. 5. Percentage of cases for which an adoption petition is filed within 1, 3, 6 months after the termination order. 6. Percentage of cases for which the adoption is finalized within 1, 3, 6, 12 months after the adoption petition. 7. Percentage of hearings not completed in the allotted or scheduled time and percentage listed by reason for non-completion (or party requesting postponement).

8. Percentage of adjudication, disposition, termination and other judicial decisions that are appealed and percentage overturned on appeal. 9. Percentage of cases in which the results of the appeal is received within 1, 3, 6, and 12 months from the date the appeal was filed.
COURT VALUE: Courts Should be Accountable to the Public They Serve
There is some debate over whether public trust and confidence is a separate principle or an inextricable result of a court that is accessible, expeditious in the resolution of disputes, is perceived as fair and independent of political influence, yet accountable to the public. Some have argued that because court cases result in one side winning and one side losing, half of the litigants will always be unhappy with the courts. Research has shown, however, and litigants and other consumers of court services can distinguish and evaluate the way they were treated in court (procedural justice) from the case outcome. Accordingly, it is possible to measure of client satisfaction separately from other aspects of court performance. Although it is an empirical question of how measures of client satisfaction correlate with other measures of court and agency performance, in general the credibility of results is increased if obtained by triangulation, i.e. consistent results from multiple indicators.
Client satisfaction is also the basic variable needed by court personnel to determine how availability of services, adequacy of technology supporting court case coordination, and the amount of time devoted to family cases influence this aspect of court performance.
A sample client satisfaction survey is located at the NCSC web site.
Next Page

CPP Happenings
A status report of CPP projects:
Progress Report Please see our Five Year Progress Report on the CPP web site.
Committee Appointments Judge Tom Rawlings was recently appointed to the CPP Committee.
Model Courts The CPP, in partnership with the Council of Juvenile Court Judges, (CJCJ) is funding the position of the Project Coordinator for a model courts project. This work is assisting several courts achieving with the aspirational standards set by Georgia and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Lovi Bramlett is the CJCJ's Project Coordinator. Recently, the Model Courts Project held a retreat at the Red Top Mountain to plan for the future. Judge Stephen Rideout of Virginia and Dr. Sophia Gatowski, Senior Research Specialist/Model Court Liaison of the National Council were the guest speakers. The CJCJ is seeking state funding this year to make this project permanent.
More information about this project can be obtained by contacting Lori at 404-657-5020
Stakeholder Meetings To encourage better communication between all the participants in deprivation cases, the CPP will pay for lunch! The meetings must be arranged and hosted by the court and the judge. Their purpose is not to talk about individual cases, but to discuss ways to improve the process for kids in your court.
Computers The CPP committee will be discussing computer purchases for the future.
Case Plan Project With over 4000 case plans in the on-line Case Plan Reporting System (CPRS) and 105 counties using the system, DHR and the CPP plan some enhancements for the future, including the addition of court orders and panel review paperwork. Judges Robin Nash, Michael Key and John Beam will be consulted as the new project moves forward. To see a demo of the CPRS, see: http://www.gacaseplan.org/
Travel for Judges The CPP will assist with travel expenses for any juvenile court judge in Georgia to attend National Conferences about deprivation law and process.
Aspirational Guidelines Guidelines have been created and published by Juvenile Court Judges, Special Assistant Attorneys General, Attorney Guardian Ad Litems and most recently for attorneys who represent parents. See: http://www.childwelfare.net/mrb/projects/ For a hard copy, please call the CPP.
Cross-Training

The CPP, in conjunction with the Department of Family and Children Services, the Department of Juvenile Justice and the Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children, held our second annual Child Placement Conference. The list of invitees included DHR Placement Staff, Supervisors, Resource Development Staff, Independent Living Staff, Administrative Staff; Juvenile Court Judges and Attorneys; Community Volunteers, Private Providers. Almost 700 people attended this conference in Savannah which received high marks for its classes.
Next Page

Happenings Around The Nation
Federal Review All 50 states will be undergoing a child and family services review over the next three years. Georgia has already completed its review and is now in the process of producing a program improvement plan (PIP) which will become public soon. See: http://www.childwelfare.net/cfsreview/
The National Resource Center for Informational Technology in Child Welfare has been tracking the progress of the reviews and will be posting information from all states. See: http://www.nrcitcw.org/resources_cfsr.html
Policy Manual A new manual, entitled Child Welfare Policy Manual has been issued by the Children's Bureau. The new manual replaces the Children's Bureau's former policy issuance system. This Child Welfare Policy Manual updates and reformats all of the existing relevant policy issuances. See: http://cb1.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/cwpm/
Recent Court Decisions Regarding Federal Child Welfare Lawsuits
Wisconsin CB Express: Federal Court Rules that Children May Sue Under ASFA http://www.calib.com/cbexpress/
Florida A federal court ruled that the court should not take over the florida child-welfare system. To read a letter to the editor by Kathleen A. Kearney, the Florida Secretary of the Department of Children & Families discussing this recent decision, see: http://www.miami.com/herald/content/opinion/opcol/digdocs/043844.htm
Next page

Happenings in Georgia
The Richmond County Task Force
Last Spring, the Augusta Chronicle had story after story of Superior Court Judge Duncan Wheale demanding more of his local DFCS office. After four cases of children getting hurt (one child was fed crack cocaine), Judge Wheale began to angrily voice frustration in his court hearings and to the newspaper about problems with his county's child protective services. The community responded enthusiastically, encouraging Judge Wheale to use his influence to fix problems.
Thus, Judge Wheale appointed Juvenile Court Judge Doug Flanagan as Chair of a community task force which begin an open dialogue about the problems going on in DFCS. When the task force meetings first began, the DFCS office refused to participate citing confidentiality, but over time, communication began. At the Child Placement Conference in November 2001, the Augusta task force appeared with the Richmond County DFCS director and did a panel presentation about how things worked out. While all acknowledged that initially things started out hostile, most everything has improved.
One reason Richmond County can cite success is that the local task force members didn't just voice complaints about the local DFCS office, they offered help. Over the past nine months, the task force has been able to round up 80 volunteers to help with a variety of tasks to free workers to focus on families. These tasks include: helping organize and update DFCS case records, helping with visits and helping with reports.
The task force was also able to get office space, computers and cell phones donated for the county case workers. Judge Wheale and Judge Flanagan drove to Atlanta to meet with then DHR Commissioner Gary Redding and DFCS Director Juanita Blount-Clark to ask the state to pay the cell phone bill. The state agreed. The CPP contributed by purchasing computers for the juvenile court and the CASA program.
Both Judges are going to keep the task force around for a while longer to make sure the community stays informed and responsive to the needs of system so the needs of children and families are met. When the Augusta Chronicle began profiling Judge Wheale to find a reason for his passion for this work, he disclosed that he was abused as a child by his father. A quote from the paper revealed ``The hardest thing for me was when my mother died. There was nobody then to protect us,'' Judge Wheale said, who was 7 years old when she died. `Kids don't know what normal is.'' Judge Wheale shared that his life experiences, while painful, serve him well in his current job.
For more information about Richmond's task force, contact Judge Doug Flanagan in Richmond County Juvenile Court.
To read the Augusta Chronicle stories, see: http://www.augustachronicle.com/stories/072901/met_192-6280.000.shtml http://www.augustachronicle.com/stories/041601/met_homefront.shtml http://www.augustachronicle.com/stories/032901/met_124-1832.shtml
Next page