If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. i 0 0 ® 0 0 0 Summaries of Twenty-Five 0 State Court Improvement Assessment Reports 0 0 C O 03 CO ERMANENCY PLANNING FOR CHILDRF;N PROJECT O NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES A is a publication of the Permanency Planning for Children Project of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. This a document was supported by Grant No. 96-CT-NX-0001 from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of a Justice. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. • Reproduction of this publication for noncommercial educational and informational purposes is encouraged. Reproduction of any part of this publication must include the copyright notice and attribution to: "Title of this Technical Assistance Bulletin, published by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Reno, Nevada." A © 1998, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. All rights reserved. • ii ~, rautqu~ts Office of Juvenile Justice and otr,~tzm u~a ==.,~ DelinquencyPrevention • NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS P.O. Box 8970, Reno, NV 89507 Office of Juvenile Justice and (702) 784-6012; FAX (702) 327-5306 Delinquency Prevention 0 0 0 O J7c958x3 0 0 0 ® 0 Assistanc Bulletin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Summariesof Twenty-FiveState i 0 I 0 0 0 0 ® ® ® ® ® 0 ® 0 0 0 0 0 PERMANENCY PLANNING FOR CHILDREN PROJECT 0 0 0 NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE 0 AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES 0 March 1998 Summaries of Twenty-Five State Court Improvement Assessment Reports Francin Hamilto Patricia Whlt¢ T~ A~ ~JJJ¢~ is a publication of the Permanency Planning for Children Project of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. The publication is made possible by the contributions of state court improvement specialists, judges, and other professionals from across the country. We extend our gratitude to all who participated in the gathering of information for this endeavor. ® 0 ® Louis W. McHardy Mary Mentaberry, Director 0 Executive Director Permanency Planning for ® Children Project ® ® ® National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges 0 P.O. Box 8970, Reno, NV 89507 0 ® 0 0 0 @ @ 0 0 0 0 0 PermanencyPlanning foc Project 0 0 AdvlsocyCommittee 0 0 Hon. Richard J. FitzGerald, Chair 0 Mary Mentaberry, Project Director 0 0 0 0 @ Stat Court Impro , ,,t AssessmentRepoct Readers @ 0 @ Hon. Ernestine S. Gray @ Hon. Leonard P. Edwards @ Hon. D. Bruce Levy @ Hon. John A. Nahra Hon. Nancy Sidote-Salyers 0 0 Hon. Pamela Taylor Johnson @ @ 0 @ The Permanency Planning for Children Project (PPP) is one of several focused @ National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) initiatives 0 established to help improve U.S. juvenile and family court systems. PPP programs, 0 provide training and technical assistance to prevent abused or neglected children from 0 entering foster care or other substitute placements without regular and comprehensive judicial review of each child's case. Project activities enable judges to safely prevent unnecessary out-of-home placement of children, reunify families whenever safely possible, and to facilitate the timely adoption of children unable to return home. Additional information on PPP activities and publications is available from the NCJFCJ Permanency Planning for Children Project, University of Nevada, Reno, P.O. Box 8970, Reno, Nevada 89507, phone (702) 327-5300, fax (702) 327-5306, 0 e-mail [email protected] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 @ 0 @ 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Editorial Note ][ 0 0 0 0 0 Tiffs Summary of individual state assessment reports illustrates the 0 0 creativity and diversity among state court systems. All states were 0 presented with the same task-to collaborate with state departments, 0 0 attorneys, and other partners to consider how well the court is able to carry ® out the functions assigned to it in child protection cases. Each state team 0 0 was able to put its individual stamp on the assessment report. 0 A special expression of appreciation is extended to all the state 0 0 court professionals engaged in implementation of many of the 0 recommendations found in this Summary. Thanks also go out to the 0 ® judge-members of the subcommittee and their staffs for reviewing state ® court improvement assessment reports. 0 ® With numerous volunteers reading such a vast amount of material, 0 ® the risk of making an error, or missing a recommendation is compounded. ® Please notify PPP staff of any errors found in the summaries. Call Chris 0 ® Bailey at (702) 784-6675 so the information can be corrected. ® ® ® 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ® 0 O 0 0 0 ® O t) 0 0 Table of Contents 0 0 0 Page 0 0 0 Introduction a Methodology 4 O History of Federal Court Improvement Program 5 0 Assessment Process 6 e Assessment Approaches 6 l) 0 D Findings 11 0 0 What State Courts are Doing Well 11 0 Barriers to Permanency-Common Areas of Concern 13 B Breaking Through the Barriers-Common Themes Found 20 0 Innovative Recommendations 24 0 Implementation 25 0 ® Implications for National Policy 29 ® O Appendix 31 ® Recommendations from Twenty-five State Assessment Reports ® t) Page Page Page ® Alaska 33 Kansas 77 Ohio 103 ® Arizona 42 Kentucky 79 Oklahoma 105 ® California 47 Maine 83 Oregon 110 ® Colorado 52 Montana 87 Rhode Island 120 0 Connecticut 63 Nebraska 92 Texas 122 0 Georgia 66 New Hamp. 94 Vermont 126 0 Illinois 72 New Jersey 95 Virginia 131 0 Iowa 74 No. Carolina 100 Washington 134 0 West Virginia 137 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I ® ® ® 0 0 0 0 0 0 ® 0 0 0 0 B Q 0 0 0 O D 6 0 B ~lIntr°ducti°n~ll The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-66) allocated federal funds to improve juvenile and family court handling of cases involving abuse, neglect, foster care, and adoption. The Court Improvement of Foster Care and Adoption Program, part of the Family Preservation and Support Services Act, ~is a nationwide effort which began in 1994. Funding from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services was awarded to state Supreme Courts in each of the 49 states and the District of Columbia which elected to participate in this program. Court Improvement Program (CIP) activities were to include: (1) identification of a state advisory group to guide the work of the program; (2) assessment of current practice in child abuse and neglect cases; (3) development of an assessment report and recommendations for court improvement in this area; and (4) implementation of recommendations. State advisory committees have now completed the assessment and reporting phases of their Court Improvement Projects and are starting to implement recommendations. In March 1997, the Permanency Planning for Children Project (PPP) Advisory Committee of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) met to discuss how to obtain information about court improvement activities in each state, and how to disseminate this information to NCJFCJ members and state project coordinators. A subcommittee was appointed to analyze judicial involvement in state 0 ® court improvement projects. Members of this subcommittee included Judges Ernestine Gray, Chair, New Orleans, Louisiana; Martin A. Herman, Woodbury, New 0 Jersey; J. Dean Lewis, Spotsylvania, Virginia; Frederick Mong, Logan, Ohio; and 0 John Steketee, Grand Rapids, Michigan. The subcommittee surveyed NCJFCJ 0 members to determine the level of judicial involvement in nationwide court 0 improvement activities? e 0 0 0 In 1997, Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act (P.L. 105-89), also called 0 the S.A.F.E. Act, reauthorizing the Family Preservation and Support Services Act for three years. 0 2 Gray, Emestine S., et al. (1997). "Court improvement of foster care and adoption projects," Juvenile and Family Court JOURNAL, Vol. 4, No. 4, pages 31-41. 3 0 0 @ Introduction The results of the work of the subcommittee were reported at the PPP Advisory Committee meeting on July 12, 1997 and sparked discussion among committee members who wanted information about the state assessment reports. Committee members believed data concerning innovative practices, timeliness and other judicial activities gathered from the assessment reports would be of interest to other D jurisdictions. From that lively discussion the Summary was conceived. 0 O Methodology 0 0 At the PPP Advisory meeting, it was reported that 25 state court assessment reports I had been received. Judges were enthusiastic about the importance of analyzing the ® assessment reports and volunteered to assist with the task of reading and summarizing Q the reports in order to disseminate the information as quickly as possible. The 0 volunteer readers included: Judges Emestine Gray, New Orleans, Louisiana; Leonard 0 P. Edwards, San Jose, California; D. Bruce Levy, Miami, Florida; John A. Nahra, LD Davenport, Iowa; Nancy Sidote Slayers, Chicago, Illinois; and Pamela Taylor O Johnson, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. ® 0 Committee members outlined the following information and topics that would be 0 most valuable to explore and summarize: 0 0 • Assessment authors • Reasonable efforts ® • Research tools • Representation for parents and 0 • Endorsement by State Supreme children ® Court • Training • Implementation of CIP projects • Management information systems • What states are doing well • Calendar improvements • Identified barriers to permanency • Interstate Compact on the I • Recommendations for improvement Placement of Children (ICPC) • Time frames for court hearings • Innovative recommendations or B practices 0 Each of the reports was read by a judge-volunteer or by a project attorney of the PPP.