Case Review Systemic Factor

1
Case Review Systemic Factor

• Agencies and Courts Conference
• Arlington, VA
• August, 2009
• Presented by
• Will Hornsby, Childrens Bureau
• Nancy Miller, NCJFCJ
• Timothy Travis, NCJFCJ Consultant

2
Overview

• Preview Technical Assistance Bulletin
• Overview of the Case Review Systemic Factor
• Substantial Conformity
• Best practices to achieve substantial conformity
• Involving the legal community
• Its an open book test

3
SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMITY IN THE CASE REVIEW
SYSTEMIC FACTOR

• Preview of a technical assistance bulletin
• The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court
  Judges principal writers
• The American Bar Association
• The National Center for State Courts
• The Childrens Bureau
• THE COLLABORATIVE

4
Substantial Conformity

• To be in substantial conformity, the Childrens
  Bureau must assign the systemic factor a rating
  of 3 or 4.
• 1 none of the child and family service plan
  (CFSP) or program requirements is in place
• 2 some or all of the requirements are in place,
  but more than one of the requirements fail to
  function as described in each requirement
• 3 all in place, and no more than one fails to
  function as described in each requirement
• 4 all are in place and functioning as described
  in each requirement

5
Items for Case Review System

• Item 25 Written Case plan
• Item 26 Periodic reviews
• Item 27 Permanency hearings
• Item 28 Termination of Parental Rights
• Item 29 Notice of hearings and reviews
  to caregivers

6
How are states doing?

• Item 25 Written Case plan
• No state rated a Strength in FY07 and FY08
• Item 26 Periodic reviews
• 27 states rated as Strengths in FY07 and FY08
• Item 27 Permanency hearings
• 17 states rated as Strengths in FY07 and FY08
• Item 28 Termination of Parental Rights
• 7 states rated as Strengths in FY07 and FY08
• Item 29 Notice of hearings and reviews to
  caregivers
• 9 states rated as Strengths in FY07 and FY08

7
Written Case plansWhat are the reviewers looking
for?

• Does the State provide a process that ensures
  each child has a written case plan, to be
  developed jointly with the childs parents that
  includes the required provisions?
• How does the state agency or court track
  information regarding case planning?
• What does the data show regarding
• Number/Percentage of cases with active/timely
  case plans
• Family involvement in case planning
• Differences between in home and foster care cases

8
Written Case plansWhat are the reviewers looking
for?

• Are there processes in place to facilitate family
  engagement?
• If so, how are these processes utilized in case
  planning?
• Are case plans updated regularly?

9
Case Plans The Role of the Court

• Carefully review the plan and determine whether
  it is updated and individualized to the
  particular child and family
• Query the parties about family involvement in the
  development of the plan AND ORDER SAME
• Document the adequacy of the plan and the
  engagement of the parents and age appropriate
  children in the court order
• Create data points in the courts data system to
  document timeliness, thoroughness, and family
  engagement in the case planning process
• Review case files and provide data for CFSR
  Statewide Assessment

10
Family Engagement

• Court Annexed Mediation Programs
• Family Group Conferences
• Family Team Meetings
• Use of parent mentors, cultural liaisons
• Appointment and engagement of competent counsel

11
Notice of hearings and reviews to caregiversWhat
are the reviewers looking for?

• Is there a process for foster parents,
  pre-adoptive parents, and relative caregivers of
  children in foster care to be notified of, and
  have a right to be heard in, any review or
  hearing held with respect to the child?
• What specifically is the process for
  notification?
• Who is responsible for notification?
• How is compliance tracked?
• What are the barriers to providing timely notice?
• What efforts are in place to address barriers?

12
Notice of hearing and reviews to caregiversWhat
are the reviewers looking for?

• How frequently do caregivers attend reviews and
  hearings?
• Are caregivers given an opportunity to be heard?
• Is this consistent throughout the state?

13
NOTICE TO CAREGIVERS

• Work closely with Foster Parent Associations
• Provide court based training to foster parents
• Host foster parents at the court to demystify the
  process
• ENSURE foster parents have an opportunity to be
  heard

14
Periodic reviewsWhat are the reviewers looking
for?

• Is there a process for periodic review of the
  status of each child, no less frequently than
  once every 6 months, either by a court or by
  administrative review?
• How does the state track information regarding
  Periodic Reviews?
• What does the data show regarding
• Timeliness of periodic reviews.
• Participation by parents, foster parents, care
  givers, youth etc
• Effectiveness of periodic reviews in promoting
  timely achievement of permanency.
• Does this include CIP data?

15
Periodic Review

• NCJFCJ Resource Guidelines recommends 30 minutes
• Ensure reviews are timely and all legal mandates
  are met
• Ensure parents, foster parents, other interested
  parties are invited and are heard
• Can be conducted by a court or administrative
  review body (agency, foster care review board)
• Important to coordinate court review and periodic
  review to avoid duplication
• Important to ensure that the court receives
  information from the review body if other than
  court review

16
Permanency hearingsWhat are the reviewers
looking for?

• Does the state have a process that ensures each
  child in foster care have a permanency hearing in
  a qualified court or administrative body no later
  than 12 months from the date the child entered
  foster care and no less frequently than every 12
  months thereafter?
• Does the state agency or court have data
  reflecting timeliness of permanency hearings?
• What percentage of children had permanency
  hearings held within 12 months of the date the
  child entered care?
• Is there evaluative data available regarding the
  effectiveness of permanency hearings to promote
  timely achievement of permanency?
• Does this include CIP data?

17
Permanency Hearings FISH OR CUT BAIT

• Ensure the court provides data on the permanency
  hearings for the CFSR Statewide Assessment
• Ensure parents, foster parents, and other
  essential participants are invited and heard
• Ensure the permanency hearing is truly thorough
  and at each hearing, ensure the court rules out
  all other permanency options before approving
  APPLA. A permanency hearing is NOT a regular
  review hearing
• Ensure the court inquires as to the 15/22 month
  compelling reason and requires documentation in
  the case plan
• Ensure all relevant findings of fact are included
  in orders
• NCJFCJ Resource Guidelines recommends 60 minutes

18
Termination of Parental RightsWhat are the
reviewers looking for?

• Is there a process for Termination of Parental
  Rights (TPR) proceedings in accordance with the
  provisions of ASFA?
• What is the TPR process in the state?
• Does the state agency or court have data
  regarding the number/percentages of children in
  care 15 of the most recent 22 months?
• For what percentage of these children has the
  state not filed TPR?
• For cases where TPR was not filed, were
  compelling reasons specified in the case file?
• Is there data tracking compelling reasons by
  type?

19
TPR Role of the Court

• Review and order if necessary that the
  termination of parental rights petition is timely
  filed
• Ensure the appellate process is expedited
• Review and order if necessary all agency
  processes are completed in a timely fashion
  (adoption committees, home studies, etc)
• Ensure TPR orders contain thorough findings of
  fact and conclusions of law

20
What are the reviewers looking for?Summary

• Courts should be involved from the beginning by
  providing input into the CFSR Statewide
  Assessment. If the court has data on timeliness,
  thoroughness, effectiveness of hearings and
  reviews, it is critical that this data be
  provided for the CFSR Statewide Assessment.
• Substantial conformity is based on information
  from CFSR Statewide Assessment AND stakeholder
  interviews.
• Many states have statutes that address case
  review items but are they being followed?

21
The CFSR is an open book test

• Courts can prepare for and participate in all
  phases of the CFSR in partnership with the state
  agency in order to work on the shared goal of
  achieving substantial conformity for the case
  review systemic factor
• Courts can provide training to stakeholders in
  the legal community to ensure hearings are
  thorough, timely
• Courts can develop data systems to track the
  relevant issues contained in the case review
  systemic factor
• ALL IN IT TOGETHER!

22
Notes from the audience on the technical
assistance brief

• Ensure the bulletin addresses both sides of
  encouraging involvement by the court.
  Encouraging the child welfare agency at the same
  level as we encourage the court.
• Its your PIP vs. its Our PIP important to
  continue the communication as the PIP develops.
  If its ours, it shouldnt stop being ours
  during the final negotiations. Court should be
  at the table for all the courses of the meal.
• Suggestion for judges a basic description of
  the CFSR process, ,include timelines what is it
  and why should you care?
• Clear bullet points on what judges can do.
• Include best practice on foster parent notice and
  right to be heard.
• Is there a way to monitor best practices as they
  go to scale? It works in theory and the one
  place it was first implemented but not so much as
  it rolls out.
• The importance of getting out there and observing
  what is really going on out in the field
• Sharing the data to provoke healthy competition
  to meet the timelines
• Laying out some best practice, like the fact that
  Hawaii does not use APPLA
• Reinforce the meaningful court hearings, is there
  data that shows this leads to better outcomes?
• Encouraging family engagement early in case plan
  development, what about the family voluntarily
  engaging prior to adjudication
• Impact of effective concurrent planning it is
  not disingenuous

23
Notes from the audience on the TA brief

• Coordinating court and admin review, making info
  from admin review available to court, make sure
  that we cover due process protections for parents
• Foster parent training demystifying the process
  should include the pratfalls and difficult
  experiences that foster parents may experience in
  the court room.
• Bulletin should make the points that Will makes
  about tying the TPR practices to Item 7 as well.