Strategies for Effective Statewide Judicial … 8/5/11 Strategies for Effective Statewide Judicial Commissions on the Protection of Children _____ Strong Leadership • Effective Collaboration

DRAFT 8/5/11

Strategies for Effective Statewide

Judicial Commissions on the Protection of Children

______________________________________________________________________________

Strong Leadership • Effective Collaboration • Positive Outcomes for Children

Nora Sydow

Richard Van Duizend

This Report was made possible through a collaboration with Casey Family Programs. The findings and conclusions presented in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of Casey Family Programs or the National Center for State Courts.

DRAFT 8/5/11

Table of Contents

I. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 2

II. State Commission Profiles ...................................................................................... 3

A. Stakeholder Representation ..................................................................... 3

B. Commission Leadership ........................................................................... 4

C. Population Focus ....................................................................................... 5

D. Parallel Entities Working at the Regional/Local Level............................. 5

E. Commission Age ....................................................................................... 5

F. How Commissions Were Established ...................................................... 6

G. Are Commissions are Permanent or Time-Limited? ............................... 7

H. Do Commissions Collaboration with Tribal Governments? ................... 7

I. Commission Successes ............................................................................ 8

J. Commission Challenges ........................................................................... 9

K. In-Depth State Commission Profiles .......................................................10

California ................................................................................................10

Nebraska.................................................................................................14

Pennsylvania ..........................................................................................16

Texas ......................................................................................................19

Washington ............................................................................................22

V. Recommended Strategies ......................................................................................24

VI. Appendices

Appendix A – Online Survey......................................................................29 Appendix B – State Commissions.............................................................31 Appendix C – Stakeholder Representation ..............................................32 Appendix D – Commission Lead ...............................................................33 Appendix E – Parallel Entities at the Regional/Local Level .....................34 Appendix F – Population Focus ................................................................35 Appendix G – Commission Age ................................................................36 Appendix H – How Was the Commission Established? ..........................37 Appendix I – Is the Commission Permanent? ..........................................38 Appendix J – Collaborating with Tribal Governments .............................39 Appendix K – Top Commission Successes .............................................40 Appendix L – Top Areas of Cross-System Change .................................41 Appendix M – Commission Challenges ....................................................42


2

I. INTRODUCTION

At the 2009 3rd National Judicial Leadership Summit on the Protection of Children, a peer

exchange session was held that was devoted to State Judicial Commissions on Children1, facilitated

by Nebraska, with contributions from commission staff from California, Texas, and others. Summit

participants expressed great interest in states with successful multidisciplinary statewide judicial

commissions on children. Several states included as part of the action plan developed at the Summit

a goal of either establishing such a commission or strengthening an existing commission. In an effort

to assist states with this goal, the National Center for State Courts, in partnership with Casey Family

Programs, surveyed states with judicial commissions on the protection of children, analyzed the

information gathered, and produced recommended strategies for successful commissions.

In November, 2010, an online survey was sent to 21 states2 with commissions having some or

all of the following criteria:

(1) Leadership by the state Supreme Court;

(2) Highest level of leadership from all branches of government;

(3) Statewide;

(4) Cross-system (judicial and child welfare);

(5) Emphasis on children and youth in foster care; and

(6) Ongoing (as opposed to a time-limited task force).

See Appendix A for a copy of the online survey and Appendix B for a listing of all 21 state

commissions that received the online survey. The surveys were sent via email to each commission‟s

chair and staff person. All 21 states submitted survey responses.

In addition, telephone interviews were conducted in December, 2010 with commission staff

directors in five states -- California, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington -- to gather

more in-depth information on the approaches used and the factors contributing to their success.

1 For purposes of this report, State Commissions on Children are policy-level commissions, councils, committees and task

forces including members representing the judicial, executive, and often the legislative branches of government that seek to establish goals for improving the child protection system and oversee the implementation of strategies for achieving those goals. Executive branch members of State Commission on Children include representatives from the departments, divisions, and agencies that provide services to children and families. 2 The states that received online surveys include Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa,

Kansas, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and West Virginia. See Appendix A.


3

II. SURVEY RESULTS

A. Stakeholder Representation

Survey respondents were asked, “What stakeholders are represented in the commission, task

force, or committee?” As displayed in Figure 1 below, all 21 responding states indicated that judges

at the local level and child welfare agency leaders are represented on the commission. Educators are

represented on 95 percent of commissions. Policymakers/legislators are represented on 86 percent

of commissions. Seventy-one percent reported that Chief Justices/judicial leadership were

represented on the commission. Tribal court or tribal government representatives are included on 57

percent of responding state commissions. Forty-three percent of responding states reported that

youth are represented on the commission, and parents are represented on 38 percent of responding

states‟ commissions. Forty percent reported that attorneys are included on the commission. Twenty-

nine percent reported that members of the business community are represented on their commission.

Other stakeholder representation that was reported includes court staff, Court Appointed Special

Advocates (CASAs), researchers, members of the medical and mental health and the faith

communities, workforce development specialists, Citizen Review Board members, and other

community service providers. See Appendix C for all state responses.

Figure 1. Commission Composition by Stakeholder Type

*Could include child attorneys, parent attorneys, agency attorneys, and other members of the bar

29%

38%

43%

43%

57%

71%

86%

95%

100%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Business people

Parents

Attorneys*

Youth

Tribal Court/Tribal Govt. Representatives

Chief Justices/ Judicial leadership

Policymakers/ Legislators

Educators

Child welfare agency leaders

Judges at the local level

Percentage of State Commissions with Type of Stakeholder


4

B. Commission Leadership

The majority of commissions are chaired by a justice on the state‟s Supreme Court (or

equivalent court of last resort), and Figure 2 shows that only 21 percent of commissions are chaired or

co-chaired by someone other than a judicial officer. Survey respondents were asked what entity

leads their state commission; 76 percent of responding states reported that the state Supreme Court

or Judicial Council is the lead, while 19 percent of responding states reported that the public agency

was the commission lead. One responding state reported that its commission is co-chaired by a

Supreme Court justice and the head of the state‟s child welfare agency. See Figure 3; see also

Appendix D for all state responses.

Figure 2. Commission Chairs and Co-Chairs

Figure 3. Commission Lead

38%

25%13%

13%

4% 4%

4%Supreme Court Justice (n=9)

Chief Justice (n=6)

Trial Court Judge (n=3)

State Child Welfare Agency Leader (n=3)

Intermediate Appellate Court Justice (n=1)

Attorney (n=1)

Other (n=1)

76%

19%

5% Supreme Court* (n=16)

Public Agency (n=4)

Other (n=1)

*or the equivalent state court of last resort


5

C. Population Focus

In response to a question regarding the Commission‟s focus, fifty-eight percent of the survey

respondents reported that their focus is solely on neglected and abused children and their families.

The other Commissions include delinquent youth and status offenders within the scope of their work.

See Appendix F for all responses.

D. Parallel Entities Working at the Regional or Local Level

Survey respondents were asked whether there are parallel entities or sub-groups working at

the regional or local level within the state. Sixty-seven percent of responding states reported yes,

while 33 percent reported no. Among those states that answered yes, the majority of these groups

are local stakeholder groups or teams. For example, California reported, “Pursuant to the Blue

Ribbon Commission recommendations, California has established local multidisciplinary commissions

in most counties and has held two annual statewide summits to bring those teams together.”

Minnesota, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania have also established local groups to address child

protection services and issues. See Figure 4; See Appendix E for all responses.

Figure 4. Are There Parallel Entities or Sub-Groups Working at the Regional or Local Level?

E. Commission Age

The majority of state commissions (57 percent) are three to five years old. Thirty-three

percent of responding state commissions are ten years or older, while five percent are one to two

years old and another five percent are six to nine years old. See Figure 5; see also Appendix G for all

responses.

67%

33%Yes (n=14)

No (n=7)


6

Figure 5. How Old Are The State Commissions?

F. How Were the Commissions Established?

Eighty-one percent of responding states reported that its commission was established by the

state Supreme Court (or equivalent state court of last resort) or Judicial Council; 14 percent

legislatively, and one state reported that its commission was created by the Governor. See Figure 6;

see also Appendix H for all responses.

Figure 6. Who Established the Commissions?

57%33%

5%5% 3-5 Years (n=12)

10+ Years (n=7)

1-2 Years (n=1)

6-9 Years (n=1)

81%

14%

5% Supreme Court* (n=17)

Legislature (n=3)

Governor (n=1)

*or the equivalent state court of last resort


7

G. Are the Commissions Permanent or Time Limited?

Seventy-six percent of responding states indicated that its commission is permanent, while 24

percent reported that it was time-limited. See Figure 7; see also Appendix I for all responses.

Figure 7. Are the Commissions Permanent?

H. Do the Commissions Collaborate With Tribal Governments?

Sixty-two percent of responding states reported that the commission includes representatives

from tribal courts or tribal governments or has established a formal liaison between the commission

and the tribal courts or tribal governments. See Figure 8; see also Appendix J for all responses.

Figure 8. Do the Commissions Collaborate With Tribal Governments?

76%

24%

Yes (n=16)

No (n=5)

43%

19%

38%

Commission Includes Tribal Court or Tribal Government Members (n=9)

Commission Has Tribal Court or Tribal Government Liaison (n=4)

No Tribal Member or Liaison (n=8)


8

I. Commission Successes

Survey respondents were asked to select the top three areas where collaboration has

contributed to cross-systems change. Seventy-one percent of responding states selected enhanced

information sharing, 71 percent selected increased collaboration between judges and agencies, 62

percent selected policies recommended, 52 percent selected agreement on outcomes and measures,

33 percent selected improved service coordination, 33 percent selected plans written and

implemented to improve well-being of youth in care, 33 percent selected development of a common

vision, and 24 percent selected „other‟. Some of the „other‟ responses included recommendations for

system reform, developing solutions to state level barriers, enhancements of training, involving youth

in court, and improved system understanding of education for youth in foster care. Figure 9 displays

the areas of cross-system change by the percentage of respondents selecting that area as one of the

top three areas of change. See Appendix L for all responses.

Figure 9. Areas of Greatest Cross-System Change

Survey respondents also were asked to identify one to three successes that the commission

has achieved. The most commonly reported success is initiatives to improve the educational

outcomes for children and youth in foster care, followed by improved cross-system collaboration at

both the state and local/regional level. Some of the areas of successes identified are listed below.

See also Appendix K for all responses.

24%

33%

33%

33%

52%

62%

71%

71%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

Development of a common vision

Implement plans to improve child well-being

Improved service coordination

Agreement on shared outcomes and measures

Policies recommended

Increased collaboration

Enhanced information sharing


9

Establishing initiatives to improve education outcomes for foster youth

Improving cross-system collaboration at the state level

Adopting of performance measures and standards

Creating benchbooks and judicial checklists

Improving local and regional collaboration

Expediting dependency appeals

Developing kinship initiatives

Helping to pass legislation relating to Fostering Connections to Success Act

Reducing the length of time in care

Safely reducing the number of children in foster care

Extending foster care past age 18

Developing youth-in-court initiatives

Creating older youth initiatives

Holding cross-systems trainings

Sharing data between the court and child welfare

Reducing racial and ethnic disproportionality in the child welfare system

Drafting child and parent attorney standards and training

Instituting Tribal government initiatives

J. Commission Challenges

Survey respondents were asked to identify the greatest challenge facing the Commission.

Figure 10 shows that the challenge most commonly identified was insufficient resources. Other

reported challenges included difficulty implementing reforms, maintaining momentum, and challenges

with improving a specific outcome for children. See Appendix M for all responses.

Figure 10. Commission Challenges

38%

24%

19%

14%

5%Insufficient Resources (n=8)

Implementation of Reforms (n=5)

Improving a Specific Outcome (n=4)

Maintaining Momentum/ Changes in Leadership (n=3)

Local Collaboration of Services (n=1)


10

K. Five State Commission In-Depth Profiles

In addition to the online survey, five telephone interviews were conducted with the staff

directors of five state commissions – California, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington.

These interviews provided in-depth information on the approaches used and the factors contributing

to the commissions‟ successes.

California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care3

California‟s Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care was created in March, 2006

by the California Judicial Council and Chief Justice Ronald M. George. The Commission‟s charge

was to develop recommendations to improve outcomes related to safety, permanency, well-being,

and fairness. The Commission includes judges and court staff, child welfare agency leaders,

attorneys, legislators, social workers, probation officers, foster youth, child advocates, researchers,

tribal leaders, and philanthropists.4

The Commission‟s principles, values, and outcomes include:

Principles: All children are equal and deserve safe and permanent homes. Efforts to improve the foster-care system should focus on safety, permanency, well-

being, and fairness outcomes for children. Services to children and families should be integrated and comprehensive. Courts play an important and statutorily mandated role in overseeing children,

families, and services in the dependency system. Court decisions must be timely in order to ensure quick reunification when possible

and to assist children with the services they need to achieve permanency and transition into adulthood.

The court must act with its partner agencies in supporting children and families. Collaboration, shared responsibility, and accountability are essential for achieving the best possible outcomes for children and families.

Government agencies need adequate and flexible resources to provide the best outcomes for children in the foster-care system.

3 The Commission‟s website is http://www.courts.ca.gov/4041.htm.

4 The list of current Commissioners is available at http://www.courts.ca.gov/4186.htm.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/4041.htm



11

Values: Collaboration Shared responsibility Accountability Leadership Child safety Inclusion Permanency Listening to the voices of youth

Outcomes:

A comprehensive set of politically viable recommendations for how courts and their partners can improve child welfare outcomes, including an implementation plan with key milestones;

Improved court performance and accountability between courts and child welfare agencies and others, including the institutionalization of county commissions that will support ongoing efforts; and

Increased awareness of the role of the courts in the foster-care system and the need for adequate and flexible funding. 5

The Blue Ribbon Commission has worked towards its outcomes by collaborating in plenary

meetings, public hearings, focus groups, and stakeholder meetings across the state. The

Commission has also formed four subcommittees: Court Oversight, Funding and Resources,

Accountability for Better Outcomes, and Case Management and Data Exchange Systems.6 Some of

the key activities of the Commission have included:

A youth summit at Occidental College, which brought commissioners together with current and former foster youth, child welfare professionals, advocates, judges, and other court decision makers. The summit highlighted the importance of youth participation in the development of permanency plans and ways to empower and enhance the voice of youth in the process.

A site visit to San Francisco's Unified Family Court, meeting with judicial officers and touring courtrooms.

A summit on the educational needs of foster youth.

A series of focus groups in English and Spanish, with parents, relative caregivers, and

non-relative caregivers.

Two symposia to get input from social workers from Northern and Southern California.

A public hearing with state legislators in Sacramento, in which commissioners heard testimony from youth, parents, caregivers, and court officials, all of whom made concrete recommendations for improvement.

5 Available on the Commission‟s website at http://www.courts.ca.gov/4178.htm.

6 More information about the subcommittees can be found at http://www.courts.ca.gov/4419.htm.




12

A visit to courts in Utah and Colorado to learn how they use performance measures and link the data systems of the courts and child welfare.

A visit to the California Institution for Women to discuss issues relevant to foster children

whose parents are incarcerated.

Two public hearings were held -- in Los Angeles on May 12, 2008 and San Francisco on May 14, 2008 – to listen to responses to the draft recommendations.7

On August 15, 2008, the Commission submitted its final recommendations to the California

Judicial Council. The full report and recommendations is available on the Commission website8, but

recommendations highlights from the Executive Summary include:

Child abuse prevention and services funding The Judicial Council should work with state and federal leaders to allow greater flexibility in the use of funds for prevention and to eliminate barriers to coordinating funds for prevention and services.

Prioritizing foster care All agencies and the courts should make children in foster care and their families a top priority when providing services and when allocating and administering public and private resources.

Caseloads The Judicial Council should advocate reasonable judicial, attorney, and social worker caseloads.

Data and information The Judicial Council should support the courts and all partners in the child welfare system in eliminating barriers to the exchange of essential information and data about the children and families they serve. The Judicial Council should implement court performance measures to improve foster-care outcomes as mandated by state law.

Disproportionality The courts and child welfare agencies should reduce the disproportionate number of African-American and American Indian children who are in the child welfare system.

Kinship Child welfare agencies should engage family members earlier and the Judicial Council should work with state and federal leaders to develop greater flexibility in approving relative placements when necessary.

Indian child welfare The courts, child welfare, and other agencies should collaborate with Indian tribes and tribal courts to ensure that Indian children and families get the services for which they are eligible.

Extended support for transitioning youth The Judicial Council should urge Congress and the state Legislature to extend the age for children to receive foster-care assistance from 18 to 21.

7 “Timeline and Activities”. California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care, available at

http://www.courts.ca.gov/4419.htm. 8 http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jc/tflists/bluerib-rec.htm



13

A meaningful voice in court The courts should ensure that all participants in dependency proceedings, including children and parents, have an opportunity to be present and heard in court. CASA programs should be available in all counties.

Local commissions The courts and child welfare agencies should jointly convene multidisciplinary commissions at the county level to identify and resolve local concerns and to help implement commission recommendations and related reforms.

Three key factors were cited as contributing to the California Blue Ribbon Commission‟s

success: strong leadership, effective collaboration, and steady communication. The Commission‟s

chair, Justice Carlos R. Moreno, is a strong judicial leader and a champion of children‟s issues.

Justice Moreno has been extremely successful in taking advantage of the collaborative landscape that

California has experienced with its stakeholders and system leaders. There has been a history of

“good chemistry” with California‟s Commissioners, despite California‟s difficult financial crisis. This

collaboration and good chemistry is credited for helping California pass major policy reforms, including

the state‟s implementation of the Fostering Connections to Success Act, as well as recently extending

foster care to age 21.

A communications strategy that includes consistent key messages has also been instrumental

in California‟s Commission successes. Staying visible - such as through public hearings, focus

groups, and advisory groups – is one way the Commission has ensured its message is heard and its

work is recognized. The Commission has also used current and former foster youth, an extremely

organized group of advocates in California, to help inform the recommendations of the Commission,

as well as to communicate them.


14

Nebraska Supreme Court Commission on Children in the Courts9

Nebraska‟s Supreme Court Commission on Children in the Courts was created by then Chief

Justice John V. Hendry on January 6, 2005. The Commission is co-chaired by Judge Everett O.

Inbody, Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals and Douglas County Separate Juvenile Court Judge

Douglas F. Johnson. The initial goal of the Commission was “to begin a study of appropriate steps for

the judicial system to undertake to insure that the court system is as responsive as possible for

children who interact with, or are directly affected by the courts.” 10 The first priority was to research

the effectiveness of the legal representation of children in the system, including developing standards

for the representation of children involved in abuse and neglect cases.

The Commission meets at least quarterly, and also has established several subcommittees to

focus on specific issues, including parenting time, case progression standards, the implementation of

NCJFCJ‟s Resource Guidelines, immigration issues, expediting appeals, guardians ad litem,

representation, children in court, foster parent participation, parents‟ attorneys‟ standards and training.

The Commission makes recommendations on these issues to the Supreme Court.

Nebraska also has the Through the Eyes of the Child11 initiative, which was created through

Nebraska‟s Action Plan from the First National Judicial Leadership Summit on the Protection of

Children, held in Minneapolis in 2005. The goal of the Through the Eyes of the Child Initiative is to

implement statewide best practices found in the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court

Judges‟ Resource Guidelines. Today, the Initiative also works to implement the policies

recommended by the Commission. The Initiative has approximately 30 local teams, each led by a

judge, who meets with the Supreme Court Chief Justice monthly. Because of Nebraska‟s relatively

small size, many of the same individuals serve on both the Commission and the Through the Eyes of

the Child initiative. Both the Commission and the Through the Eyes of the Child Initiative are

supported by Court Improvement Program (CIP) funds.

9 The Commission website is http://ccfl.unl.edu/projects_outreach/outreach/judicial_commission/.

10 Supreme Court Commission on Children in the Courts. University of Nebraska, Center on Children, Families, and the

Law, available http://ccfl.unl.edu/projects_outreach/outreach/judicial_commission/. 11

http://www.throughtheeyes.org/


15

Having a wide representation of stakeholders, including leadership from the Supreme Court

and the child welfare agency, on the Commission has been integral to its success. For example, the

Director of Nebraska‟s Health and Human Services, also a Commission member, now meets with the

Chief Justice every two months. Youth are represented more heavily through the Through the Eyes

of the Child Initiative, particularly at the local level, where they attend regional meetings and were

instrumental in changing policy and practice regarding youth involvement in court. Having tribal court

representation on the Commission has also led to the recent creation of a sub-committee on state

court/tribal court collaboration.

The Through the Eyes of the Child Initiative collects data, despite the lack of a strong

statewide case management system. These data have demonstrated some system improvements.

For example, there was a five month decrease in time to permanency from 2008-2009. In addition to

quantitative evidence, Commission success has been achieved through many practice changes, such

as frontloading, pre-hearing conferences, and youth involvement in court. The Through the Eyes of

the Child Initiative has also been working on education and training regarding the Fostering

Connections to Success Act. The initiative hosts an annual lecture series; and much of the content of

the 2010 lecture series was devoted to Fostering Connections. The series was recorded and made

available online.12

12

The 2010 Lecture Series can be viewed at http://www.throughtheeyes.org/training/2010_lecture_series.php


16

Pennsylvania’s Roundtables for Children13

The Roundtables for Children Initiative was implemented in 2007 by the Pennsylvania

Supreme Court to serve as the model for collaboration between the courts and child welfare. The

three-tiered system includes local Roundtables in each of Pennsylvania‟s 60 judicial districts, 8

statewide Leadership Roundtables, and one statewide Roundtable.

The Local Children‟s Roundtable is convened by the county dependency judge and is

comprised of stakeholders in the dependency system including, but not limited to, children and youth

administrators, county commissioners, hearing masters, guardians ad litem, parent attorneys, agency

solicitors, Court Appointed Special Advocates, school districts, drug and alcohol and mental health

professionals, families, county children and youth staff, juvenile probation staff, police departments,

service providers and other relevant stakeholders. The Local Children‟s Roundtable meet on a regular

basis to share best or promising practices, address areas of concern within the county's dependency

system and make plans to overcome barriers to timely permanency.

The Leadership Roundtable includes leaders of the Local Children‟s Roundtables from

counties with comparably-sized populations ( the dependency judge, children and youth administrator

and one additional designated stakeholder). There are eight Leadership Roundtables in total.

Counties of like size are able to provide each other with information and ideas on common problems

and solutions. The Leadership Roundtables meet twice a year, and are co-chaired by a dependency

court judge from one judicial district and a children and youth administrator from another.

The State Roundtable is convened by the Honorable Max Baer, Supreme Court Justice, and

co- chaired by the Administrator of the Office of Children and Families in Court (OCFC), and the

Deputy Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare‟s Office of Children, Youth, and

Families. The State Roundtable also includes state and national leaders with expertise in dependency

issues. Issues identified during Local Roundtable meetings and common themes from the Leadership

Roundtables are brought to the State Roundtable.

13

The Roundtable website is http://www.ocfcpacourts.us/judges-and-legal-professionals/childrens-roundtable-initiative.


17

Figure 1. Pennsylvania’s Roundtable Structure

The organizational home of the Roundtables is OCFC, which is housed in the Administrative

Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC). The Roundtables are funded by the Court Improvement

Program(CIP). Practice initiatives are started with CIP funds, and then ongoing operational costs

come from the Department of Public Welfare‟s Office of Children, Youth, and Families. This

collaborative funding demonstrates the strong partnership between the courts and child welfare.

The Roundtables have had numerous successes including the development of a court

performance outcome data system. Pennsylvania previously had only a statewide criminal case

management system, but Justice Baer approached the Supreme Court and advocated for a system

that could track dependency cases as well. Under the existing system, a court could not even report

the number of children under its jurisdiction, let alone any performance outcome data. The Supreme

Court asked the AOPC‟s Automation Department to create a case management system module for

dependency cases, and the Automation Department convened a stakeholder advisory group in order


18

to build a system that would meet all needs. Pennsylvania rolled out the new system to all counties,

completing the process in October 2010. Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties (which have unique

issues because of their large size) were the last counties to go live. Work is currently underway to

examine the new statewide data and create a dashboard system.

Another success of the Roundtable initiative is the Dependency Benchbook. The Dependency

Benchbook, released in 2010, is more than a traditional dependency law benchbook – it provides not

only Pennsylvania dependency law, but also a “how-to” guide for judges for each hearing type,

including state and national best practices to inform judicial decision-making. Every dependency

judge and hearing master received hard copies, CDs with documents were given to child welfare, and

the Benchbook is also available online as a reference to other stakeholders such as attorneys and

child advocates.14

The Permanency Practice Initiative (PPI), initiated by the State Roundtable in 2007, is another

success. The PPI serves as a model for all dependency system practice change efforts. The

foundation of the PPI is that “enhanced judicial oversight combined with strength-based, family-led

practice will ultimately increase the number of children safely maintained in their own homes and

support expedited permanency either through safe reunification or the finalization of another

permanent plan.”15 The PPI includes the system reform practices of family group decision making

(FGDM), family finding, and family development credentialing. For example, FGDM was practiced in

only 15 of Pennsylvania‟s 67 counties when it was selected by the PPI as a core practice in 2007. As

of December 2010, 63 counties are now using FGDM.

Other recent Roundtable priorities include representation, father involvement, and truancy. In

addition, while there are no federally recognized tribes in Pennsylvania, the Roundtable initiative has

been working to educate and train on ICWA in recognition that Native American children reside in the

Commonwealth and some are involved in the child protection system. ICWA-related issues are also

addressed in the new Dependency Benchbook.

14

The Benchbook is available online at http://www.ocfcpacourts.us/judges-and-legal-professionals/benchbook. 15

Overview, Permanency Practice Initiative. Office of Children and Families in the Courts, available at http://www.ocfcpacourts.us/permanency-practice-initiatives/overview.


19

Texas Permanent Judicial Commission for Children, Youth, and Families16

The Supreme Court of Texas created the Permanent Judicial Commission for Children, Youth,

and Families in 2007.17 After attending the First National Judicial Leadership Summit on the

Protection of Children in 2005, Texas Supreme Court Justice Harriet O‟Neill “launched a two-year

consensus-building effort to establish a commission with the official status, credibility, and the

imprimatur of the Supreme Court of Texas.”18 The mission of the Commission is to “strengthen courts

for children, youth and families in the child-protection system and thereby improve the safety,

permanency, and well-being of children.” The Supreme Court Order establishing the Commission

directs it to:

develop a strategic plan for strengthening courts and court practice in the child protection system;

identify and assess current and future needs for the courts to be more effective in achieving child-welfare outcomes of safety, permanency, well-being, fairness and due process;

promote best practices and programs that are data-driven, evidence-based, and outcome-focused;

improve collaboration and communication among courts, the Department of Family and Protective Services, attorneys, and partners in the child-protection community;

endeavor to increase resources and funding needed for improvement, and maximize the wise and efficient use of available resources;

promote adequate and appropriate training for all participants in the child protection system;

institutionalize a collaborative model that will continue systemic improvement beyond the tenure of individual Children‟s Commission members;

oversee the administration of designated funds, including the Court Improvement Program grants; and

provide an annual progress report to the Court.19

The Commission is also responsible for administering the Court Improvement Program and is

funded with the CIP grant. The Commission has dedicated staff, including an Executive Director, who

16

The Commission‟s website is http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/children.asp. 17

The order establishing the Commission is available at http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/MiscDocket/07/07919300.pdf. 18

Reynolds, Carl and Tina Amberboy. “Commissions Collaborating for Children.” Future Trends in State Courts. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts (2009), available at <http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/famct&CISOPTR=271>. 19

Procedural Guide. Permanent Judicial Commission for Children, Youth and Families (Sept. 2010). Available at <http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/children/pdf/ProceduralGuidelines.PDF>.


20

also serves as the CIP Director and is temporarily also serving as Grant Manager. The Commission

also has an Assistant Director, Program Attorney, Policy Attorney, Communications Manager, and

Executive Assistant.

The Commission‟s 19 members come from the judiciary; child protection system;

representatives from the business community, the bar, foundations, organizations with a substantial

interest in child welfare issues; and other state leaders who are committed to children, youth, and

families of Texas. Leadership by a Supreme Court Justice is critical to the Commission‟s success

because it keeps the importance of the work at the highest level of the judiciary. Also, having the

child welfare agency involved in the Commission has contributed to its success. When the

Commission was formed, Justice O‟Neill immediately formed a partnership with the head of the state

Child Protective Services. Other stakeholders that have been critical to include are youth and

families, who are included in every collaborative effort of the Commission. The Commission recently

added a tribal court representative and has a staff person focusing on issues concerning Native

American children who interacts with the tribal advisory council and the state child welfare agency.

Many recent system reform efforts can be credited to the work of the Commission. For

example, a recent project to improve the legal representation of crossover youth started from a

discussion at a Commission meeting. Within weeks of that meeting, a workgroup was formed by the

Commission to study the issue, and Casey Family Programs, at the request of a Commission

member, conducted a national review of practices involving crossover youth. As a result, there were

changes made to the Texas Family Code requiring greater judicial oversight of crossover youth, and a

private foundation was secured to provide legal representation for these youth.20 Other examples of

success include attorney trainings, changing state law to reflect extended foster care, and technology

advances, such as the Commission‟s guidance in the Office of Court Administration‟s development of

a child protection case management system called CPCMS. This new case management system

allows courts to track elements of safety, permanency, and well-being.

The Commission also proudly hosted the Third National Judicial Leadership Summit on the

Protection of Children in Austin in October, 2009. The Summit III focused on improving educational

outcomes for children involved in the child protection system. The Texas state Summit team included

as a priority in its Summit Action Plan the goal of improving education through greater collaboration

and by keeping kids closer to their homes. The Commission created an Education Committee in May,

2010 that by Supreme Court Order, shall:

Identify and assess challenges to educational success of children and youth in the Texas foster care system;

Identify and recommend judicial practices to help achieve better educational outcomes

20

2009 Annual Report to the Supreme Court. Permanent Judicial Commission on Children, Youth and Families (2009), available at <http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/children/reports/webCommission2009AnnualReport.pdf>.


21

for children and youth in foster care;

Seek to improve collaboration, communication, and court practice through partnerships with the Department of Family and Protective Services, the Texas education system, and stakeholders in the education and child-protection community;

Identify training needs regarding educational outcomes for the judiciary and for attorneys who represent DFPS, children, and parents in child protection cases;

Seek to develop a collaborative model that will continue systemic improvement of educational outcomes; and

Make recommendations regarding the exchange and sharing of education-related data.21

21

Order Establishing Education Committee of Permanent Judicial Commission for Children, Youth and Families. Supreme Court of Texas (May, 2010), available at <http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/miscdocket/10/10907900.PDF.>


22

Washington’s Commission on Children in Foster Care22

The Washington Supreme Court created the Commission on Children in Foster Care in

September, 2005 by Supreme Court Order.23 Its mission is to provide all children in foster care with

safe, permanent families in which their physical, emotional, intellectual, and social needs are met. Its

value statement, tactical goals, and strategic goals specify:

Value statement: All children need safe, permanent families that love, nurture, protect and guide them.

Tactical goals: Improve collaboration between the courts, child welfare partners and the education system to achieve the mission.

Strategic Goals:

The Commission will monitor and report on the extent to which child welfare programs and courts are responsive to the needs of the children in their joint care.

The Commission will broaden public awareness of and support for meeting the needs of children and families in foster care.

The Commission will institutionalize collaboration beyond the terms of office of individual agency directors and elected officials.

The Commission is staffed with clerical support that is provided by the Administrative Office of the

Courts, and the Center for Children and Youth Justice24 provides the services of Commission

Executive Director Michael Curtis and Co-Chair Hon. Bobbe Bridge pro-bono. By Order, the

Commission members are appointed by the Chief Justice, and represent the following stakeholders:

Attorney General of the State of Washington;

Superintendent of Public Instruction;

President-Judge of the Superior Court Judges‟ Association;

Executive Director of Washington State CASA;

Executive Director of Foster Parents Association of Washington State;

Chief Judge of the Northwest Intertribal Court System;

22

http://www.courts.wa.gov/committee/?fa=committee.home&committee_ID=50 23

Original Order available at http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/PublicUpload/Commission%20on%20Children%20in%20Foster%20Care/Supreme%20Court%20Order.doc. 24

http://www.ccyj.org


23

Chair of the House Children and Family Services Committee;

Chair of the Senate Children Services and Corrections Committee;

Director of the Office of Public Defense;

Youth currently in foster care; and

Alumni of foster care.25

Washington attributes the Commission membership and the level of collaboration for much of

its success. One of the legislative members of the Commission, who serves on many other statewide

commissions, recently commented that the Commission on Children in Foster Care is Washington‟s

most effective Commission “because things get discussed and actually get done.” Because the

composition of the Commission includes all of the key policy decision makers, when

recommendations come to the group, they “don‟t have to go to the bosses” – decision-making is

streamlined and change happens. Having youth members and foster care alumni on the Commission

has also been instrumental. For example, the Commission hosts an annual Foster Youth Alumni

Leadership Summit, where foster youth spend two days of training on topics including leadership and

advocacy. The Summits conclude with a presentation to the Commission where the youth make

policy and reform recommendations, and many of these recommendations advanced to become

policy changes and new law. The only recommendations that did not advance required funding that

was not available in the difficult state budget climate.

Other successful Commission initiatives include a National Adoption Day initiative that has

experienced participation growth every year; a successful Youth in Transition Workgroup; Appellate

Rule changes; and an initiative that encouraged local courts to implement the best practices of unified

family courts.

25

In the Matter of the Establishment of the Commission on Children in Foster Care, Amended Order. Supreme Court of Washington (Feb. 2007), available at http://www.courts.wa.gov/committee/pdf/supreme%20ct%20amended%20order.pdf.


24

IV. RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES

The survey and interviews document that Commissions on Children are effective mechanism

for focusing attention on the child protection process and outcomes for children and families involved

in that process; identifying need improvements in procedures, performance, and services; and

facilitating the implementation of those improvements. Based on an analysis of the experience of

these commissions, four strategies for success are apparent:

(1) Select a strong judicial leader.

Many of the profiled commissions attribute much of their success to having a strong judicial

leader as commission chair. For example, Pennsylvania‟s Justice Max Baer, California‟s Justice

Carlos Moreno, and Texas‟s Justice Harriet O‟Neill were all identified as being true champions and

instrumental to each commission‟s success.

(2) Include executive branch and legislative branch leaders and a broad array of stakeholders.

The survey respondents and interviewees recognized that involving a broad array of

stakeholders is essential to success. All 20 responding states indicated that judges at the local level,

child welfare agency leaders such as the Director of the state‟s Child Welfare Agency and/or the

cabinet Secretary for Human Services), and educators (e.g., the state Secretary or Education or

Superintendant of Public Instruction) were represented on the commission. Policymakers are

represented on 95 percent of the responding states‟ commissions. Seventy-four percent of

responding states reported that Chief Justices/judicial leadership were represented on the

commission. Representatives of tribal courts or tribal governments are represented on 61 percent of

responding state commissions. Forty-seven percent of responding states reported that youth are

represented on the commission, and parents are represented on 42 percent of responding states‟

commissions. Thirty-two percent of responding states reported that members of the business

community are represented on their commission, and one state commission includes a legislator.

This applies to local and regional bodies as well as state-level commissions. Include a broad

array of stakeholders, for example:

Trial and appellate judges

Child welfare agency leaders

Legislators

Court staff

Tribal representatives

Educators

Attorneys (child attorney, parent, and agency attorneys)

CASA


25

Youth

Parents

Researchers

Medical and mental health professionals

Other community service providers

(3) Create a mechanism for local cross-system collaboration.

Commissions have realized successful outcomes through the use of parallel entities or

subgroups working at the regional or local level. These entities facilitate collaboration and help with

the successful implementation of Commission reforms.

Survey respondents were asked whether there are parallel entities or sub-groups working at

the regional or local level within the state. Sixty-eight percent of the responding 20 states reported

yes. Among those states that answered yes, the majority of these groups are local stakeholder

groups or teams, as opposed to regional groups. Three of the profiled commissions reported having

parallel entities that work at the regional and/or local level.

California, based on the recommendations of its Blue Ribbon Commission, has established local multidisciplinary commissions in most counties, and to date has held two annual statewide summits to bring those teams together. Pennsylvania has a three-tiered system. The first tier is the local level, where each of the 60 judicial districts convenes a local Children's Roundtable which is co-facilitated by the lead dependency judge and child welfare administrator and involves all local persons who might impact the child dependency system. At the second tier level, Pennsylvania's 60 judicial districts covering 67 counties are grouped by size into Leadership Roundtables. There are eight Leadership Roundtables which meet twice a year. This allows like-sized counties to discuss common concerns and solutions. At the highest tier is the State Roundtable which meets once per year and is co-chaired by the Supreme Court‟s Honorable Max Baer and the State Child Welfare Office Deputy Secretary and Administrator of the Office of Children and Families in Court. Nebraska’s Through the Eyes of the Child Initiative is a parallel/connected group. There are approximately 30 judge-led local collaboratives across the state. While the Commission does more work at the policy level, the Through the Eyes teams work on implementing best practices in abuse and neglect cases. These teams can and do have subcommittees for various tasks and report back the group for approval.

(4) Dedicate staff to assist the commission.

States that have dedicated commission staff have realized the following benefits:

Smoother transition when judicial leadership changes;

Successful strategic planning;

Subject matter expertise;

Efficient resource allocation and utilization;


26

Improved communication among commission members; and

Improved networking with counterparts in other states.

(5) Evaluate the impact of their recommendations on outcomes for children and families.

Successful commissions ensure that the reforms resulting from their recommendations are

data-driven and evidence-based. They measure and assess the impact these reforms have on

outcomes for children and families. In other words, they constantly ask the question “Are we making

a difference?” and demonstrate that the implemented changes are resulting in better outcomes for

children and families.

For example, from the very beginning the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in

Foster Care put evaluation and outcomes measurement at the forefront of its recommendations. Early

work included defining a set of outcome measures for dependency court,26 based on the national

“Toolkit” model27 but adapted for California‟s needs. Staff to the Commission then designed a set of

reports that provide each court, at the county level, detailed statistics on children in foster care,

including demographics, case counts, and safety and permanency measures.28 These reports,

updated every quarter, have given many California judges their first comprehensive information on the

foster care population they supervise. Following the Commission recommendations, the California

Administrative Office of the Courts and its partners, including the Department of Social Services and

foundations, have taken additional steps to measure program success through outcomes analysis and

evaluation:

Analyzed dependency hearing timeliness through data available in court case

management systems;

Conducted a workload study that will compare court staff and judicial resources to

effective practice models;

Launched an evaluation of using a case manager model in dependency court; and

Launched an evaluation of Family Finding and Engagement programs around the

state.

Pennsylvania‟s Roundtable has also evaluated the success of its reform efforts. For example,

after the March 2009 implementation of the “Children‟s Fast Track”, a new set of procedural rules for

Pennsylvania‟s Superior and Supreme Courts that place dependency, termination and adoption

matters on an expedited review process, Pennsylvania has been able to analyze timeliness data and

26

California Rules of Court, Rule 5.505 Juvenile dependency court performance measures. http://www.courts.ca.gov/7260.htm?title=five 27

Court Performance Measures in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases, U.S. Department of Justice,

http://www.ojjdp.gov/publications/courttoolkit.html 28

CWS Court Profiles, http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare/CwsCourtProfiles.aspx

http://www.courts.ca.gov/7260.htm?title=five

http://www.ojjdp.gov/publications/courttoolkit.html

http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare/CwsCourtProfiles.aspx


27

has witnessed an significant reduction in the time cases hang in “appeal limbo”. Another Roundtable

reform effort being evaluated in Pennsylvania is the Pennsylvania Permanency Practice Initiative

(PPI), a mix of social work and court practices. In counties that have implemented PPI with fidelity,

Pennsylvania is seeing substantial improvements in outcomes for children.


28

Appendix A - Online Survey

STATEWIDE JUDICIAL COMMISSIONS

(1) Please identify your name.

(2) Please identify the state where the court system you work in is located.

(3) Please identify your mailing address.

(4) Please identify your phone number.

(5) Please identify your email address.

(6) What stakeholders are represented in the commission, task force, or committee?

(Check all that apply)

Chief Justices/judicial leadership

judges at the local level

children‟s administration agency leaders

policymakers

educators

youth

parents

business people

tribes

other, please identify____________

(7) Which stakeholder group is the lead for the commission, task force, or committee?

Which stakeholder group is the lead for the commission, task force, or committee?

(Check one)

State Supreme Court

public agency

nonprofit organization

other, please specify____________

(8) Does the commission, task force, or committee focus on improving systems for any one population?

Does the commission, task force, or committee focus on improving systems for any one population?

Yes

No

(9) Please indicate which population your commission, task force, or committee focuses on improving systems.

(10) Are there parallel entities or sub-groups working at the regional or local level with the state.

Yes

No


29

(11) Please describe the parallel entities or sub-groups working at the regional or local level with the state.

(12) How long has the commission, task force, or committee? been in existence?

(Check one)

0-2 years

3-5 years

6-9 years

10 years or more

(13) How was the commission, task force, or committee established?

(Check one)

legislatively

by the Supreme Court

by a Governor


(14) Is the commission, task force, or committee permanent?

Yes

No

(15) Does the commission, task force, or committee include tribal courts or tribal governments?

Yes

No

(16) Is there a liaison between the commission, task force, or committee and tribal courts or tribal governments within the state?

Yes

No

(17) Check the top 3 areas where the collaboration has contributed to cross-systems change.

(Check top three areas)

development of a common vision

increased collaboration between judges and agencies

plans written and implemented to improve well-being of youth in car

policies recommended

enhanced information sharing,

improved service coordination,

agreement on shared outcomes and measures


(18) Identify 1-3 successes that the commission, task force, or committee has achieved.

(19) What is the greatest challenge facing the commission, task force, or committee?


30

Appendix B - State Commissions

State Name of Activity Website

ArkansasSupreme Court Ad Hoc Committee on Foster Care

and Adoption Assessment

http://courts.state.ar.us/boards_committees/adhoc_comm_fos

tercare_adoption.cfm

CaliforniaCalifornia Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in

Foster Carehttp://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jc/tflists/bluerib.htm

Colorado Child Welfare Action Committee http://www.cdhs.state.co.us/CWActonComTempPage.htm

Delaware Child Protection Accountability Commission http://courts.delaware.gov/childadvocate/cpachistory.stm

FloridaSupreme Court Steering Committee on Families and

Children in the Court

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/adminorders/2010/AO

SC10-50.pdf

GeorgiaSupreme Court of Georgia Committee on Justice for

Children

http://w2.georgiacourts.org/cj4c/index.php?option=com_conten

t&view=article&id=77&Itemid=53

HawaiiSupreme Court of the State of Hawaii Standing

Committee on Children in Family Court

Standing Committee on Children in Family CourtIowa Children's Justice State Council

http://www.iowacourts.gov/wfdata/frame9065-

1865/State_Council_membership_sept_09.pdf

Kansas Supreme Court Task Force on Permanency Planning

Minnesota Children's Justice Initiative http://www.mncourts.gov/?page=148

Mississippi Mississippi Commission on Children's Justicehttp://www.mssc.state.ms.us/commissionsforcescommittees/

commissionsforcescommittees.html

NebraskaSupreme Court Commission on Children in the

Courts

http://www.supremecourt.ne.gov/commissions/child_in_court.s

html

New YorkPermanent Judicial Commission on Justice for

Childrenhttp://www.nycourts.gov/ip/justiceforchildren/index.shtml

Oregon Commission on Children & Families http://www.oregon.gov/OCCF/about_us.shtml

PennsylvaniaRoundtable, Office of Children & Families in the

Courts

http://www.ocfcpacourts.us/judges-and-legal-

professionals/childrens-roundtable-initiative

TexasSupreme Court of Texas Permanent Judicial

Commission for Children, Youth and Familieshttp://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/children.asp

Utah Initiative on Utah Children in Foster Care

Vermont Justice for Children Task Forcehttp://www.vermontjudiciary.org/JC/MasterPages/committee-

justicechildren.aspx

WashingtonWashington State Supreme Court Commission on

Children in Foster Care

http://www.courts.wa.gov/committee/?fa=committee.home&co

mmittee_ID=50

Wisconsin Commission on Children, Families & the Courtshttp://www.wicourts.gov/about/committees/ccipcommission.ht

m

West VirginiaCommission to Study the Residential Placement of

Childrenhttp://www.wvdhhr.org/oos_comm/


31

Appendix C – Stakeholder Representation

Chief Justices/

judicial

leadership

Judges at

the local

level

Child

welfare

agency

leaders

Policy-

makers/

Legislators

Educators Youth ParentsBusiness

peopleTribes Attorneys Other (specify)

AR X X X X X X X X

CA X X X X X X X X X

Agency, children's and parents' attorneys,

mental health, drug and alcohol programs,

CASA, court staff, philanthropy, probation,

academia, legislator

CO X X X X X X X County human services agencies

DE X X X X

Community advocates, law enforcement, medical

community, adoption community, mental health,

domestic violence, department of justice

FL X X X X X

Statewide guardian ad litem program, former

foster youth, parents' attorney, director of agency

attorneys, director substance abuse program

office, FSU center for prevention and early

intervention, department of juvenile justice

GA X X X X X X

HI X X X XPediatrician, GAL, CIP coordinator, department

of education, department of health

IA X X X X X X X XService providers, attorneys, public health,

domestic violence,

KS X X X

Court of Appeals, District Attorney, GAL, Mental

Health, Juvenile Justice Authority, Citizen Review

Board, CASA, Court Services

MN X X X X X X X X

State agency commissioners, county agency

attorneys, attorneys for parents, attorneys for

children, guardians ad litem, court administrators

MS X X X X X X X

NE X X X X X X X X X XAttorneys, advocacy organization

representatives, CASA, FCRB

NY X X X X X Advocates, physicians, legislators

OR X X X X XFaith, community service providers, workforce

development,

PA X X X X X X XABA, American Humane Association, Court

Administration

TX X X X X X X X X XMulti-disciplinary professionals (mental health,

substance abuse, immigration, etc)

UT X X X X X X X

Medical community, religious community

representatives, mental health, organization

responsible for foster parent recruitment and

training, mental health advocacy

VT X X X X X X

WA X X X X X X X XPublic defense, Attorney General, CASA, foster

parents, legislator

WI X X X X X X XJuvenile clerk, CASA, attorney guardian ad litem,

and public defender

WV X X X X XNon Profit organizations for children, youth &

families

What stakeholders are represented in the commission, task force, or committee? (check all that apply)


32

Appendix D – Commission Lead

State Supreme

CourtPublic Agency Other (specify)

AR X

CA X

CO X

DE X

FL X

GA X

HI X

IA X

KS X

MNCo-chaired by a Supreme Court Justice and a State Dept. of

Human Services Assistant Commissioner

MS X

NE X

NY X

OR X

PA X

TX X

UT X

VT X

WA X

WI X

WV X

Commission Lead


33

Appendix E – Parallel Entities at the Regional/Local Level

Yes NoPlease describe the parallel entities or sub-groups working at the regional or local level with the

state.

AR X

CA XPursuant to Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations, California has established local multidisciplinary

commissions in most counties and has held two annual statewide summits to bring those teams together.

CO X

DE X

FL X

There are many different groups at the local level working on child welfare issues. Some intersect with the

judiciary and others do not. Some are mandated in statute and some are not. Pursuant to a Florida Supreme

Court opinion, each circuit must have a local Family Law Advisory Group with stakeholders to assist with

matters related to family court (which includes dependency).

GA X Local court improvement teams exist in 16 counties. They all meet every 6 months.

HI XThe local projects that collaborate with our Standing Committee are the Court Improvement Program and the

Educational Collaborative. Both “projects” are composed primarily of members of the Standing Committee.

IA X District teams, who have the same partners from the local level as those represented at the state level.

KS X

MN X

Since December 2002, each of Minnesota's 87 counties has had in place a multidisciplinary Children's

Justice Initiative (CJI) team. The objective of each team is to improve outcomes for abused and neglected

children by improving the decision-maknig processes and timelines related to safety, permanency, and well-

being. Every team is lead by a local juvenile court judge, and includes representation by court

administration, county attorneys (prosecutors), social workers, attorneys for parents and children, GALs,

tribe representatives, foster parents, and in some counties parents and/or youth. Each county team attends

an annaul Regional CJI Team Meeting sponsored by the State CJI, and meets regularly at the local level to

work on their county Permanency Action Plan.

MS X

The only other entity that works specifically with the Commission is the Court Improvement Program Work

Group, which combines the efforts of the Administrative Office of Courts and the Child Welfare Agency in

fostering needed change in the provision of services to children and families.

NE X

Through the Eyes of the Child Initiative is a parallel/connected group. There are about 30 judge led local

collaboratives around the state. While the Commission does more work at the policy level, the Through the

Eyes teams work on implementing best practices in abuse/neglect cases. These teams can and do have

subcommittees for various tasks and report back the the group for approval.

NY X Through the NYS Child Welfare Court Improvement Project, there are many local stakeholders groups.

OR X Local commissions on children and families (county level)

PA X

Pennsylvania has a three-tiered system. At the local level (first tier) each of the 60 judicial districts convenes

a local Children's Roundtable which is cofacilitated by the lead dependency judge and child welfare

administrator and involves all local persons who might impact the child dependency system. At the second

tier level, PA's 60 judicial districts covering 67 counties are grouped by size into Leadership Roundtables.

There are eight LRTs which meet in the spring and again the fall every year. This allows like sized counties

to discuss like sized concerns/solutions. At the highest tier is the State Roundtable which meets once per

year and is co-chaired by Honorable Max Baer, Supreme Court, State Child Welfare Office Deputy Secretary

and OCFC Administrator.

TX XMany jurisdictions have local groups that meet about local systems issues. There are regional advisory

groups that the child welfare agency has established as well.

UT X The initiative works closely with the Court Improvement Program

VT X

WA X

WI X

WV X

Are there parallel entities or sub-groups working at the regional or local level with the state?


34

Appendix F – Population Focus

Does the commission, task force, or committee focus on improving systems a population in addition to neglected and abused children and their families?

Yes No If Yes, Which Population?

AR X

CA X

CO X

DE X

FL X

GA X

HI X

IA X

KS X

MN X

MS X The MS Commission has two (2) Subcommittees: 1) The Court Improvement Subcommittee focuses on the improvement of the juvenile justice system; while, 2) The Education Subcommittee focuses on bridging the gap between the the judicial and educational system.

NE X Child welfare population has biggest focus, but there has been work on juvenile justice, children in divorce, as well.

NE X Youth in foster care, although steps are being made to similarly address delinquency and status offenders.

NY X Children involved with New York State courts - this is quite broad and would include youth in the juvenile justice system, youth in foster care, children of incarcerated parents

OR X Children and youth ages 0 - 21

PA X Youth in the child dependency system

TX X Children, youth and families in the state child welfare system

UT X Youth in foster care is the primary focus

VT X Youth in foster care

WA

X

WI X Our focus is on improving outcomes for children in out-of-home care.

WV X Children and youth in foster care. This includes both Child abuse/neglect, status offenders, & juvenile delinquents who are in need of foster care.


35

Appendix G – Commission Age

1-2 Years 3-5 Years 6-9 Years 10 Years or More

AR X

CA X

CO X

DE X

FL X

GA X

KS X

HI X

IA X

MNX

MS X

NE X

NY X

OR X

PA X

TX X

UT X

VT X

WAX

WI X

WV X

How long has the commission, task force, or committee been in existence?


36

Appendix H – How Was Commission Established?

Legislature Supreme Court Governor

AR X

CA X*

CO X

DE X

FL X**

GA X

HI X

IA X

KS X

MN X***

MS X

NE X

NY X

OR X

PA X

TX X

UT X

VT X

WA X

WI X

WV X

How was the commission, task force, or committee established?

*By the Judicial Council of California

**One of the requirements of the Court Improvement Program

***Collaborative decision of the Supreme Court and Department of Human Services


37

Appendix I – Is the Commission Permanent?

Yes No

AR X

CA X

CO X

DE X

FL X

GA X

HI X

IA X

KS X

MN X

MS X

NE X

NY X

OR X

PA X

TX X

UT X

VT X

WA X

WI X

WV X

Is the commission, task force, or committee permanent?


38

Appendix J – Collaborating with Tribal Governments

Yes No Yes No

AR X X

CA X

CO X X

DE X X

FL X

GA X X

HI X X

IA X

KS X X

MN X X

MS X

NE X

NY X X

OR X X

PA X X

TX X

UT X

VT X X

WA X

WI X

WV X X

Does the commission, task force, or

committee include tribal courts or tribal

governments?

Is there a liaison between the

commission, task force, or committee

and tribal courts or tribal governments

within the state?

Collaborating with Tribal Governments


39

Appendix K – Top Commission Successes

TX(1) institutionalized an agency/court collaborative model, (2) Established an Education Committee to improve education outcomes for children (3) Created a web-based, online bench book for child protection

judges

CA(1) Establishing local Blue Ribbon Commissions; (2) Helping to pass federal and state Fostering Connections to Success legislation during challenging budgetary times; (3) Reducing the number and

disproportionality of children in foster care primarily through reduced length of stay in foster care.

CO (1) The Governor's Child Welfare Action Committee made 29 initial recommendations for system and program changes. Of those 23 have been fully or partially implemented.

DE(1) Bi-Annual Joint Conference on Child Protection hosted by the Child Protection Accountability Commission and the Child Death, Near Death and Stillbirth Commission; (2) Extended Jurisdiction for Youth

Aging out of Foster Care; (3) Development of Mandatory Reporting Training for the general public and for the medical community; (4) Statutory caseload standards.

FL(1) Involving Children in Court Initiative; (2) Revision on the Florida dependency benchbook to include evidence-based and promising practices, and practices of Florida's NCJFCJ model court; (3) Various

trainings, including the statewide dependency summit and regional roundtables; (4) Completion of a court-related improvement plan - a direct response from the CFSR.

GA(1) Executive branch sharing data with judicial branch which led to launch of cold case project; (2) Joint work between executive and judicial branch on improving and measuring for child and family service

review.

HI(1) Expediting dependency appeals; (2) Organizing regular "Teen Days" for mid-teen youth who are likely to age out of the foster care system; (3) increased attention to ensuring foster youth attend their court

hearings, statewide.

IA(1) Brought together for the first time, all the state level partners in child welfare; (2) Collaboratively developed solutions that to educational barriers for foster youth such as getting enrolled in school timely,

getting appropriate credit for classes taken; (3) Jointly crafted Iowa's version of Foster Connections which was easily approved by the legislature.

KS(1) Oversees the 3 court improvement grants; (2) Developed and implemented the state-wide use of the Supreme Court Order 155 Form; and (3) Participation of judges and/or court staff in the CFSR and IV-E

reviews.

MN

(1) Recommended to the Judicial Council the adoption of performance measures. In September 2010, the Minnesota Judicial Council, the policy-making body for the Judicial Branch, issued a Judicial Branch

policy incorporating two performance measures relating to child protection cases. Judicial Branch policy 505(a) establishing a "Length of Time to Permanency Order" performance measure, where 50% of the

cases must reach permanency in 6 months, 90% in 12 months, and 99% in 18 months. The policy also establishes a "Length of Time to State Ward Adoptions" where 60% of the cases must be finalized

within 24 months.

(2) Identified practice areas on which the courts and agencies should be focusing their attention in order to more timely achieve permanency for children. As a result of those recommendations, in September

and October 2010 the Children's Justice Initiative (CJI) conducted nine annual Regional CJI Team Meetings across the state. The focus was on concurrent permanency planning, identifying and engaging

fathers, searching for and engaging relatives, partnering with tribes, and achieving timely permanency for older youth in foster care. The nine regional meetings were attended by approximately 900 judges,

county attorneys, parent/child attorneys, social workers, GALs, court administrators, tribe representatives, and foster parents. The agenda and all materials are posted on the CJI website:

http://www.mncourts.gov/?page=4047

MS The Commission was successful in the development of the Uniform Youth Court Rules of Practice.

NE(1) Guidelines and training requirements for attorney guardians ad litem in abuse/neglect cases; (2) Expedited appellate process for abuse/neglect and tpr cases; (3) Development of standards for parenting

time in abuse/neglect cases.

NY

(1) The development of Children's Centers in the courthouse; (2) Co-sponsored legislation that was enacted in 2010 that allows youth ages 18 to 20 years to re-enter foster care; (3) Developed a brochure to

raise awareness of parents who are arrested, detained or incarcerated of the importance of identifying a caregiver for their children who has the ability to make medical and educational decision and the

resource to appoint the caregiver.

PA

(1) Creation & dissemination of Mission & Guiding Principles for Pennsylvania's Dependency System which was endorsed by executive, legislative and judicial branches of government and is "hub" to all

reform in the Commonwealth; (2) Creation/implementation of a performance outcome data system for courts with Findings & Orders documents for all major dependency hearings; (3) Implementation of

Permanency Practice Initiative in 31 counties which cover 74% of all youth in substitute care...includes strength-based social work practices (Family Group Decision Making, Family Finding & Family

Credentialing) as well as enhanced judicial oversight (3 month judicial reviews & local Children's Roundtables); (4) 25% safe reduction of children in substitute care since 2007; (5) Creation of Pennsylvania

Dependency Bench Book - guide for trial judges created by trial judges; (6) Implementation of Fast Track Appeals procedures to speed process for dependency matters; (7) Creation of cross-systems

educational opportunities: two issue specific conferences and two Children's Summits (teams from each judicial district led by dependency judge)

UT(1) Passage of legislation regarding medical care and drivers' license attainment for youth in foster care; (2) Creation of hard copy and on line guide "Educating Youth in State Care"

(www.hs.utah.gov/education and related statewide training; (3) Expansion of community support services available to kinship care givers.

VT (1) Support of legislative reform in juvenile justice system; (2) Improved time lines in court and coordination of services for children in foster care.

WA

(1) Revised court rules expediting dependency cases in the appellate courts; (2) Annual Foster Youth and Alumni Leadership Summits, empowering foster youth with the skills and confidence to effectively

use their voice to advance foster care system reform; (3) Acted as the lead partner in convening a summit of educational leaders focused on improving academic outcomes for foster children, secured

commitments for actions and changes, then provided oversight of agencies and groups implementing strategies to improve school success for foster children. Here's a link to our 2005-2009 Progress Report:

http://www.courts.wa.gov/committee/pdf/Foster%20Care%20Commission%20-%202009%20Annual%20Report.pdf

WI(1) Provided input when developing several significant legislative and policy changes by the Director of State Courts Office or Department of Children and Families; (2) Established a subcommittee to address

educational issues. A judicial checklist will be completed by May 2011.

WV

(1) Development of WV Child Placement Network. Allows immediate access to availability of placements across WV which increases the probability of placement in state; (2) Expansion of the System of

Care statewide dedicated to building the foundation for an effective community based continuum of care that ensures families are engaged in decision making and each child's needs are met as close to their

home community as possible; (3) Implementation of the WV Service Array, a statewide effort that focuses on determining what community services and supports are available for children-at-risk and what

additional services are needed to ensure permanency, safety & well-being.

Identify 1-3 successes that the commission, task force, or committee has achieved


40

Appendix L – Top Areas of Cross-System Change

develop

common

vision

increased

collaboration

between judges

and agencies

plans written

and

implemented

to improve

well-being of

youth in care

policies

recommended

enhanced

information

sharing

improved

service

coordination

agreement

on shared

outcomes

and

measures

other (specify)

AR X X

CA X X X

CO X X Recommendations for system reform

DE X X X

FL X X X X

GA X X X X X X

HI X

Reduction in dependency appeals timeline,

collecting data on foster youth attending court

hearings, organizing regular "Teen Days" for

mid-teen youth who are likely to age out of

the foster care system, reaching agreement

with DOE for excusing youth who attend

court hearings

IA X X X Developing solutions to state level barriers

KS X X X

MN X X X X X X X

MS X X X

NE X X X Training

NY X X X

OR X X X

PA X X X X X X X

TX X X X X

UT X XImproved system understanding of education

for youth in foster care

VT X X X X X X X

WA X X X

WI X X X

WV X X X

Top three areas where collaboration has contributed to cross-systems change


41

Appendix M – Commission Challenges

CA The continuing state budget crisis

CO Fiscal constraints to implement some of the recommendations

DE Sufficient staffing

FL Implementation of our new benchbook. We are just embarking on this now.

GAPlacement stability for kids in foster care; quality child, parent and agency representation; meeting the needs of children

who have experienced extreme trauma

HIChanges in the leadership of executive departments and reorganization of staff positions, which affect commission

attendance at meetings. Fiscal shortages, which affect delivery of services to families and youth.

IA Maintaining focus and momentum when key leaders change

KS The greatest challenge would be sustaining change at the local level when implementing Court Improvement initiatives.

MN

The greatest challenge faced in Minnesota relates to legal representation of parents in child protection cases. The

challenge is two-fold. First is the lack of a statute mandating the appointment of counsel for indigent parents. The statute

currently provides that the appointment of counsel for indigent parents is discretionary with the judge, except in ICWA

cases. As a result, courts typically appoint counsel only for the custodial parent (Mom) and not the noncustodial parent

(Dad), even though Dad may be required to participate in a case plan. Second is the lack of a statewide system for

representing parents in child protection cases. In July 2008, the Office of the State Public Defender discontinued

representating parents, although they continue to represent children age 10 or older. The lack of a statewide system has

caused each county to create their own system, causing challenges in terms of recruiting, training, paying, and

supervising attorneys to represent parents.

MSCoordination of Services between stakeholder agencies that will work to benefit children and families with the greatest

needs for educational, economic and social development

NE The Commission has made recommendations to Supreme Court at faster rate than Supreme Court has responded.

NY During this time of economic hardship, finding the resources to move the agenda forward

OR Economic downturn and economy resulting in fewer state and local resources

PA

Since everything done by the State Roundtable is voluntary in nature, keeping everyone well informed and sustaining

change in complex environment of limited resources is a challenge. That said, Pennsylvania courts and agencies are

incredibly excited and involved in leading system reform and show no signs of limiting their efforts.

TX Decentralized court system is a barrier to true information / data exchange with the child welfare agency

UT Maintaining

VT One child one school

WA

Staffing/Funding. Since it's establishment under Supreme Court Rule, the Commission has relied on pro bono executive

staffing, initially provdided by King County Superior Court and then by the Center for Children & Youth Justice. State

resources are limited to part-time clerical support and an annual budget of $2,500. The resource limitations preclude the

Commission from being more pro-active.

WIEnsuring that there is a tangible outcome or work product as a result of the Commission's work. Questions arise

surrounding how much authority this group possesses.

WV

Systemic change takes time and is labor intensive. Seeing the change in the system is often small and evolutionary.

Members want immediate solutions. Efforts to identify outcomes through data, benchmarks, etc. will be the focus moving

forward.

What is the greatest challenge facing the commission, task force, or committee?

Documents

Strategies for Effective Statewide Judicial … 8/5/11 Strategies for Effective Statewide Judicial Commissions on the Protection of Children _____ Strong Leadership • Effective Collaboration