1 FCI Jumpstart to the Toolkit Measures Sophia Gatowski, Ph.D. National Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges Andy Barclay, Statistician and Co-Founder, Fostering Court Improvement Barton Child Law and Policy Clinic, Emory University School of Law Presented To: Fostering Court Improvement, A Data Workshop for Decision Makers December 7, 2006 FosteringCourtImprovement.org

2 Core Measures of Court Performance in Child Abuse & Neglect Cases Sophia Gatowski, Ph.D. National Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges

3 Where Did the Measures Come From? A collaborative effort between: ABA Center on Children and the Law National Center for State Courts National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Funded by David & Lucile Packard Foundation, HHS, Children’s Bureau and OJJDP

4 Identify weaker elements of court performance which encourages improvement. Identify examples of excellent performance which encourages replication. Become more experienced and comfortable using technology for automated case management. Identify successful types of reforms and approaches which leads to acceptance and widespread use. Increase both court and systems accountability which leads to continuing performance improvement. Identify ‘reforms’ that do not work well or have limited benefits, leading to redesign or elimination. Performance Measurements for Courts

5 Dimensions of Court Performance for Child Abuse & Neglect Cases 30 performance measures covering the domains of: Safety Permanency Due Process Timeliness All measures are intended to be foundational and for courts to build and expand upon the measures

6 Well-Being 30 performance measures covering the domains of: Safety Permanency Due Process Timeliness Well-BeingWell-Being

7 Nine Core Performance Measures for Child Abuse & Neglect Cases 9 of the 30 measures are core performance measures covering the domains of: Safety (2) Permanency (1) Due Process (2) Timeliness (4)

8 Core Measure 1: Child Safety While Under Court Jurisdiction Goal: To meet the ASFA goal that children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse or neglect at all times, including in placement Outcome: Children are safe from abuse and neglect while under court jurisdiction Measure: Percentage of children who were victims of child abuse or neglect while under court jurisdiction

9 Core Measure 2: Child Safety After Release from Court Jurisdiction Goal: To meet the ASFA goal that children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse or neglect. Outcome: Children are safe from abuse and neglect after court jurisdiction ends. Measure: Percentage of children who were victims of child abuse or neglect within 12 months after court jurisdiction ends.

10 Core Measure 3: Achievement of Child Permanency Goal: That children have permanency and stability in their living situations and continuity of family relationships. Outcome: Permanency is achieved when children are returned to their families without further court supervision, when children are adopted, and when children are placed with permanent guardians. Measure: Percentage of children who reach legal permanency by reunification, adoption or guardianship.

11 Core Measure 4: Service of Process to Parties Goal: Consistency in providing both parents proper written notice of child abuse and neglect cases. Outcome: Enhancement of due process by dealing with cases impartially and thoroughly. Measure: Percentage of cases in which both parents receive written service of process on the original petition.

12 Core Measure 5: Number of Judicial Officers per Case Goal: To assure the continuity of judicial officers. Outcome: Consistency of decisions and information. Measure: Percentage of cases in which all hearings were heard by one judicial officer.

13 Core Measure 6: Time to Permanent Placement Goal: Expedition of permanency by minimizing the time from the filing of the original petition to permanent placement. Outcome: Timely permanency. Measure: Average (median) time from filing of the original petition to permanent placement.

14 Core Measure 7: Time to Adjudication Goal: Expedition of permanency by minimizing the time from the filing of the original petition to adjudication. Outcome: Timely adjudication. Measure: Average (median) time from filing of the original petition to adjudication.

15 Core Measure 8: Time to First Permanency Hearing Goal: Expedition of permanency by minimizing the time from the filing of the original petition to the permanency hearing. Outcome: Timely permanency hearings. Measure: Average (median) time from filing of the original petition to first permanency hearing.

16 Core Measure 9: Time to Termination of Parental Rights Goal: Expedition of permanency by minimizing the time from the filing of the original petition to termination of parental rights. Outcome: Timely termination of parental rights. Measure: Average (median) time from filing of the original petition to termination of parental rights.

17 Toolkit Resources Booklet on Essential Court Performance Measures in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases Implementation Guide Technical Manual Users’ Guide to Non-Automated Data Collection Instruments Guide to Judicial Workload Assessment DVD and Website

18 Toolkit Measures Calculated from NCANDS & AFCARS Data FosteringCourtImprovement.org Andy Barclay Statistician and Co-Founder, Fostering Court Improvement Barton Child Law and Policy Clinic, Emory University School of Law

19 Summary 9 of 30 Toolkit Measures Can be Calculated with NCANDS & AFCARS: Safety: 2 of 2 can be calculated with NCANDS+AFCARS Permanency: 5 of 5 can be calculated with AFCARS Due Process: 0 of 10 Timeliness: 2 (+ 2 proxies) of 13 can be calculated with AFCARS FosteringCourtImprovement.org

20 Not the 9 Core Measures... Please note that these 9 Toolkit measures that can be calculated from NCANDS & AFCARS are NOT the same as the 9 Core Toolkit Measures. FosteringCourtImprovement.org

21 Packard, Building a Better Court, SANCA, and Toolkit The Toolkit measures have a long lineage. Because the Toolkit measures have not yet been released, I will refer to SANCA (Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act) measure definitions here. A few of the Toolkit measures do differ significantly from their predecessors, but the differences are immaterial to this discussion. FosteringCourtImprovement.org

22 Safety FosteringCourtImprovement.org

23 Permanency FosteringCourtImprovement.org

24 Permanency FosteringCourtImprovement.org

25 Timeliness FosteringCourtImprovement.org

26 Detailed Calculation of Toolkit Safety Measure 1 FosteringCourtImprovement.org Definition: Percentage of children who were victims of child abuse or neglect while under court jurisdiction Numerator / Denominator Denominator: Count of number of children under court jurisdiction during reporting period (say calendar year 2005). Numerator: Count of children in the Denominator who were victims of child abuse or neglect.

27 Detailed Calculation of Toolkit Safety Measure 1 FosteringCourtImprovement.org Need precise definitions for “victims of child abuse or neglect “ and “under court jurisdiction” Victim: Use the CFSR definition. NCANDS records of substantiated or indicated maltreatment (NCANDS:MAL1LEV, MAL2LEV, MAL3LEV, MAL4LEV) or child death (NCANDS:MALDEATH). Court jurisdiction is not so easily defined...

28 Detailed Calculation of Toolkit Safety Measure 1 FosteringCourtImprovement.org When is a child “under court jurisdiction”? First, what marks the start of jurisdiction? –Emergency order? –The day the clerk stamps the petition for removal? –The day the clerk stamps the order removing the child from the home? –The day the child is physically removed?

29 Detailed Calculation of Toolkit Safety Measure 1 FosteringCourtImprovement.org When is a child “under court jurisdiction”? Next, what marks the end of jurisdiction? –The day the custody is transferred to the agency? –The day that custody order expires? –The day the clerk stamps the order transferring custody away from the agency? –The day the child is physically moved to a permanent home?

30 Detailed Calculation of Toolkit Safety Measure 1 FosteringCourtImprovement.org When is a child “under court jurisdiction”? I settled on the following: –Define the start of court jurisdiction as the earlier of the petition date (NCANDS:PETDATE) and removal date (NCANDS:RMVDATE) among children with both a petition and a removal date in NCANDS. –Define the end of court jurisdiction at the AFCARS discharge date of each child (AFCARS:56). Missing discharge dates indicate children still under court jurisdiction.

31 Detailed Calculation of Toolkit Safety Measure 1 FosteringCourtImprovement.org To use that, I need to link each child’s AFCARS record to his/her NCANDS record, so here’s the full specification of “under court jurisdiction” for Toolkit measure 1: –Define the start of court jurisdiction as the earlier of the petition date (NCANDS:PETDATE) and removal date (NCANDS:RMVDATE) among children with both a petition and a removal date in NCANDS. Link these NCANDS records to AFCARS records using the removal date (NCANDS:RMVDATE, AFCARS:21 and AFCARS:18), the child's date of birth (NCANDS:CHBDATE and AFCARS:6), gender (NCANDS:CHSEX and AFCARS:7), race (NCANDS:CHRACWH and AFCARS:8), and ethnicity (NCANDS:CETHN and AFCARS:9). Define the end of court jurisdiction at the AFCARS discharge date of each child (AFCARS:56). Missing discharge dates indicate children still under court jurisdiction.

32 Detailed Calculation of Toolkit Safety Measure 1 FosteringCourtImprovement.org The denominator (cohort) definition is now easy: –The denominator is a count of all foster children under court jurisdiction at some time during the reporting period. Count the number of unique children in NCANDS and AFCARS whose start of court jurisdiction and end of court jurisdiction overlap with the reporting period start and end times.

33 Detailed Calculation of Toolkit Safety Measure 1 FosteringCourtImprovement.org The numerator definition is: –Use the NCANDS child ID (NCANDS:CHID) to link all NCANDS records of children in the denominator to subsequent NCANDS records of substantiated or indicated maltreatment (NCANDS:MAL1LEV, MAL2LEV, MAL3LEV, MAL4LEV) or child death (NCANDS:MALDEATH). But we need to know that the maltreatment occurred while under court jurisdiction, so we need the date of the maltreatment …

34 Detailed Calculation of Toolkit Safety Measure 1 FosteringCourtImprovement.org NCANDS doesn’t record the maltreatment date, so report date is our closest estimate: –Using the NCANDS report date (NCANDS:RPTDT) as the estimated date of the maltreatment incident, count that number of children with one or more substantiated or indicated reports of maltreatment or death during each individual child's time under court jurisdiction. Keep in mind that children reentering foster care may have multiple episodes of court jurisdiction during the reporting period. Also keep in mind that, for consistency, both the numerator and denominator should count unique children, not cases.