Educational Outcome Measures for Courts January 19, 2012 Gene Flango, PhD Executive Director, National Center for State Courts National Resource Center on Legal and Judicial Issues

Goal Consensus is to improve outcomes for children in foster care What does improve outcomes mean? ASFA goals of Safety, Permanency and Well- Being What is success? Performance Measures focused on Outcomes

Child Welfare Performance Measures Child and Family Service Reviews, PIP plans for improvement Required data are produced from SACWIS or equivalent systems

Shared Goals Courts are also involved in improving safety, permanency and well-being of children Safety, permanency and well-being are SHARED GOALS and performance measures must be combined to be relevant ABA, NCSC, NCJFCJ developed measures and released Toolkit in 2009

Data Exchange New measures required modifying or upgrading court information systems Calculating joint performance measures requires data exchange between courts and child welfare agencies

2010 Survey Under auspices of National Resource Center on Legal and Judicial Issues, NCSC did a survey to determine the extent to which key court performance measures were being used - Connecticut, Delaware, New York, and Pennsylvania reported using ALL 9 key performance measures statewide Idaho, Kentucky, New Jersey, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia reported using 8 of the nine statewide

What’s Next? Well-Being CFSR Well-Being Outcomes: 1)Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs 2)Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs 3)Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs

Court Well-Being Measurement Areas Physical Well-Being Emotional Well-Being Mental Health Maintaining Permanent Relationships Transition to Adulthood Enhanced Family Capacity Educational Well-Being

Consequences Children in Foster Care are: are more likely to suffer academically, less likely to finish high school, less likely to attend college, less likely to make lasting friendships among peers, and more likely to be ill-prepared for adulthood

Court’s Role in Education Judges are beginning to recognize their role in ensuring the educational well-being of children in child protection cases. To help courts monitor educational well being, court outcome measures were drafted and are being field tested.

The Focus Group Ms. Kate Burdick, Zubrow Fellow, Juvenile Law Center, Philadelphia, PA Dr. Gretchen Cusick, Chapin Hall Hon. Robert R. Hofmann, Associate Judge, Child Protection Court of the Hill Country, Mason County, Texas Dr. Michelle L. Lustig, MSW, Ed.D., Coordinator, San Diego County Office of Education, Student Services & Programs, Student Support Services, Foster Youth Services Ms. Kathleen McNaught, Assistant Director, ABA Center on Children and the Law Mr. Ronald M. Ozga, Governor's Office of Information Technology, Agency IT Director for CDHS, HCPF, CBMS, Colorado Department of Human Services Ms. Regina Schaefer, Director, Education Unit, New York City Children’s Service.

Education Focus Group Mission 1. to identify education performance measures; 2. the data elements needed to produce the measures; and 3.strategies to overcome obstacles to sharing data among courts, child welfare agencies, and education.

Implications Performance Measures CSFR Toolkit Well Being Systems Implications SACWIS Data Exchange—court and agency Ex parte Data Exchange—court, agency, schools, medical Heightened concerns over privacy