2. ENHANCING THE QUALITY OF PERMANENCY HEARINGS IN NEW YORK STATE Christine Sabino Kiesel, Esq.Alicia Summers, Ph.D CoordinatorProgram Director NYS Child Welfare Court National Council of Juvenile & Improvement Project Family Court Judges

3. NYS Timeliness to Initial Permanency Hearing NYS Unified Court System, UCMS - Family Court, CWCIP Data Metrics. Progress of children followed through 12/31/2013.

4. Statewide 83% of all initial permanency hearings were held timely in 2012!!

5. NYS Timeliness to Subsequent Permanency Hearings NYS Unified Court System, UCMS - Family Court, CWCIP Data Metrics. Progress of children followed through 12/31/2013. Cumulative Percentage of Subsequent, Non-Freed Child Permanency Hearings Completed within 7 Months from the Date of the Prior Completed Permanency Hearing for Hearings Completed by Entry Cohort Year and Time Interval, as of December 31st, 2013: New York State, 2006-2012 Entry Cohort Years, 1st-8th Subsequent Permanency Hearings Combined

6. Statewide 95% of all subsequent permanency hearings were held timely in 2012!!

7. NYS Timeliness to Permanency NYS Unified Court System, UCMS - Family Court, CWCIP Data Metrics. Progress of children followed through 12/31/2013.

8. NYS Timeliness to Reunification/Custody/Guardianship NYS Unified Court System, UCMS - Family Court, CWCIP Data Metrics. Progress of children followed through 12/31/2013.

9. NYS Timeliness to Adoption NYS Unified Court System, UCMS - Family Court, CWCIP Data Metrics. Progress of children followed through 12/31/2013.

10. Statewide 38% of children reached permanency within 12 months (2012 entries) and 57% within 24 months (2011 entries)

11. NYS law reflects that a Permanency Hearing is “Meant to provide children placed out of their home timely and effective judicial review that promotes permanency, safety and well-being in their lives.” - Family Court Act §1086

13. NOW WHAT????

14. Project to Enhance the Quality of Permanency Hearings was born

15. We needed a plan…..

16. MEANINGFUL PERMANENCY HEARINGS CWCIP Funding Stream Collaborative Partners Time- frame Anticipated Outputs and Results of Activity Target Improvement Data Source Feedback Vehicle CWCIP Training, Basic grants Local DSS agencies, parent and child attorney groups, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, ABA, Casey Family Programs On- going Project to be implemented in 5 counties that identify it as a priority. 1)Identify key permanency hearing inquiries & protocols utilizing NCJFCJ checklist, “Indicators of Quality Court Hearings” Attachment to P.I., and focus groups &/or surveys. Focus groups held 7/24/13 in NYC; 8/8/13 in Oneida County; 9/13/13 in Monroe County; and 9/20/13 in Westchester County. Youth focus group held 9/23/13 and foster parent group held 9/25/13. Prepare report summarizing focus group findings and distribute. 2)Revise original pilot program’s court observation forms and file review forms in accordance with findings in 1). 3)Develop a data collection sheet for use within the court to monitor progress on key elements of a quality PH. 4)Seek out pilot counties through liaisons, and assist them in identifying what areas of permanency hearings they choose to work on. 5)Implement file and case reviews in pilot counties 6)Provide feedback of areas of strength and in need of improvement to pilot counties 7)Develop age specific permanency hearing checklists for jurists 8)Develop paper based upon findings within pilot counties to support roll out of checklists Disseminate paper and checklists to all counties Proportion of initial permanency hearings held/completed within 9 months from entry into out- of-home care will increase from 82% (2009 entry cohort) to 87% (2014 entry cohort). Proportion of completed permanency hearings that are completed within statutory time frames (7 months from prior hearing) increase from 89% (2009 entry cohort) to 94% (2013 entry cohort) Increase the average length of court time spent holding permanency hearings Decrease the number of PHs that are adjourned from their date certain Increase the percentage of PHs where the child’s health care including development was addressed Increase the percentage of PH where the child’s mental health needs were addressed Decrease the percentage of children for whom an inappropriate and confused permanency goal was approved: APPLA for child under 14; return to parent with no progress in 2-3 years; confused goal. Increase the percentage of PHs where sibling placement or visitation was addressed Increase the percentage of PHs involving adolescents 14 and over where transition plan was addressed Increase the percentage of PHs where the parent’s visitation was addressed Increase the percentage of hearings where youth are present and participate Increase the percentage of hearings where the child’s education was addressed CWCIP Data Metric 5 In-court observation and file review CWCIP Data Metrics Reports distributed to: OCA/OCFS Leadership Statewide Multidisciplinary Child Welfare Collaborative Local county collaborative groups Liaison participation in local county collaborative meetings disseminating and receiving information. Results of observation and file review will be shared with county stakeholder groups. Lessons learned from pilot county roll-out will be collated and shared in the form of tools for enhancing permanency hearings statewide.

17. Collect more data… Focus Groups

18. Technical Assistance from NRC Legal & Judicial Issues

21. Lessons Learned from the Focus Groups All jurisdictions had the same issues Permanency Hearings are: Brief Not child-centered Lacking in up-to-date information More process oriented (IV-E findings) rather than substantive Practitioners lack understanding of Trauma & ICWA

22. Results of the focus groups used to develop court observation and file review tools

23. Information Supported by Court Observation Tool Identify what is currently occurring in practice. Items measured will include: Which parties are present How the judge engages parents and youth What topics are discussed What findings are made General impressions related to accountability and opportunities to be heard

24. Information Supported by Court Observation Tool The data collected from these hearings can help answer questions such as: Does depth or breadth of discussion differ depending on what the permanency goal is or which permanency hearings (e.g., 1st versus 5th) it is? Does discussion change when parents are present? Does discussion change when youth are present? Are judges making efforts to engage youth in the court process?

25. Information Supported by Case File Review Tool The case file review form will identify: The frequency of permanency hearings How often permanency hearings are adjourned (and the reasons for adjournment) The child's original permanency goal & when & how often it changes How often jurisdictions have inappropriate permanency goals The final case outcome

26. Information Supported by Case File Review Tool The data collected from case files can help provide baseline data regarding: The timeliness of case processing How often and why delays are occurring How changes in permanency goals may affect cases outcomes How often permanency hearings are occurring prior to disposition of the case

27. Moving project to implementation stage vetted at our state-wide multidisciplinary advisory committee –

28. MEANINGFUL PERMANENCY HEARINGS CWCIP Funding Stream Collaborative Partners Time- frame Anticipated Outputs and Results of Activity Target Improvement Data Source Feedback Vehicle CWCIP Training, Basic grants Local DSS agencies, parent and child attorney groups, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, ABA, Casey Family Programs On- going Project to be implemented in 5 counties that identify it as a priority. 1)Identify key permanency hearing inquiries & protocols utilizing NCJFCJ checklist, “Indicators of Quality Court Hearings” Attachment to P.I., and focus groups &/or surveys. Focus groups held 7/24/13 in NYC; 8/8/13 in Oneida County; 9/13/13 in Monroe County; and 9/20/13 in Westchester County. Youth focus group held 9/23/13 and foster parent group held 9/25/13. Prepare report summarizing focus group findings and distribute. 2)Revise original pilot program’s court observation forms and file review forms in accordance with findings in 1). 3)Develop a data collection sheet for use within the court to monitor progress on key elements of a quality PH. 4)Seek out pilot counties through liaisons, and assist them in identifying what areas of permanency hearings they choose to work on. 5)Implement file and case reviews in pilot counties 6)Provide feedback of areas of strength and in need of improvement to pilot counties 7)Develop age specific permanency hearing checklists for jurists 8)Develop paper based upon findings within pilot counties to support roll out of checklists Disseminate paper and checklists to all counties Proportion of initial permanency hearings held/completed within 9 months from entry into out- of-home care will increase from 82% (2009 entry cohort) to 87% (2014 entry cohort). Proportion of completed permanency hearings that are completed within statutory time frames (7 months from prior hearing) increase from 89% (2009 entry cohort) to 94% (2013 entry cohort) Increase the average length of court time spent holding permanency hearings Decrease the number of PHs that are adjourned from their date certain Increase the percentage of PHs where the child’s health care including development was addressed Increase the percentage of PH where the child’s mental health needs were addressed Decrease the percentage of children for whom an inappropriate and confused permanency goal was approved: APPLA for child under 14; return to parent with no progress in 2-3 years; confused goal. Increase the percentage of PHs where sibling placement or visitation was addressed Increase the percentage of PHs involving adolescents 14 and over where transition plan was addressed Increase the percentage of PHs where the parent’s visitation was addressed Increase the percentage of hearings where youth are present and participate Increase the percentage of hearings where the child’s education was addressed CWCIP Data Metric 5 In-court observation and file review CWCIP Data Metrics Reports distributed to: OCA/OCFS Leadership Statewide Multidisciplinary Child Welfare Collaborative Local county collaborative groups Liaison participation in local county collaborative meetings disseminating and receiving information. Results of observation and file review will be shared with county stakeholder groups. Lessons learned from pilot county roll-out will be collated and shared in the form of tools for enhancing permanency hearings statewide.

29. What will this look like in the counties? Local survey Courtroom observation File review Presentation of strengths & areas in need of improvement Support for modifying existing logic model to include areas in need of improvement that resonate with the multi-disciplinary collaborative Judicial Training piloted

30. Christine Sabino Kiesel, Esq. Coordinator Child Welfare Court Improvement Project Conducting Effective Permanency Hearings

31. New York State Unified Court System ∙ Division of Professional & Court Services Child Welfare Court Improvement Project The Legal Mandates

32. New York State Unified Court System ∙ Division of Professional & Court Services Child Welfare Court Improvement Project Hallmarks of Effective Hearings

33. New York State Unified Court System ∙ Division of Professional & Court Services Child Welfare Court Improvement Project Best Practices

34. New York State Unified Court System ∙ Division of Professional & Court Services Child Welfare Court Improvement Project Youth in Court

35. New York State Unified Court System ∙ Division of Professional & Court Services Child Welfare Court Improvement Project Post-Dispositional Review

36. New York State Unified Court System ∙ Division of Professional & Court Services Child Welfare Court Improvement Project Style & Process

37. Next Steps: Re-evaluate after implementation in pilot counties Develop a tool-kit for counties to do their own evaluation

38. Questions? For further information contact: Christine Kiesel, Coordinator Child Welfare Court Improvement Project (315) 266-4254 ckiesel@nycourts.gov

39. Please give us feedback about this webinar. And/or suggest topics for the future. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/HK3JDJ7