Enhancing the Quality of Permanency Hearings in New York State

1. Enhancing the Quality of Permanency Hearings in New York State • Christine Sabino Kiesel, Esq. Alicia Summers, Ph.D • Coordinator Program Director • NYS Child Welfare Court National Council of Juvenile & • Improvement Project Family Court Judges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. 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

12. NOW WHAT????

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

14. We needed a plan…..

16. Collect more data… Focus Groups

17. Technical Assistance from NRC Legal & Judicial Issues

20. 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

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

22. 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

23. 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?

24. 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

25. 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

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

28. 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

29. Conducting Effective Permanency Hearings Christine Sabino Kiesel, Esq.CoordinatorChild Welfare Court Improvement Project

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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