Presenters

1. Incorporating Research into Your Court Improvement ProgramPresentation at the CIP Meeting August 3rd, 2009

2. Presenters Karl Ensign Evaluation for Children, Youth, and Families Planning and Learning Technologies, Inc. 1000 Wilson Boulevard Suite 1000 Arlington, VA  22209 (703) 908-8866 (703) 243-9208 Fax kensign@pal-tech.com Mark Harris Program Coordinator Judicial Administrator’s Office 1555 Poydras Street, Suite 1540 New Orleans, LA 70112 (504) 568-7324 (504) 599-0098 Fax Mharris@lajao.org Nancy Thoennes, Ph.D. Associate Director Center for Policy Research Denver, CO 80218 (303) 837-1555 (303) 837-1557 Fax nthoennes@centerforpolicyresearch.org

3. National Evaluation of the Court Improvement Program Captures both the breadth and depth of CIP: • Providing information on court reform and its evaluation nationally, along with analyses of select reforms within the study sites. • Emphasizes both outcome evaluation and descriptive analyses within the study sites. Study components: • Reviewing and synthesizing: -- State and local CIP reforms undertaken nationally -- Existing juvenile and family court reform evaluations -- Reassessments of CIP reforms conducted by States -- States use of evaluation and data for court-related factors in the Child and Family Service Reviews (CFSRs) Statewide Assessments • In-depth studies of reform in three sites: -- Connecticut’s expanded parent representation and pre-hearing conference -- Delaware’s one judge/one case assignment practice, enhanced sequence of hearings, and representation for indigent parents -- Texas Child Protection Courts—multi-county rural courts specializing in foster care and adoption cases

4. Federal Requirements with Respect to State CIP Assessment • With CIP’s establishment in 1993, States were required to undertake an initial assessment of their needs and plan accordingly. • In 2003, States were required to reassess their court practices, and examine strengths and challenges of their dependency court systems. • In 2006, the need for ongoing self-assessment was emphasized in Federal guidance.

5. State Compliance with Federal Guidance As part of their program reports States submit annually, the following information must be provided: • A description of the needs that the State court has addressed with CIP funds, the programs and activities that the State court developed and implemented to address these needs, and the resultant outcomes. • A discussion of the State court’s overall progress towards the goals delineated in the strategic plan. • Any findings, recommendations, or reports of the statewide task force. • Results of any assessment of activities funded under the grant.

6. State Response • We found that most States are not reporting that they are assessing their CIP activities on an ongoing basis and in a structured manner.   • Our analysis of the 2007 State CIP Reports found: • Basic Grant:  21 States reported assessing an activity undertaken through this grant, while 30 did not.  8 States planned to assess an activity in this area in the future. • Training Grant:  19 States reported assessing a training activity, while 28 did not.  11 States planned to assess an activity in this area.  • Data Grant:  Only 7 States reported assessing a data grant activity, while 40 did not.  5 States planned to assess an activity in this area.

7. Research on the Local Level Can Help Your Program: • Identify issues that need to be addressed and interventions that might help. The original assessment and reassessment processes, as well as the CFSR, should help with this. • Summarize research related to specific areas of best practice and assist in project planning. This moves into technical assistance, but draws on primary and secondary research. • Determine the accomplishments of full-scale pilot programs. Relevant for programs receiving substantial CIP funds or non-CIP programs that might be support by CIP funding in the future . • Document activities and preliminary outcomes for interventions that will not be the subject of a full-scale evaluations. Not every activity that receives some CIP funds needs or can receive a full evaluation. It is still helpful to conduct project monitoring and some type of assessment (qualitative or quantitative) to ensure the work is being done as envisioned, is helpful or perceived as helpful, and to learn as much as possible about the benefits and costs of the intervention. • Revise and inform ongoing interventions Your CIP strategic plan should be informed by what you learn about successful ventures, unsuccessful ventures, and unmet needs.

8. Identify issues that need to be addressed and interventions that might help. The original assessment and reassessment processes, as well as the CFSR, should help with this.

11. Summarize research related to specific areas of best practice and assist in project planning. This moves into technical assistance and facilitation, but draws on primary and secondary research.

12. Louisiana 2009 CIP Activity:Center of Excellence • Identifying programs • Gathering information from relevant programs • How are Centers of Excellence established? Are they private non-profits? University based? Government entities (and within which branch?) • How are Centers staffed? • What do such Centers typically undertake with respect to training? Technical assistance? Policy formation? Research? Other activities? • Which agencies typically partner in the Center? Are all agencies invited to collaborate? If not, how are agencies/entities selected? • Are the participating agencies bound by MOUs or formal contract? • How are responsibilities of partner agencies determined? To what extent are they formalized? • What work related to training, education, technical assistance, policy formation, and research are typically performed in-house at the Center? What is out-sourced? • If work related to training, education, technical assistance, policy formation, and research are outsourced, how are the agencies/entities selected? • How are Centers funded? What federal, state, local funds are used? What private grants or funds are tapped? • What advice can existing Centers provide to Louisiana with respect to developing and implementing a successful Center?

13. Center of Excellence:Stakeholder Meeting to Begin Decision Making Scope of Work Statewide or within a selected geographic region(s). The types of activities deemed to be appropriate for the Center. Type of Organization Centers of Excellence are housed in a variety of settings, including universities, courts, state agencies, or non-profit agencies. Each has pros and cons. Staffing of Organizations A Center of Excellence, although not necessarily a physical entity, is staffed and funded. Funding Issues Funding sources employed by other Centers throughout the nation: CIP funds Legislative appropriations Foundation support Grants for general operations or specific projects Private funds or donations Relationships/Linkages among Key Agencies The Supreme Court Department of Social Services Child Advocacy Program Louisiana CASA Louisiana Public Defender Board Louisiana Judicial College District Attorneys’ Association Office of Juvenile Justice

14. Determine the accomplishments of full-scale pilot programs. Relevant for programs receiving substantial CIP funds or non-CIP programs that might be support by CIP funding in the future .

15. Intervention Output Initial Outcomes Intermediate Outcomes Long-term Outcomes Decreased time to adjudication Decreased time to first permanency hearing Decreased time to first permanent placement Decreased time to termination of parental rights

16. Dependency Mediation Logic Model Initial Outcomes Intervention Output Intermediate Outcomes Long-Term Outcomes Mediation will be provided by contract mediators Mediation will be confidential Mediation will be set for 2 hours Sessions will include the caseworker, the parents, the parents’ attorneys, the child’s attorney, CASA and others as needed Better relationship between worker-family Greater compliance with plan More active participation of parents, extended families and kin in plan development Greater parental understanding of the case plan and agency requirements Reduced time to permanency More visitation Create a case plan that will be presented to the court More detailed and case-specific plans developed More information sharing More stable placements- fewer changes and moves Child safety maintained Earlier referrals for testing and services More stipulations on adjudication and disposition Reduced time to disposition Earlier adjudication Earlier and increased use of relative placements

17. Document activities and preliminary outcomes for interventions that will not be the subject of a full-scale evaluations. Not every activity that receives some CIP funds needs or can receive a full evaluation. It is still helpful to conduct project monitoring and some type of assessment (qualitative or quantitative) to ensure the work is being done as envisioned, is helpful or perceived as helpful, and to learn as much as possible about the benefits and costs of the intervention.

18. Intervention Output Initial Outcomes Intermediate Outcomes Long-term Outcomes

19. Louisiana Selected 2009 CIP Activities • Creating permanent ties for children leaving foster care (Connections for Permanency). • Understanding and addressing the disproportionate representation of minorities in the child welfare system (Disproportionate Representation). • Improving the quality of legal representation for children, parents, and the agency (Child Advocacy Program). • Expanding the availability of Court Appointed Special Advocates into under- and unserved areas of the state (CASA Expansion). • Encouraging interdisciplinary communication and collaboration (Together We Can Conference). • Promoting best practice in Louisiana courts that hear child welfare cases (Judicial Fellow). • Promoting best practice and collaboration among the many public and private agencies serving families in the child welfare system (Center on Excellence).

20. Intervention Output Initial Outcomes Intermediate Outcomes Long-term Outcomes CIP Judicial Fellow An experienced and high performance judge is selected to provide assistance to local courts and agencies to improve their child welfare performance; initially targeting jurisdictions with performance problems Decreased time to adjudication Decreased time to first permanency hearing Decreased time to first permanent placement Decreased time to termination of parental rights

21. Revise and inform ongoing work Your CIP strategic plan should be informed by what you learn about successful ventures, unsuccessful ventures, and unmet needs.

22. Revise and Inform Ongoing Work