2012 State Roundtable Meeting
May 23 & 24, 2012
Attendance:
Anne Marie Ambrose, Commissioner
Philadelphia County Department of Human Services
Jim Anderson, Executive Director
Juvenile Court Judges Commission
William Browning, Administrator
Lackawanna County Children & Youth
Maryanne Burger, Administrator
Blair County Children & Youth
Frank Cervone, Executive Director
Support Center for Child Advocates Philadelphia
Marc Cherna, Director
Allegheny County Human Services
William Cisek, Solicitor
Venango County Children & Youth
Kim Berkeley Clark, Judge
Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Wendy Demchick-Alloy, President Judge
Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Kevin Dougherty, Administrative Judge
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Carolyn Dumeresque, Deputy Secretary
Pennsylvania Department of Education
Chris Feliciani, Judge
Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County
Vanessa Garret Harley, Deputy Commissioner
Philadelphia County Children & Youth
Kathy Gomez, Managing Attorney
Community Legal Services of Philadelphia
Carol Hanna, Judge
Court of Common Pleas of Indiana County
Keith Hayes, Administrator
Chester County Children & Youth
Kathryn Hens-Greco, Administrative Judge
Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Brian Johnson, Judge
Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County
Jolene Grubb Kopriva, President Judge
Court of Common Pleas of Blair County
John Kuhn, President Judge
Court of Common Pleas of Adams County
Oliver Lobaugh, Judge
Court of Common Pleas of Venango County
Maria McClellan, Solicitor
Dauphin County Children & Youth
Craig Miller, Judge
Court of Common Pleas of Clinton County
Brian Mowrey, Administrator
Jefferson County Children & Youth
Maria Musti Cook, Judge
Court of Common Pleas of York County
John Perrott, Parent Advocate
Fayette County
Charles Saylor, Judge
Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County
Rick Saylor, Administrator
Lycoming Children & Youth
David Schwille, Administrator
Venango County Children & Youth
Cindy Stoltz, Court Administrator
Allegheny County Family Court
Kerith Strano Taylor, GAL
Jefferson County
Kelley Streib, Judge
Court of Common Pleas of Butler County
Elizabeth Thornton, Attorney
ABA
Mary Ann Ullman, Judge
Court of Common Pleas of Berks County
Carol Van Horn, Judge
Court of Common Pleas of Fulton/Franklin Counties
Peter Vriens, Director
Dauphin County Human Services
Rose Weir, Administrator
Snyder County Children & Youth
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Max Baer, Justice
Office of Children, Youth & Families/Department of Public Welfare
Beverly Mackereth, Deputy Secretary
Heather Hallman, Chief of Staff
Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts
Zygmont Pines, Court Administrator
Sandy Moore, Administrator
Office of Children & Families in the Courts
Elke Moyer, Administrative Associate/Graphic Designer
Office of Children & Families in the Courts
Shelby Line, Data Analyst
Office of Children & Families in the Courts
Stephenie Strayer, Program Analyst
Office of Children & Families in the Courts
Jennifer Horn, Program Analyst
Office of Children & Families in the Courts
Angela Sager, Program Analyst
Office of Children & Families in the Courts
Lynne Napoleon, Program Analyst
Office of Children & Families in the Courts
Christy Stanek, Program Analyst
Office of Children & Families in the Courts
Ryan Tobin, IT Analyst
Judicial Automation
Ralph Hunsicker, Assistant Director
Judicial Automation
Barbara Holmes, Application Design Architect
Judicial Automation
Denise Aylward, IT Manager
Judicial Automation
Welcome and Introductions:
Pennsylvania State Roundtable Co-Chairpersons, Max Baer, Justice, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania;
Beverly Mackereth, Deputy Secretary, Department of Public Welfare’s Office of Children, Youth and
Families; and Sandy Moore, Administrator, Office of Children & Families in the Courts, Administrative
Office of Pennsylvania Courts, convened the group with opening remarks and introductions. During
Justice Baer’s opening comments he reinforced the importance of Children and Youth Administrators
and Judges communicating regularly and collaborating to problem solve system issues. He also noted
how fortunate he feels to mimic this very action at the state level though collaborative efforts with Ms.
Mackereth. Justice Baer thanked members of the PA State Roundtable “on behalf of the children that
do not know how their lives hang in the balance and that the positive decisions made by people in this
room can reverberate for a lifetime.” Justice Baer thanked members for their commitment to the PA
State Roundtable process, for their leadership, and most importantly for the good work being done to
help dependent children.
Ms. Mackereth offered her opening comments sharing her excitement of participating in her first PA
State Roundtable and how honored she feels to be part of a group of people who care so much about
children in the child welfare system. She also congratulated members on the good work that has been
accomplished. Ms. Mackereth shared her background including her employment in many facets of the
child welfare system and her former membership in the PA House of Representatives. Ms. Mackereth
thanked PA State Roundtable members for their commitment and shared Justice Baer’s sentiments on
collaboration and partnership at both the state and local levels.
CPCMS
The Honorable Brian Johnson (Lehigh County), Workgroup Chairperson, summarized the group’s
activities during the two meetings held on November 29, 2011 and March 7, 2012 and announced the
group’s recommendations which were to:
1. Endorse distribution of the CPCMS Dependency Court Data Dashboard to all County Trial Courts
to ensure their CPCMS statistical data is accurate before the CPCMS Dependency Court Data
Dashboard is made available for public use on the AOPC website in the Fall of 2012.
2. Endorse distribution of the Best Practices for Achieving High Quality CPCMS Dependency Data,
listed in the appendix of this report, to all counties struggling with the quality and integrity of
their dependency data
Ryan Tobin, IT Analyst, Administrative Office of Pennsylvania of Courts (AOPC) Judicial Automation
presented the Dependency Data Dashboard, an interactive tool that displays dependency statistical data
generated from the Common Pleas Case Management System (CPCMS). The Dependency Data
Dashboard is able to display the data in two distinct ways either statewide, by showing each county’s
rank for a particular data measure or by a single county for all data measures. The Dependency Data
Dashboard is anticipated to be made available for public access in the Fall of 2012 by way of AOPC
website. Counties will be given the opportunity to review their data prior to its public release to correct
any inaccuracies.
State Roundtable members discussed actions that could highlight successes and the data generated by
CPCMS. State Roundtable members made suggestions regarding what might be helpful to local
counties/courts. As a result, the AOPC media department and the Office of Children & Families in the
Courts will develop a statewide news release that would review the intention of the Dependency Data
Dashboard and highlight data. Also it was discussed that a list of answers and key talking points to
possible questions counties may be asked be developed to address any reactions they may receive.
Overall the State Roundtable members were very excited with the new tool presented and its ability to
display CPCMS data in a clear and easy to understand way. Finally, the State Roundtable members
unanimously adopted the recommendations of the CPCMS Users Workgroup.
Congregate Care:
Sandy Moore, Office of Children and Families in the Courts Administrator, presented a pressing topic
that was raised at every Spring Leadership Roundtable…Congregate Care. Sandy described a Peer-toPeer meeting, hosted by Casey Families that gathered a Pennsylvania Team to examine this issue. The
PA Team included many State Roundtable representatives (Administrative Judge Kathryn Hens Greco,
Kerith Strano Taylor, Esq, Rick Saylor, David Schwille and others). The Peer-to-Peer meeting brought two
jurisdictions (State of Tennessee and Baltimore County, MD) that have successfully reduced the reliance
on congregate care. Each provided details on this safe reduction strategy. Tennessee, under a class
action lawsuit, focused on provider performance based contracting. Baltimore focused on case level
data tracking and enhanced family/community involvement. In both jurisdictions, the focus was on
keeping children safely at home, reducing the number of placements in general, and increasing aftercare services. Tennessee recognized they had a large percentage of children placed in congregate care.
They developed a systematic reform to drastically reduce the number of children in shelters, group
homes, and residential facilities. Tennessee set a baseline and paid provides for care based on the needs
of the child which included in-home and out-of-home care. In addition, they implemented a
performance based contracting which gave providers an incentive to achieve the established outcomes.
Beverly Mackereth, Deputy Secretary for the Office of Children, Youth and Families provided some
Pennsylvania data. There are currently 13,099 children under the age of 18 in Pennsylvania foster care.
Pennsylvania is below the national level for kinship care. As of September 2011, 21.6% of children were
placed in congregate care. (National level is 14.6%)
Jim Anderson, Executive Director of the Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission, questioned if the data is
being compared accurately. The congregate care numbers may be higher for Pennsylvania as
Pennsylvania has more delinquent children placed in Title VI-E placement programs.
Beverly Mackereth has asked each county to pull names of children placed in congregate care. Ann
Marie Ambrose, Commissioner of the Department of Human Services Philadelphia County, stated that
this has proven to be a difficult process but believes that 25% of their dependent children are in
congregate care.
The Honorable Kimberly Berkeley Clark, Allegheny County, questioned what is “congregate care”? The
State Roundtable believed it was any child placed in the custody of the agency in any type of
institutional placement.
Sandy Moore stated she had requested that the Data Analyst compare the data from AFCARS and
CPCMS for the number of children in placement. The data was for the most part correct. The Judicial
Analysts will be contacting counties where there was a difference of more than 20 cases in the data.
Beverly Mackereth stated the largest population placed in congregate care is teenagers, ages 13-17,
primarily due to behavioral problems. Also she noted most of them have the permanency goal of
Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement. The main reasons youth are placed in congregate care
include a lack of community placements, a need for a more restrictive environment, or to ensure the
safety of the individual or community. These youth need a controlled supervised environment to
address behavioral/health issues, sexualized behaviors, or have exhausted least restrictive placements.
Mark Cherna, Allegheny County Human Services Director, said we need targeted recruitment of foster
parents for this population of youth. Vanessa Garrett Harley added that these foster parents could be
provided with a different level of payment, specialized training, and respite care. Anne Marie Ambrose
stated we need to look at these cases and if there are no safety issues and/or abuse neglect, then we
need to return these youth home.
Maryanne Burger, Blair County Children and Youth Services Administrator, stated she has noticed an
increased placement for mental health. We need to develop good relationships with managed care.
Beverly Mackereth added we should invite them to the Local Roundtables.
The Honorable Kathryn Hens-Greco, Allegheny County Administrative Judge, mentioned parents are
requesting the placement of their youth as a form of discipline. She stated we need to deal with the
issues at the front door.
Kerith Taylor Strano, Guardian ad Litem in Jefferson County, mentioned how in Baltimore they
advertised the need for foster families just by using pens. Also, she suggested youth should be given
options for the foster homes. She shared how one youth was placed in a foster home and it was said he
likes to keep to himself as he stays in his bedroom. Later it was discovered he had a fear of dogs and the
foster family had a dog which is why he stayed in his room.
The Honorable Kevin Dougherty, Philadelphia County Administrative Judge, asked if there would be a
shift of monies. He agrees with the use of Family Group Decision Making but it is hard to quantify start
up programs with no money.
Beverly Mackereth stated that within the fiscal year counties can project the money that the county
would save and shift money to the front end. This was done in York County where they shifted $10
million. They did Casey Program permanency roundtables, Family Finding, and Faming Group
Conferencing (which was done internally). Checks and balances were built in.
Anne Marie Ambrose reported they cut placement by 37%, though they lost the money and are not able
to invest the money into the community. Justice Max Baer stated if they have a problem it is important
that they let him know. We have a good relationship with the Governor’s Office and the Governor will
do his best to support children.
Beverly Mackereth added that the Governor wants to see us succeed. She then went on to say that the
initial recommendation for placement in congregate care is typically made by the caseworker and
supervisor. The only reasons a recommendation/decision should be made to place a child into
congregate care is safety, treatment (which should be short term) or court required such as when
previous placements have failed. We need to look into why we don’t have enough in-home services,
community based resources, or treatment resources, and not enough foster homes to take youth with
behavioral issues. We need to shift funds from congregate care and develop alternative, community
strategies.
Laurie O’Connor, Montgomery County Children and Youth Services Administrator, mentioned that
Maryland has a program, Placement Matters, and she questioned if we could replicate this in
Pennsylvania as it is a concrete strategy. Beverly Mackereth responded that there are several evidencebased practices that we could look into using.
Sandy Moore then asked State Roundtable members if a workgroup should be developed to address
congregate care. Members chose to hold on making a decision until day two of the meeting.
Justice Max Baer mentioned how sending a youth to Harvard cost about $50,000. Placing a youth at a
Residential Treatment Facility is about $150,000 per year. He stated we place youth into congregate
care for control. Unfortunately this type of placement seems to be a default. Then what comes out the
other side when a youth ages out? This money needs to go to in-home and community services.
Beverly Mackereth said she recently had an opportunity to visit multiple RTF’s. She said the programs
were great, although talking to the children raised some concern. When questions were asked to the
children such as, “Who will you spend your Thanksgiving dinner with?” “Do you have money saved?” or
“Where are you going to live upon release?” the children did not have answers.
The Honorable Kelley Streib, Butler County, said she believes we need to focus on quality specialized
foster homes or mentoring homes that may not necessarily want to adopt. Currently when we place a
child in congregate care we remove them from their family, school and community and then question
why they do not do well when they return. We need to decide what services to put into place to make
these specialized foster homes successful.
Beverly Mackereth said we need to first figure out who is placed in congregate care and why. We need
to decide what we can do to address this issue. Then move to developing and implementing next steps.
Jim Anderson said the priority needs to be dependent children in congregate care. What do we need to
develop alternatives?
The Honorable Charles Saylor, Northumberland County, mentioned that the Transitional Youth
Workgroup has identified congregate care as an issue for older youth involved with Child Welfare
Services.
Sandy Moore then said given the discussion, Justice Max Baer, Bev Mackereth, Jim Anderson and she
would meet to determine how we should proceed to address the issue of congregate care and bring a
recommendation to State Roundtable members on day two.
Psychotropic Medication
The Honorable Kathryn Hens-Greco (Allegheny County) Workgroup Co-Chairperson, presented an
overview and summary of the psychotropic medication workgroup findings and left the state roundtable
with the discussion question of “who should be in charge?” There is recognition that if everyone thinks
the other person is responsible then no one will think they are responsible. Such an attitude would be
very problematic in addressing the issue of oversight and monitoring of psychotropic medication.
Concern was raised that in a system where it is unlikely the same caseworker or therapist remains on a
case for its duration that adequate oversight could probably not be accomplished through either of
those roles. The development of policies and protocols for use within the dependency system may
serve to provide the structure necessary to accomplish the goal.
In looking at national studies, it was noted that across the country there has been an increase in usage
of antipsychotic medication with dependent children, specifically with atypical antipsychotics. An
increase in the use of multiple psychotropic medications to treat children has also been noted.
Concerns on the national level seem to be in the adequacy of informed consent/assent for treatment,
the off label usage of medications, the use of antipsychotic medications in children, particularly those
who are very young and medication being prescribed by general practice physicians or pediatricians and
not by psychiatrist. Most concerning is the trend of prescribing medication to control children’s
behavior without additional intervention to treat the underlying issues.
Pennsylvania’s provision of psychotropic medication to children and youth seems to follow the national
trends with increases seen in the provision of psychotropic medication including the use of antipsychotic
medication. The workgroup built on previous work done by PA Department of Public Welfare to assess
current practice and gaps in practice for the children in the dependency system. It was noted that the
Office of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services requires prior authorization for antipsychotic
medication for children under the age of six. Also, it was found that caseworkers for the Children and
Youth Services agency track basic information about the medications taken by children including
psychotropic medication. There is no state guidance to judges regarding the oversight or monitoring of
psychotropic medication. Additionally there is no comprehensive collection and analysis of psychotropic
medication utilization data to provide targeted feedback on statewide prescribing patterns.
Discussion of this topic centered on two main points, how to prepare key players in the dependency
system to become well informed overseers of the treatment interventions being given to the children
and increasing the accountability of placement agencies to provide high quality care that includes
appropriate treatment of child issues including the careful assessment and treatment of trauma.
Initially, psychotropic medication should not be used without co-occurring mental health intervention.
Judges requested assistance with engaging children and families around the medication issue.
It was suggested that protocols for the court be developed to standardize information collection.
Likewise, protocols be developed for caseworkers to assist them in collecting the relevant information to
present to the court. Suggestions were made for counties to pull the medical community into the
discussion by inviting them to join local children’s roundtables not just to provide guidance and
feedback on the process but to become a part of the solution. A combined effort would provide for
quality oversight and address the concern of dependent children being assessed and treated for their
issues and not just behaviorally controlled to increase placement stability.
Workgroup members also explained that complicated, outlier, and polypharmacy cases could be more
carefully scrutinized through a mechanism like a utilization review committee or a statewide medical
director. Pennsylvania does have some utilization review done internally in behavioral health managed
care organizations though there is no standard for this. Likewise, Pennsylvania does have a medical
director though it is unclear what the scope of the office is or even which systems are covered under
that domain. Residential treatment facilities and other agencies that provide congregate care to
children may need some system of checks and balances created to ensure the best quality of care for
dependent children.
It was recommended that any created process should begin when a child first enters care or comes to
the attention of the court. Careful assessment needs to be done to identify trauma and diagnose other
issues for the child so that a comprehensive plan can be developed to address those issues. System
professionals need to be educated about the processes and interventions as well as their role in
providing careful oversight and monitoring of the child, similar to what would be done by the parent of a
child receiving mental health services. Finally, all system players should become familiar with the “blue
box” questions; these questions, found in the Workgroup’s State Roundtable Report should become the
basis for oversight as each individual in the case needs to know the answers and is charged to ask the
question if the information is not known.
Finally, the State Roundtable members unanimously adopted the recommendations of the
Psychotropic Medication Workgroup in their entirety.
“Visitation is a right, not a privilege” Report
The Honorable Jolene Grubb Kopriva (Blair County) Workgroup Co-Chairperson, opened by thanking
everyone who was part of the workgroup, as well as Sandy and the Office of Children and Families in the
Courts staff. Judge Kopriva thanked Justice Baer for his compliments earlier in the day regarding the
report. Judge Kopriva shared that the hard work and struggles, at the beginning of this year’s work,
resulted in a report that the workgroup believes will provide guidance as to best practice for visitation in
Pennsylvania’s Child Welfare/Dependency system.
Judge Kopriva conveyed regrets from Visitation Workgroup Co-Chair Dayna Revay, who was unable to
attend this year’s State Roundtable due to the annual state quality service review audit occurring in her
county. The Judge shared that Rick Saylor, Child Welfare Administrator from Lycoming County and also
a workgroup member, would be contributing to the presentation of the visitation report.
Judge Kopriva provided a summary overview of the best practice component developed by the
workgroup and identified throughout the report. The idea for the layout of the best practice
components was modeled after the format used for Drug Courts. The workgroup believed that a format
counties were familiar with might help make visitation best practices easier to understand and adopt.
Justice Baer interjected that he felt the report was “excellent”. Justice Baer made one suggestion to
Judge Kopriva that the phrase “grave threat”, as indicated in the forward remarks, be changed. Justice
Baer stated that a recent opinion suggested the correct wording be “harm to the child”. Judge Kopriva
said that the workgroup will certainly look at that language and make necessary changes.
Judge Kopriva pointed out the workgroup is currently working on one additional component to best
practices, oversight/supervision, which the Judge shared is a much larger issue and one that requires
additional research and thought. Judge Kopriva shared the workgroup has made progress on this
component; however, intends to explore the issue further and present a finalized oversight component
at the 2013 State Roundtable. Judge Kopriva asked roundtable members if they had any questions or
comments as to the presented overview on best practice components. Kerith Strano Taylor, Jefferson
County Guardian ad litem, and Lori O’Connor Montgomery County Child Welfare Administrator, asked
that the workgroup consider adding “family and sibling” language to the components. In response to
the question, Judge Kopriva highlighted component 9, which speaks to the importance of sibling and
family visits.
Judge Kopriva continued to review the additional recommendations from the workgroup including
continued work on developing training on visitation best practices, development of Bench Cards, and
completion of remaining handbooks (i.e. resource parent, child and youth).
Judge Kopriva asked the roundtable members for approval of the recommendations and all members
of the roundtable expressed approval.
Rick Saylor then presented the completed Parent Handbook. Rick shared the handbook is intended to
assist parents/guardians in understanding what their rights, options and responsibilities are surrounding
visitation. Rick invited anyone who had additional comments or suggestions on handbook revisions to
please share them prior to the final printing. Anne Marie Ambrose asked if the Pennsylvania Visitation
Manual was the “manual” referenced in the handbook and report. Rick clarified that it was the same
manual. Rick then asked the roundtable for the workgroup to be relieved of the task to explore Act 101.
Rick explained that Act 101 is complicated and that counties are still working through an understanding
of how to implement the Act. Judge Kopriva joined Rick in clarifying why the workgroup was asking to
be relieved of the task. The roundtable then gave approval of the Parent Handbook and relief from
Act 101.
Prior to concluding the visitation report, there was a lively discussion surrounding the roles which
congregate care facilities play in visitation between a child and their family. Several members asked
that the workgroup explore this issue. Rick assured the roundtable that the workgroup would make
visitation for children in congregate care a priority in next year’s work.
Day Two Welcome
Sandy Moore asked the State Roundtable members if they preferred receiving the group reports prior to
the meeting or if they preferred receiving the group reports at the meeting. Members unanimously
preferred receiving the reports prior to the meeting as a continued practice.
Dependent Children of Incarcerated Parents Report
The Honorable Kim Berkeley Clark (Allegheny County) Workgroup Chairperson, opened the discussion
on this topic. Judge Clark provided the group with background information on the subject. She noted
the topic of incarcerated parents with dependent children was also discussed previously in two other
State Roundtable Workgroups; Visitation and Father Engagement. In 2011, the State Roundtable
established the Dependent Children of Incarcerated Parents Workgroup to focus solely on this issue.
The Workgroup includes representation from the courts, child welfare, prisons, parent and child
attorneys, as well as a formerly incarcerated parent and a youth ambassador. Judge Clark reiterated the
tasks of the Workgroup including identifying perceptions about the issues of dependent children with
incarcerated parents, identifying barriers to engagement in both the court process and case planning;
and identifying best and promising practices for engagement of incarcerated parents in the dependency
system with specific emphasis on contact and visitation. Judge Clark then detailed the six
recommendations set forth by the Workgroup for State Roundtable consideration. These include:
collaboration; revisions to the PA Dependency Benchbook and Resource Companion to include
information on incarcerated parents; training and education; data collection; approval of the Keeping
Your Rights brochure developed by the Workgroup; and inclusion of this topic at the 2013 PA Children’s
Summit. Judge Clark also highlighted the sample protocols outlined in the report including York and
Westmoreland counties as well as collaborative efforts occurring in Adams County.
The Honorable Maria Musti-Cook (York County), commented on York County’s Children and Youth
Services policy on engagement of incarcerated parents noting that although the agency’s policy is
thorough, she believes more work must be done to engage York County Prison to collaborate on this
issue, particularly contact visitation as this does not currently occur. The Honorable Christopher
Feliciani, Westmoreland County, commented on the collaborative efforts to develop Westmoreland
County’s Incarcerated Parents Policy developed through the American Bar Association’s Barriers to
Permanency Project. The Honorable John Kuhn, Adams County, discussed how the Adams County
Criminal Justice Advisory Board collaborated with the Adams County Adult Correctional Complex,
children and youth services, probation, and the county ministerial community to develop a multi-agency
Children of Incarcerated Parents Program. Judge Kuhn also noted the program uses an educational
curriculum developed by the PA Family Support Alliance and that Family Group Decision Making is an
integral part of the program.
The 2012 PA State Roundtable Report on Dependent Children of Incarcerated Parents and its
recommendations were unanimously approved by Roundtable members. Judge Clark thanked the
Roundtable and expressed her excitement to continue the good work of the group in 2013.
Hearing Officer Education Report
A summary of the work of the Hearing Officer Education Workgroup was provided by the Honorable
Carol Van Horn (Franklin/Fulton Counties), Workgroup Chairperson. An educational session was
planned by the workgroup and held in November 2011. It was well attended by hearing officers from
across Pennsylvania and provided a solid foundation of best practices being used in the dependency
arena. Ethics and decision making were also addressed. The session received high evaluations and it
was requested that trainings specifically geared towards hearing officers continue to be developed and
offered.
It was the consensus of the State Roundtable that education for hearing officers continue to be
developed and presented. Suggestions for future topics included front loading of services, the usage of
strengths based language and the importance of engaging parents and children in the courtroom. There
was agreement that the education of hearing officers was vital and should occur on a regular basis. The
recommendation of the workgroup regarding this was unanimously accepted.
Recognition of the import role hearing officers play was discussed. In many counties, dependency cases
are heard in front of a hearing officer from shelter until a change of the case goal is sought by one of the
parties. In many cases where reunification remains the goal until case closure, a judge never hears the
case at all. As such, the Roundtable believed it was important to expand the scope of the workgroup to
include a comprehensive assessment of the utilization of hearing officers in dependency proceedings
and the development of guidance for judges regarding best practices in the oversight of hearing officers.
Training for Legal Representatives of Children and Parents Report
The Honorable Kelley Streib (Butler County), Workgroup Co-Chairperson, opened the report by thanking
Co-Chair, Honorable Wendy Demchick-Alloy (Montgomery County), the workgroup members and the
Office of Children and Families in the Courts. Judge Streib began discussion of the report by sharing the
successful completion of Core I in six regions of Pennsylvania, including Philadelphia. The State
Roundtable members gave a spontaneous applause to the training’s success.
Next, Judge Streib shared the completion of the Pre-Service Training and Resource DVD for Guardians ad
Litem. This Pre-Service DVD training is now required by DPW’s Office of Children, Youth & Families, as
required by the Child Abuse Treatment and Prevention Act, for counties wishing to use state funds to
reimburse cost associated with advocacy provided by Guardians. Finally, the Children’s Court Activity
Book was shared and explained to be a tool used to assist Guardians, as well as other dependency
professionals deemed appropriate, in enhancing their communication with children. The activity book
also serves to explain the court process, professionals involved, and options of participation that
children often do not know. All members of the State Roundtable were provided a copy of the DVD, as
well as the Children’s Court Activity Book. Sandy Moore shared that additional copies of both the DVD
and Children’s Activity Book were available for the cost of making them only and that Permanency
Practice Initiative (PPI) counties would receive a slightly lower cost than non-PPI counties (through a
Casey Families Grant).
Next, Judge Demchick-Alloy shared the outline contents of Core II, including Termination of Parental
Rights, Appeals, Child Development and Trauma. The Judge shared that Core II will be open to Solicitors,
as per the survey results from this year’s Leadership Roundtable (LRT). It is anticipated that Core II will
begin roll-out either late this year or early 2013. A conversation was sparked amongst the State
Roundtable members regarding the need to “raise the bar for dependency legal advocates”. The
Honorable Christopher Feliciani, Westmoreland County, shared that he issued an administrative order,
to all parent attorneys and GAL’s in the dependency system that counsel had to attend the county’s
local 6 hour dependency training and continue to receive a minimum of 3 CLE credit hours annual, on a
topic specific to child welfare dependency matters. Frank Cervone, Esquire, commended Judge
Feliciani’s efforts and stated that as a Roundtable and a system, we needed to “continue to educate
attorneys to lawyer in this field”.
Judge Streib then moved to a more complex topic for the Legal Representation Workgroup, Standards
for Attorneys in the dependency system. In order to provide expertise and focus to the issue, the
standard sub-group, led by Frank Cervone, Esq. and Kathy Gomez, Esq., was created from the larger
Workgroup. This sub-group spent the early part of 2012 exploring national best practices and current
state examples of standards of practice, caseload size, and compensation. While the Sub-group
completed an informative overview of these issues, the larger Workgroup was unable to review and
approve the contents of their report prior to this year’s State Roundtable. As such, Judge Streib shared
that an outline of the contents were contained in the 2012 State Roundtable Report, but that the
Workgroup would ask for permission to continue to work on the issue of standards, including the
drafting of standards for Guardians ad litem and Parent Attorneys, if supported by the larger workgroup.
A conversation occurred as to the oversight and accountability of standards. OCYF, Deputy Secretary
Beverly Mackereth, shared that she is exploring the history of why Guardians ad litem are included in
the county’s Needs Based Plan and Budget (NBPB), but not Parent Attorneys. She shared she is
currently waiting on a response from the Governor’s office to see if it is possible for parent
representation to be paid through the NBPB.
Finally, Judge Streib asked for guidance, from the State Roundtable, regarding advanced and ongoing
training. Several comments were provided as follows:





Judge Hens-Greco, Allegheny County, shared that she would like to see how to get things into
evidence. The Judge recommended Ed Ohlbaum, from Temple University, as potential faculty
for this issue.
Judge Van Horn, Franklin/Fulton County, suggested we consider partnering with Pennsylvania
Bar Institute (PBI). Sandy Moore and Judge Streib shared that the success of Core I was due to
the same consistent message being sent by the same presenters at each regional site, the
practitioners were from Pennsylvania and understood the needs and practices across the state
and that we provided several CLE credits at a very low cost. There is a concern that if we
relinquish control and oversight these elements may get lost and effect the trainings success.
Judge Clark, Allegheny County, recommended that perhaps practitioners in the west could
attend trainings already offered in Pittsburgh and those on the east trainings already offered in
Philadelphia.
Frank Cervone, Esq. shared with the group that he may receive a $200,000 grant from
Pennsylvania Crime and Delinquency. Frank expressed an interest in providing statewide
training, including “distant learning” training via Webinar series. Frank intends to hire Eleanor
Bush, Esq. to help lead these efforts.
Judge Johnson, Lehigh County, asked that whatever training occurs the Benchbook and
Resource Companion be the “target that we try to hit”.
Judge Streib provided final options and said the Workgroup at a minimum could be the oversight group
for future training and asked if the Roundtable wanted the Workgroup to continue to pursue advanced
training. The response was unanimously, yes. In conclusion, all of the work and recommendation for
2012/2013 were approved.
Benchbook/Judicial Education Report
State Roundtable members were updated as to the work of the Benchbook committee by Sandra
Moore, Office of Children and Families in the Courts, Administrator. The Committee has the current
Benchbook under review and anticipates a revised version will be released in July 2013. Additionally, a
webinar based educational series for judges on trauma is in development. The series will kick off at the
Pennsylvania Conference for State Trial Judges dependency luncheon in July. This will include a speaker
on trauma and a judge panel discussing courtroom practices that reduce trauma for children and
families, strategies to build a trauma informed system, and self-care strategies. Beginning in September,
monthly “lunch and learn” webinars will be held focusing on various aspects and strategies to address
elements of trauma. The State Roundtable was in complete agreement as to the importance of the
topic of trauma and expressed great interest in the series.
Transitional Youth Workgroup
The Honorable Charles Saylor (Northumberland County), Workgroup Co-Chairperson, opened the
session stating that while Transitional Youth was not an agenda item at the previous State Roundtable
meeting, there were several side discussions held during that meeting about this population of the
youth. There was an expressed frustration amongst members regarding youth reaching the age of the
majority and essentially aging out with little to no supports/plan. Judge Saylor then provided a general
overview to recent changes that specifically impacted this population of youth including amendments to
the Juvenile Court Procedural Rules and revision of the Independent Living Bulletin.
Judge Saylor shared numerous studies have confirmed emancipated foster care youth fare poorly. They
are more likely than their peers to not complete high school, forego higher education, face joblessness,
become homeless, have health problems including mental illness, abuse substances, experience early
parenthood, and end up in the criminal justice system.
Judge Saylor then added that the Workgroup believes any youth leaving the foster care system without
the needed supports/resources is a failure of the system…not the youth. The Workgroup identified
various concerns for Transitional Youth such as the number placed in congregate care, having the
permanency goal of Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement, lack of family connections or
supports, and the lack of an informed voice in the system.
The Workgroup is most encouraged by the potential impact of their work. They were additionally
hopeful that Pennsylvania will implement the re-entry provisions as defined in the Fostering
Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 and the program instructions distributed
by the Administration of Children and Families. Re-entry would allow youth to experience life outside of
the child welfare system while still retaining a safety net if needed up to the age of 21.
Judge Saylor then reviewed the recommendations that were being made to the State Roundtable.
Workgroup Co-chairperson Vanessa Garrett Harley, Esq., Deputy Commissioner of the Children and
Youth Division, Philadelphia Department of Human Services, requested State Roundtable members think
of a teenager that is known to them. The young adult who says, “I’m grown,” “I don’t need your help,”
or “I know what I’m doing.” The current Child Welfare System does not give Transitional Youth the
opportunity to say, “I was wrong and I need to your help.” Currently once a youth is discharged, the
youth cannot re-enter the dependency system as the youth no longer meets the legal definition of
“child.”
She next discussed the concept of Voluntary Trial Discharge, which was highlighted in the Workgroup’s
Report as a best and encouraged practice. Voluntary Trial Discharge gives Transitional Youth an
opportunity to experience life outside of the child welfare system while still retaining a safety net, if
needed. The youth remains legally “dependent” and has the option to re-enter the system but gives
them a chance for independence. The Child Welfare Agency would not have legal or physical custody of
the youth while on trial discharge. The petition for dependency would be kept open with certain
established parameters. A plan would be developed that involves the rules and responsibilities of all
parties involved. The case would continue to be reviewed in court.
In addition, the Workgroup believes the most effective way to implement trial discharge would be for
Pennsylvania to develop proposed legislative changes to the Juvenile Act so that trial discharge
provisions may be effectively implemented uniformly on a statewide level and to allow Pennsylvania to
receive federal funding if youth re-enter care.
Beverly Mackareth, Office of Children, Youth and Families. Deputy Secretary, stated it is being proposed
that Pennsylvania adopt the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 in
its entirety. If this is done, Pennsylvania will be the fifth state to do so. This proposal is currently in the
Governor’s Office and she is not aware of any issues.
Jim Anderson, Executive Director of the Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission, stated the court will need to
make the determination upon youth re-entering care that they meet the definition of child.
The Honorable Kimberly Berkeley Clark, Allegheny County, stated that she loved the report and believes
the recommendations are great.
Rose Weir, Snyder County Administrator of Children and Youth Services, asked if the Workgroup
believes there remains a burden on the caseworker to maintain contact with the family even if the goal
is no longer reunification. This question will be taken back to the Workgroup.
The recommendations presented by the Workgroup were accepted.
Father Engagement Workgroup
The Honorable Maria Musti Cook (York County), Workgroup Chairperson, presented the report on
behalf of the Father Engagement Workgroup. Judge Musti Cook informed State Roundtable members
that the brochure, “Kids Need Dads”, has been printed and distributed. She encouraged the members
to distribute copies not only in court and agency settings but throughout the county and in various
settings dads might visit. For additional copies, please contact your Judicial Analyst. Thus far, feedback
on the brochure from parent attorneys and fathers has been very positive.
Judge Musti Cook further highlighted the recommendations from the workgroup. Last year, the State
Roundtable reviewed proposed court and agency protocols for locating fathers, establishing paternity
and engaging fathers. At the same time, the ABA released bench cards addressing similar issues. A subcommittee of the workgroup synthesized the ABA recommendations with the proposed protocols to
create proposed bench cards that are specific to Pennsylvania. The workgroup is asking the Bench Book
committee to review the proposed bench cards for possible inclusion in future updates to the Bench
Book.
Another Workgroup sub-committee focused on identifying barriers and solutions to effective father
engagement. The Workgroup offered these ideas as a catalyst for local Children’s Roundtables to begin
a dialogue on barriers and solutions in their county.
Yet another Workgroup sub-committee focused on education. The education sub-committee
recommended that cross system training be developed to address cultural values and practices
regarding father engagement. Upon direction from DPW-OCYF, an update and expansion to an existing
curriculum through the Child Welfare Resource Center (CWRC) would serve as the basis for the new 1 ½
to 2 day training.
A third Workgroup sub-committee focused on best practices. The best practice sub-committee,
promoted importance of father specific services. With the input of fathers, the sub-committee created
a curriculum for a father support group that could be replicated across the state.
Finally, the Workgroup requested the State Roundtable allow the Workgroup to continue into next year
to focus on two final tasks. The Workgroup would like to assist the CWRC in the development,
implementation and evaluation of the Father Engagement Training curriculum. Members of the
Workgroup would serve as the focus group before roll out of the final course.
Additionally, the Workgroup requested the opportunity to measure the impact of work over the past
three years. One of the first tasks undertaken by the Workgroup was to conduct a statewide survey to
determine the extent that fathers were involved in the Child Welfare System. The Workgroup would
like to conclude its work with a comparable survey to determine if we made a difference. Did we
increase the number fathers involved in the Child Welfare system and to what extent did counties
see/utilize recommendations and materials.
Vanessa Garrett Harley suggested we consider a script that Philadelphia DHS uses at intake. The script
focuses on gathering information about the father and extended family from the initial caller. Such
information can be used to make contact and engage not only the father but paternal family. Vanessa
agreed to provide the Workgroup with a copy of the script.
Sandy Moore suggested State Roundtable members test the bench cards and provide feedback to the
Benchbook committee.
Rick Saylor questioned the endorsement a specific father support group program. Judge Musti Cook
explained the purpose of the recommendation was to provide a workable template for counties without
a father specific support group thus making it easy for them to create one. The wording of the
recommendation was changed to better reflect that intent.
The State Roundtable accepted the report and all recommendations of the Father Engagement
Workgroup.
Educational Success and Truancy Prevention
The Honorable John Kuhn (Adams County), Workgroup Co-Chairperson, led the discussion on this topic.
Judge Kuhn introduced his two fellow co-chairs, Cindy Stoltz, Allegheny County Children’s Court
Administrator and the Honorable Mary Ann Ullman (Berks County). Judge Kuhn began by outlining the
many accomplishments of this workgroup since its establishment in 2009 including: the 2010 Truancy: A
Call to Action Report; Truancy Art Logo Contest; assistance in helping counties implement the 2010
recommendations; assistance in the revision of the Magisterial District Justice truancy training and
collaboration with the PA Department of Education to begin updating the School Attendance and
Truancy Reduction Toolkit. Judge Kuhn also noted that the state experienced an overall 2.5% increase in
the number of truant students but he suspects this reported increase may be attributed to more
accurate reporting and increased attention to the subject.
Judge Kuhn stated the majority of the Truancy Prevention Sub-Committee’s work in 2011-2012 focused
on the recommendation to change statutory provisions related to school attendance in the PA Public
School Code. Judge Kuhn highlighted a few of the group’s recommended changes and also noted that
not all Workgroup members agreed to every amendment but the recommendations in the report reflect
the consensus of the group. Judge Kuhn discussed the recommendation to decrease the compulsory
school age from 8 years old to 6 years old, requiring schools to offer a School Attendance Improvement
Conference prior to referring a case to Magisterial District Court, raising the age a child may be
convicted by a Magisterial District Court for truancy from 13 years old to 15 years old and clarifying the
definition of truancy.
Jim Anderson, Executive Director, Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission and Educational Success and
Truancy Prevention Workgroup member acknowledged the comprehensive work of the group and
briefly discussed a strategy for legislative consideration. Mr. Anderson noted that likely not all can be
accomplished at once, but that perhaps small changes can occur in different pieces of legislation. Jim
also cautioned that any change which have costs may be difficult to pass during the current fiscal
climate. Deputy Secretary Mackereth offered in the past there was a bill on the floor of the PA House of
Representatives to lower the compulsory school age to six and that it was voted “no” due to the
disagreement of home school parents. Ms. Mackereth also commented there is currently a pending bill
to change the definition truancy but she likes the Workgroup’s definition more.
Judge Kuhn and Judge Ullman then discussed the issue of educational success and stability for children
in the foster care system and outlined the work of the Educational Success Sub-group over the past year.
The co-chairs highlighted key points from presentations on educational data and educational outcomes
for children in foster care presented by national experts as well as Workgroup’s extensive review of
relevant laws, regulations, national resources, and data. Judge Ullman noted the Sub-group spent a
considerable amount of time reviewing the Blue Print for Change: Educational Success for Children in
Foster Care. Judge Ullman also shared that Workgroup members participated in three national
meetings on educational issues for children in foster care during the past year.
The 2012 PA State Roundtable Report on Educational Success and Truancy Prevention and its
recommendations were unanimously approved by Roundtable members. The Co-Chairpersons
expressed their excitement to continue the good work of the group in 2013.
State Roundtable Membership
Sandy Moore presented this agenda item and how this was raised during the 2011 State Roundtable
meeting. Members suggested a rotation process be developed to enhance involvement, encourage a
continued rich dialog, and welcome new members. This item was discussed at all of the Spring
Leadership Roundtables with the exception of Leadership Roundtable One, due to time.
It was noted that some State Roundtable members are permanent such as Supreme Court, Deputy
Secretary for the Office of Children, Youth and Families, Executive Director of the Juvenile Court Judges’
Commission, Court Administrator of Pennsylvania and Administrator of Office of Children and Families in
the Courts. There are also State Roundtable members that are invited guest, content experts,
Leadership Roundtable co-chairpersons and Workgroup co-chairpersons.
The consensus from the Leadership Roundtables was to mirror the process used for Supreme Court
Procedural Rules Committees. Under this process, State Roundtable members could serve two terms,
with each term being three years. It was requested by the Leadership Roundtables that both co-chair
persons not rotate at the same time and that OCFC select new co-chairpersons. Initiation of the terms
would be left to each LRT. This process was approved.
Children’s Roundtable Summit
The Children’s Roundtable Summit will be held April 29 through May 1, 2013 in Seven Springs. Sandy
Moore announced that the Honorable Chris Feliciani (Westmoreland County), would serve as CoChairperson for the 2013 Summit with a co-chair to be determined soon. Judge Feliciani then led a
discussion focusing on ideas for Summit presentations.
State Roundtable members made the following suggestions for presentations/speakers:







Safety presentation by ABA
William Bell from Casey Foundation
Bryan Samuels from Administration for Children and Families
Understanding Mental Health Diagnoses
Issues related to Educational Success
Plenary with breakouts around legal education issues
Evidenced based models for successful treatment in congregate care settings
These ideas, along with ideas from the Leadership Roundtable discussions, will be considered by the
Summit Planning Committee.
PPI Update
Sandy Moore informed State Roundtable members Phase Four will be announced shortly.
Taskforce on Child Protection
Beverly Mackereth opened the discussion by stating that the Taskforce on Child Protection is made up of
key stakeholders and has three areas of focus:
1. Exploring the issue of mandated reporters, including the definition of and current laws directing
such reporting
2. Looking at the definition of Physical and Sexual Abuse
3. Gaining public confidence in the child welfare system
There will be testimony on July 16, 2012 to report the work being done by the State Roundtable. The
team members to provide this testimony include representatives from Allegheny County, Administrative
Judge Kathryn Hens-Greco and Human Services Director Marc Cherna; Blair County, President Judge
Jolene Grubb Kopriva and Children, Youth and Families Administrator Maryanne Burger; and Lycoming
County, Dependency Judge Joy McCoy and Children and Youth Administrator, Rick Saylor.
Several discussions occurred during the reporting of information. First, it was acknowledged that in
Pennsylvania Child Protective Service (CPS) cases are tracked and recorded; however, General Protective
Service (GPS) cases are not. The following questions were posed to spark discussion on this issue:


If the alleged perpetrator is unknown and thereby not recorded or tracked, should the child also
not be recorded and tracked?
Should any child who has been sexually abused be the responsibility of the child welfare
agency?



What is the role of law enforcement, advocacy centers and multidisciplinary teams in Child
Abuse and Neglect cases?
What does “non-accidental mean”?
How are cases of school persons investigated and handled?
In addition, there was expressed concern over how child welfare professionals respond to mandated
reporters following an investigation. There is concern over whether the mandated reporters are
notified of the conclusion of the investigation process. Kathy Gomez, Esq. shared her concern that by
tracking and recording all cases (CPS and GPS) we infer that all parents are “perpetrators” of a technical
finding of some type of neglect in general protective cases. Kathy is concerned this creates another
adversarial process, which creates another barrier for parents testifying at dependency hearings. John
Parrott, Esq. asked that the notification on perpetrators be explored and enhanced.
Finally, Ms. Mackereth shared that the definition of dependency will also be explored. Pennsylvania, in
comparison to other states, focuses child dependency definition on social issues, education, parental
controls and morals. The child welfare agency cannot continue to be the “end all” for all issues related
to children and families. In conclusion, Ms. Mackereth shared that the final report from the Taskforce is
due November 2012.
Congregate Care Discussion/Follow-up
Based on various discussions during the State Roundtable, Sandy Moore suggested there not be a new
workgroup created around congregate care. Instead, each existing workgroup could be tasked with
addressing this issue and formulating recommendations for the 2013 State Roundtable. Deputy
Secretary Mackereth agreed to research national models to identify evidenced based programming in
congregate care. State Roundtable members supported this suggestion.
Sandy Moore thanked the group for their phenomenal work over the past five years on behalf of the
children and families of Pennsylvania. She also thanked her staff, especially Elke Moyer, for her
attention to every detail.
Deputy Secretary Mackereth also thanked the group and recognized Deputy Secretary Carolyn
Dumeresque, Department of Education and Jim Anderson for their partnership and support.
The 2012 State Roundtable was adjourned.