15th Judicial Circuit – Palm Beach County
September 2011
Objectives
 Learn about innovative approaches to working with
families in Dependency Court
 Understand how to design and structure systems of
coordination and collaboration
 Identify benefits of multi-system collaborations
 Identify strategies and tools to help implement similar
programs
Who We Are
 Mary Quinlan, LCSW
Mental Health Operations Manager
 Cristy Altaro, MA
Juvenile Alternative Sanctions Coordinator
 Kathy Sanchez
Juvenile Court Case Manager
 Angela Bess, Ed D
Court Education Liaison Program Manager
th
15
Circuit – Best Practices
 Family Drug Court
 Crossover Case Management
 Independent Living Court
 Court Education Liaison program
What We’re Doing
A 12 month, 5 phase specialty court for parents in dependency
court where substance abuse is the main reason for the
removal of the children
Phase 1, CHOICE








Family Group Conferencing,
Assignment of Family
Intervention Specialist and
Case Manager
Substance Abuse Assessment
within 72 hours
Weekly court appearances
Daily AA/NA meetings
Begin inpatient or outpatient
treatment
Frequent random drug
testing
Obtain a sponsor
Phase 2, CHALLENGE




Continued Treatment
Weekly court appearances
Daily AA/NA meetings
Frequent random drug testing
What We’re Doing – cont’d.
Phase 3, COMMITMENT
Phase 4 and 5, COMMENCEMENT
AND SELF RELIANCE
 Continued Treatment (inpatient
typically moving to outpatient)
 Bi-Weekly court appearances
 Daily AA/NA meetings
 Frequent random drug testing
 Continued Treatment Moving into
aftercare
 Monthly court appearances
 Daily AA/NA meetings
 Frequent random drug testing
SANCTIONS AND INCENTIVES ARE USED THROUGHOUT THE PROGRAM
Why It’s Necessary
 There is a more elaborate support system for families while




ensuring child safety
There is heightened judicial oversight of children and
families
Family Drug Court parents are motivated to get treatment
they would otherwise not receive
Family Drug Court parents are more likely to enter
treatment, spend more time in treatment, and are more
likely to complete treatment than parents in comparison
groups
Parents are more likely to be reunited with their children.
Source: FDC: A National Evaluation, Children and Family Futures (OJJDP) Technical Assistance Program
A Team Effort
 Grant for Family Drug Court written with input from
stakeholders
 Judge Kathleen Kroll, Administrative Judge of the Juvenile
Division championed the effort and became the FDC Judge
 Committees were formed to design the court, write the
policies and procedures, identify community resources,
develop an advisory board
 A Drug Court team was identified and traveled together to
observe Miami’s Dependency Drug Court
How It Helps
Data Collection: FDC vs. Control Group
CONTROL= 20 clients
PERMANENCY
Reunifications:
TPR:
Perm. Guardianship:
TIME FRAMES
Time to Treatment:
Average Time to
Reunification :
FAMILY DRUG COURT = 18 clients
PERMANENCY
Reunifications:
TPR:
Perm. Guardianship:
6 families
0 families
0 families
30-45 days
TIME FRAMES
Time to Treatment:
20 days
8.5 months
Average Time to
Reunification :
4 families
3 families
2 families
6 months
Challenges
 Achieving buy-in from all the stakeholders, esp. the
parent's attorneys
 Instituting Family Group Conferencing
 Availability of Treatment Beds
 Availability of Affordable Housing
 Differing views on procedural issues: diluted drug screens,
sanctions, reunification
What We’re Doing
 A coordinated, collaborative approach for early
identification and notification of youth involved in the
delinquency and dependency systems
 Specific, written identification and notification
procedures
 Specialized crossover dockets
Why It’s Necessary
 Various “players”
 Separate silos
 Inadequate communication
 Avoid a duplication of services
 Streamline the court process
A Team Effort
 Formation of a committee and develop stakeholder
buy-in
 Numerous meetings to achieve success:
 Creation of an Administrative Order
 Implementation of an Memorandum of Understanding
 Written procedures
 Identification of Points of Contact for each agency
How It Helps
 Early identification of crossover youth
 Increased communication relating to these youth
 Reduction in duplication of services
 Specialized hearings including delinquency and
dependency players
 Earlier intervention
Challenges
 Initial definition of “crossover” - vague
 Out-of –county, diversion, direct file, etc.
 Addressing confidentiality
 Different goals for different committee members
 Length of time from formulation of committee to
implementation
What We’re Doing
 The purpose of the Independent Living Court program
is to evaluate a youth’s progress in developing
independent living skills and take the necessary steps
to help the youth obtain his/her goals.
 Four Juvenile Judges hold specialized Independent
Living Court dockets every other week for youth over
age 16 in foster care for 6 months or more
Why It’s Necessary
 To ensure youth exiting the foster care system are provided
every opportunity to become self sufficient and achieve the
goals they have identified for their future.
 Due to the fact that placements often change the longer a
child is in care, these youth are especially at risk of falling
through the “cracks” and not receiving the services they
need to thrive on their own.
A Team Effort
 Our Current Chief Judge Peter Blanc spearheaded the
effort to start an Independent Living Court and piloted
the first ILR when he was in the juvenile division.
 A committee was formed and traveled to Tampa to
observe their Independent Living Court
 In addition to Legal Aid and our CBC Agency, a local
agency, Vita Nova, joined the effort to serve as
specialized ILR case managers
How It Helps
 Enhanced judicial oversight to ensure youth’s needs
are being adequately addressed
 Vocational and educational goals are reviewed and any
previously assigned tasks are followed up with to
ensure compliance
 Most importantly, it allows the youth to voice his/her
concerns and become engaged in the decision-making
process
Challenges
 Initial identification of youth eligible
for Court
 Procedures for getting case on the docket and
cancelling other judicial reviews
 Handling judicial reviews when an ILR child has
younger siblings
 Timely filing of reports
The Program
 Court Education Liaisons (School District employees)
are housed in the juvenile courthouses for immediate
access to information, increased collaboration and
improved services for court-involved youth
 Program staff:
 (1) Program Manager
 (4) Education Liaisons – one assigned to each juvenile
Judge
 Officially began in April, 2008
How We Made It Happen
 Former Chief Judge Kroll spear-headed an
initiative to increase the collaboration between the
Court system and School District
 A large committee was formed, followed by several
smaller subcommittees to identify needs and
address education-related issues
 School District made a commitment to this issue
and allocated personnel to expand the level of
services provided to court-involved youth
The Many Benefits…
 Provide updated information and interpretation of
educational records to the Court
 Conference with youth/families to review student needs,
educational options and requirements
 Work with the schools on matters concerning registration,
re-enrollment and transition
 Improved relationship between the Courts and School
District, especially HS and MS Principals
 Assist with specialty Courts/programs
What the Judges Say
 “An
invaluable resource from providing instantaneous
information on grades, conduct, classes, etc., to assisting
children to get back to or into school, the appropriate school,
to obtaining a better understanding of the difficulties faced by
children in the delinquency system and the school system, to
explaining education options to children and their parents.”
 “I have been in juvenile court almost five years.
From my
experience these liaisons are the most effective tool I have in
addressing the educational dysfunctions of the children who
come before me. The correlation between educational and
social dysfunction is obvious. If I can get a child back on track
educationally, I have a far better chance of turning that child's
life around.”
Challenges
 Understanding the Court process (delinquency &
dependency)
 Defining responsibilities and protocols for Liaisons
 Maintaining dual rules – school district vs. Court
 Continuous struggle to maintain program staffing
levels
Questions/Comments
 Mary Quinlan
mquinlan@pbcgov.org
(561) 355-1925
 Cristy Altaro
caltaro@pbcgov.org
(561) 355-6586
 Kathy Sanchez
ksanchez@pbcgov.org
(561) 330-1772
 Angela Bess
BessA@palmbeach.k12.fl.us
(561) 355-3497