ENHANCING THE
QUALITY OF PERMANENCY HEARINGS
IN NEW YORK STATE
Christine Sabino Kiesel, Esq.
Coordinator
NYS Child Welfare Court
Improvement Project
Alicia Summers, Ph.D
Program Director
National Council of Juvenile &
Family Court Judges
NYS Timeliness to Initial Permanency Hearing
Entry Cohort Year
Filing Type
Age Range
N=
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
1 - All Filings
1 - All Filings
1 - All Filings
1 - All Filings
1 - All Filings
1 - All Filings
1 - All Filings
7 - All Ages
7 - All Ages
7 - All Ages
7 - All Ages
7 - All Ages
7 - All Ages
7 - All Ages
8013
7112
6767
6633
6341
6180
5791
#
6109
5431
5363
5396
5252
5029
4813
%
76%
76%
79%
81%
83%
81%
83%
NYS Unified Court System, UCMS - Family Court, CWCIP Data Metrics. Progress of children followed through 12/31/2013.
Statewide 83% of all initial
permanency hearings were held
timely in 2012!!
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.
Statewide 95% of all subsequent
permanency hearings were held
timely in 2012!!
NYS Timeliness to Permanency
Age at Entry
N=
Months
Entry Cohort Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
7 - All Ages
7 - All Ages
7 - All Ages
7 - All Ages
7 - All Ages
7 - All Ages
7 - All Ages
12186
11073
10692
10549
10063
9348
8709
6
25%
26%
28%
26%
26%
24%
23%
12
38%
38%
41%
41%
41%
39%
38%
18
47%
48%
51%
52%
52%
50%
24
54%
55%
58%
60%
59%
57%
30
60%
61%
64%
65%
65%
36
65%
66%
69%
70%
70%
42
69%
71%
73%
74%
48
73%
74%
76%
77%
54
76%
77%
79%
60
78%
79%
81%
NYS Unified Court System, UCMS - Family Court, CWCIP Data Metrics. Progress of children followed through 12/31/2013.
66
80%
81%
72
82%
82%
78
83%
84
84%
NYS Timeliness to Reunification/Custody/Guardianship
NYS Unified Court System, UCMS - Family Court, CWCIP Data Metrics. Progress of children followed through 12/31/2013.
NYS Timeliness to Adoption
NYS Unified Court System, UCMS - Family Court, CWCIP Data Metrics. Progress of children followed through 12/31/2013.
Statewide 38% of children reached
permanency within 12 months (2012
entries) and 57% within 24 months
(2011 entries)
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
NOW WHAT????
Project to Enhance the Quality of
Permanency Hearings was born
We needed a plan…..
MEANINGFUL PERMANENCY HEARINGS
CWCIP
Funding
Stream
CWCIP
Training,
Basic
grants
Collaborative
Partners
Timeframe
Local DSS
agencies,
parent and
child attorney
groups,
National
Council of
Juvenile and
Family Court
Judges, ABA,
Casey Family
Programs
Ongoing
Anticipated Outputs and Results of Activity
Target Improvement
Project to be implemented in 5 counties that
identify it as a priority.
Data Source
Proportion of initial permanency hearings
CWCIP Data
held/completed within 9 months from entry into out- Metric 5
of-home care will increase from 82% (2009 entry
1)Identify key permanency hearing inquiries &
In-court
cohort) to 87% (2014 entry cohort).
protocols utilizing NCJFCJ checklist, “Indicators of
observation
Quality Court Hearings” Attachment to P.I., and
Proportion of completed permanency hearings that
and file
focus groups &/or surveys. Focus groups held
are completed within statutory time frames (7
review
7/24/13 in NYC; 8/8/13 in Oneida County; 9/13/13 months from prior hearing) increase from 89% (2009
in Monroe County; and 9/20/13 in Westchester
entry cohort) to 94% (2013 entry cohort)
County. Youth focus group held 9/23/13 and
Increase the average length of court time spent
foster parent group held 9/25/13. Prepare report
holding permanency hearings
summarizing focus group findings and distribute.
Decrease the number of PHs that are adjourned from
2)Revise original pilot program’s court
their date certain
observation forms and file review forms in
Increase the percentage of PHs where the child’s
accordance with findings in 1).
health care including development was addressed
3)Develop a data collection sheet for use within
the court to monitor progress on key elements of Increase the percentage of PH where the child’s
mental health needs were addressed
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
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
Feedback Vehicle
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.
Collect more data…
Focus Groups
Technical Assistance from NRC Legal
& Judicial Issues
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
Results of the focus groups used to
develop court observation and file
review tools
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
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?
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
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
Moving project to implementation stage
vetted at our state-wide multidisciplinary
advisory committee –
MEANINGFUL PERMANENCY HEARINGS
CWCIP
Funding
Stream
CWCIP
Training,
Basic
grants
Collaborative
Partners
Timeframe
Local DSS
agencies,
parent and
child attorney
groups,
National
Council of
Juvenile and
Family Court
Judges, ABA,
Casey Family
Programs
Ongoing
Anticipated Outputs and Results of Activity
Target Improvement
Project to be implemented in 5 counties that
identify it as a priority.
Data Source
Proportion of initial permanency hearings
CWCIP Data
held/completed within 9 months from entry into out- Metric 5
of-home care will increase from 82% (2009 entry
1)Identify key permanency hearing inquiries &
In-court
cohort) to 87% (2014 entry cohort).
protocols utilizing NCJFCJ checklist, “Indicators of
observation
Quality Court Hearings” Attachment to P.I., and
Proportion of completed permanency hearings that
and file
focus groups &/or surveys. Focus groups held
are completed within statutory time frames (7
review
7/24/13 in NYC; 8/8/13 in Oneida County; 9/13/13 months from prior hearing) increase from 89% (2009
in Monroe County; and 9/20/13 in Westchester
entry cohort) to 94% (2013 entry cohort)
County. Youth focus group held 9/23/13 and
Increase the average length of court time spent
foster parent group held 9/25/13. Prepare report
holding permanency hearings
summarizing focus group findings and distribute.
Decrease the number of PHs that are adjourned from
2)Revise original pilot program’s court
their date certain
observation forms and file review forms in
Increase the percentage of PHs where the child’s
accordance with findings in 1).
health care including development was addressed
3)Develop a data collection sheet for use within
the court to monitor progress on key elements of Increase the percentage of PH where the child’s
mental health needs were addressed
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
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
Feedback Vehicle
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.
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
Conducting Effective
Permanency Hearings
Christine Sabino Kiesel, Esq.
Coordinator
Child Welfare Court Improvement Project
The Legal Mandates
∙
New York State Unified Court System Division of Professional & Court Services
Child Welfare Court Improvement Project
Hallmarks of Effective Hearings
∙
New York State Unified Court System Division of Professional & Court Services
Child Welfare Court Improvement Project
Best Practices
∙
New York State Unified Court System Division of Professional & Court Services
Child Welfare Court Improvement Project
Youth in Court
∙
New York State Unified Court System Division of Professional & Court Services
Child Welfare Court Improvement Project
Post-Dispositional Review
∙
New York State Unified Court System Division of Professional & Court Services
Child Welfare Court Improvement Project
Style & Process
∙
New York State Unified Court System Division of Professional & Court Services
Child Welfare Court Improvement Project
Next Steps:
•
Re-evaluate after implementation in
pilot counties
•
Develop a tool-kit for counties to do
their own evaluation
Questions?
For further information contact:
Christine Kiesel, Coordinator
Child Welfare Court Improvement Project
(315) 266-4254
ckiesel@nycourts.gov
Please give us feedback about this webinar.
And/or suggest topics for the future.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/HK3JDJ7