[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 135 (Friday, July 15, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41039-41040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-13918]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families


Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request 
Proposed Project

    Title: The National Evaluation of the Court Improvement Program.
    OMB No.: New Collection.
    Description: The National Evaluation of the Court Improvement 
Program will describe the many paths followed by state courts to 
improve their oversight of child welfare cases, and will provide the 
field with information on effective models for juvenile and family 
court reform. Funded by the Children's Bureau, U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Services (HHS) in 2004, the five-year study is being 
carried out by a partnership of three organizations consisting of 
Planning and Learning Technologies (Pal-Tech, Inc.), the Urban 
Institute and the Center for Policy Research.
    The federal Court Improvement Program (CIP) was established in 1994 
as a source of funding for state courts to assess and improve their 
handling of foster care and adoption proceedings. The funding is 
codified in title IV-B, subpart 2, of the Social Security Act, Section 
438, as part of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program. 
Although anecdotal information documents the program's success, this is 
the first national evaluation of CIP. This study builds on the 
recommendations of a Children's Bureau-funded Evaluability Assessment 
(EA) of the program completed in 2003 by James Bell Associates, Inc.
    The National Evaluation of the Court Improvement Program involves 
three interrelated components:
    1. Reviewing and synthesizing state and local court reform 
activities: This component will describe the full range of CIP-funded 
court reforms undertaken by states at the beginning and ending of the 
study's data collection period. Additionally, it will provide insights 
into states' reform priorities and how these shift over time. 
Especially promising models of reform will be highlighted. Finally, 
this component will provide important contextual information for the 
study's in-depth evaluation component of select models of reform. 
Information for this activity will be synthesized from existing reports 
submitted by states to the Children's Bureau.
    2. Reviewing and synthesizing existing court reform evaluations: 
This component will identify and synthesize findings from research and 
evaluation conducted on family and juvenile court reforms. It will 
provide an important context for the study's in-depth evaluation 
component in two ways. Findings on reform activities beyond those 
captured within the study sites will be provided. It will also help 
inform evaluation within the study sites by providing information on 
previously conducted evaluation of similar reform models. Information 
for this activity will be synthesized from existing evaluations and 
studies of court reform. Evaluations will be prioritized for synthesis 
based on their methodological rigor and findings reported in the 
substantive areas defined by the EA. These are:
     Alternative dispute resolution;
     Training and educational materials;
     Case tracking and management;
     Improvements to the consistency and quality of hearings;
     Parent/caregiver outreach, education, and support; and
     Systemic court reforms.
    3. Conducting in-depth studies of reform models: In-depth 
evaluation of select models of reform will be undertaken within three 
diverse sites across the country. The study designs vary among sites, 
and include quasi-experimental and descriptive outcome methodologies. 
Reflecting the Adoption and Safe Families Act, the primary outcome 
areas of interest will be child safety, the timely achievement of 
permanency, and child well-being. Within each site, outcome evaluation 
will be complemented by a qualitative study of the many factors that 
impacted reform including other related reform efforts, the evolution 
of the target reform over time, barriers encountered, and methods by 
which these barriers were overcome.
    The outcome evaluation will utilize information from existing court 
and child welfare agency management information systems. Within select 
sites, information from these sources will be supplemented with 
information abstracted from existing court and/or child welfare agency 
case records. The process evaluation will help inform outcome findings 
within the study sites as well as provide important insights for the 
replication of the model within other sites. The process evaluation 
will involve the collection of new information through structured focus 
groups and interviews with key individuals, as well as court 
observations of child dependency hearings. This descriptive information 
will be collected twice during the study.

[[Page 41040]]

    The three sites selected for in-depth analysis are the following:
     Connecticut's Case Management Protocol: Piloted in 
December 1997, the protocol involves a pre-hearing conference of 
professionals held early in the dependency court process coupled with 
expanded parent representation.
     Delaware's Systemic Reform: Piloted in 2000, the three 
primary components of the state's comprehensive reform effort are:

--One judge/one case assignment practice where one judge presides over 
all legal stages of a dependency case;
--Defined sequence of hearings and reviews that significantly increases 
the number of hearings and oversight role of the courts; and
--Representation for indigent parents in child welfare proceedings.

     Texas's Cluster Courts: Piloted in 1997, these courts are 
located in rural areas of the state. Each court serves a cluster of 
contiguous counties, and a specially trained judge is appointed to 
travel to each county within a cluster on a given day to hear that 
county's child welfare cases. The cluster courts were formed to enable 
rural counties to meet the state's strict permanency status guidelines 
that were enacted January 1, 1998.
    Collectively, findings from the three study components will capture 
the ongoing nationwide process of court reform supported by the Court 
Improvement Program. A technical work group comprised of leading 
researchers, judicial and child welfare agency officials and 
representatives of public interest groups has been assembled to provide 
input at key points during the study.
    Respondents: Study respondents include individuals in the following 
categories among the three study sites noted above:
     Court Improvement Program (CIP) administrators;
     Judges;
     Attorneys (representing the parent, child, and agency);
     Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs) and Guardians Ad 
Litem (GALs);
     Child welfare agency administrators;
     Regional child welfare directors and supervisors; and
     Child welfare agency caseworkers.

                                             Annual Burden Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of        Average
                   Instrument                        Number of     responses per   burden hours    Total  burden
                                                    respondents     respondent     per response        hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CIP Administrators..............................               8               1               2              16
Judges..........................................              30               1               1              30
Attorneys (parent, child, agency)...............              95               1               2             190
CASAs and GALs..................................              55               1               2             110
Child Welfare Agency Administrators.............              10               1               1              10
Regional Child Welfare Directors and Supervisors              30               1               2              60
Child Welfare Agency Caseworkers................             120               1               2             240
                                                 -----------------
    Total.......................................  ..............  ..............  ..............             656
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 656.
    In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and 
Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the 
information collection described above. Copies of the proposed 
collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded 
by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of 
Administration, Office of Information Services. 370 L'Enfant Promenade, 
SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. E-mail 
address: [email protected]. All request should be identified by the 
title of the information collection.
    The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the 
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper 
performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the 
information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 
agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of 
information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection 
of information on respondents, including through the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. 
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted 
within 60 days of this publication.

    Dated: July 11, 2005.
Robert Sargis,
Reports Clearance, Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-13918 Filed 7-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-M