Juvenile Courts: Reforms Aim to Better Serve Maltreated Children (Letter
Report, 01/11/99, GAO/HEHS-99-13).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed states' and local
agencies' efforts to improve the timeliness of judicial decisions
concerning the permanent placement of foster children, focusing on: (1)
the key problems in the juvenile dependency court system; and (2) state
and local responses to these problems.

GAO noted that: (1) serious systemic problems continue to plague the
juvenile dependency court system; (2) states GAO visited reported a lack
of cooperation between the courts and child welfare agencies as well as
difficult personnel and data management issues that jeopardize the
courts' ability to ensure that a child's stay in the foster care system
is as brief as possible and that the permanent placement decided upon is
in the best overall interest of the child; (3) despite their shared
involvement in the child welfare system, courts and child welfare
agencies often do not work well together; (4) for example, some judges
mistrust the judgments of caseworkers and routinely order additional
clinical assessments to compensate for what the judges perceive as
professional inadequacies; (5) in addition, courts face numerous
difficulties, including increased caseloads, short tenures for judges
and attorneys assigned to juvenile dependency courts, insufficient
training of judges and attorneys in child welfare law and concepts, and
information systems that do not adequately track the progress of
individual cases or monitor the courts' compliance with statutory
timeframes for achieving permanent placements; (6) in response to these
problems, some states have initiated court reforms that they believe
reduce the length of time children spend in foster care and improve the
quality of the decisions made by the courts; (7) these reforms generally
fall into two categories: (a) reforms which are designed to improve the
overall operation and infrastructure of the courts, including convening
multidisciplinary advisory committees to resolve differences that exist
between the courts and the organizations involved in court proceedings
as well as developing juvenile dependency court information systems; and
(b) reforms focused on improving the quality of decisionmaking on
individual cases; (8) these reforms include holding mediation sessions
in which all relevant parties meet to resolve issues in dispute in a
non-adversarial setting outside the courtroom, as well as increasing the
time allotted for specific hearings; (9) regardless of the nature of the
reform, state and local officials at the sites GAO visited identified
three ingredients that successful reform efforts have in common; and
(10) these essential reform components are the presence of judicial
leadership and collaboration among court participants, the availability
of timely information on case processing performance, and the
availability of financial resources to initiate and sustain reforms.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  HEHS-99-13
     TITLE:  Juvenile Courts: Reforms Aim to Better Serve Maltreated 
             Children
      DATE:  01/11/99
   SUBJECT:  Child custody
             Foster children
             Judicial reform
             Child abuse
             Interagency relations
             Judicial remedies
             Dispute settlement
IDENTIFIER:  Cook County (IL)
             Santa Clara County (CA)
             Hamilton County (OH)
             Florida
             North Carolina
             Court Improvement Program
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources, Committee on
Ways and Means, House of Representatives

January 1999

JUVENILE COURTS - REFORMS AIM TO
BETTER SERVE MALTREATED CHILDREN

GAO/HEHS-99-13

Juvenile Court Reform

(116010)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  ABA - American Bar Association
  ASFA - Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997
  CASA - court-appointed special advocate
  CIP - Court Improvement Program
  DOJ - Department of Justice
  HHS - Department of Health and Human Services
  JEMS - Juvenile Enterprise Management System
  NCJFCJ - National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
  NCJJ - National Center for Juvenile Justice

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-281326

January 11, 1999

The Honorable E.  Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources
Committee on Ways and Means
House of Representatives

Dear Mr.  Chairman: 

Almost every day, courts that hear child welfare dependency cases\1
across the country make critical decisions that affect the lives of
the approximately 1 million children who are victims of child abuse
and neglect each year, many of whom enter and remain in the foster
care system for years.  In this capacity, the courts--executing a
variety of federal and state laws--play the central role in
determining whether children will be removed from their homes; how
long they will remain in the foster care system; and, ultimately,
where the children will permanently reside.  Over the years, the
courts have struggled to balance their attempts to protect children
from further harm with making timely decisions for their future. 

Many states and localities have begun reforming their court systems
to address problems that contribute to children spending years of
their childhood awaiting court decisions concerning where they will
ultimately live.  While some states have initiated change on their
own, many began reform efforts as a result of the federal Court
Improvement Program (CIP) authorized in the Omnibus Reconciliation
Act of 1993.  CIP provides grants to state courts to improve their
handling of child maltreatment cases.  Because of your concern over
the courts' performance in achieving timely permanent placements for
children, you asked us to identify (1) the key problems in the
juvenile dependency court system and (2) state and local responses to
these problems.  In conducting this work, we reviewed the literature
on problems in the juvenile dependency court system, including CIP
assessments of problems in specific states, and interviewed state and
federal officials and experts on the dependency court process, such
as officials at national court-related organizations, judges, and
researchers.  To obtain first-hand information on dependency court
reform activities, we visited juvenile dependency courts in five
locations--Santa Clara County, California; the Ninth Judicial Circuit
in Florida, comprising Orange and Osceola counties; Cook County,
Illinois; Judicial District 20 in North Carolina, comprising Anson,
Richmond, Stanly, and Union counties; and Hamilton County, Ohio.  We
chose these locations because experts at the National Council of
Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) and the American Bar
Association (ABA) considered these locales to be implementing
significant reforms, or because CIP was a major impetus for change
there.  We conducted our work between December 1997 and October 1998
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
(A more detailed discussion of our scope and methodology appears in
app.  I). 


--------------------
\1 Throughout this report, these courts are referred to as "juvenile
dependency courts." Some states have special juvenile courts that are
separate from adult courts.  In other states, child welfare cases are
heard in juvenile sessions of regular courts that handle all types of
cases. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

Serious systemic problems continue to plague the juvenile dependency
court system.  States we visited reported a lack of cooperation
between the courts and child welfare agencies as well as difficult
personnel and data management issues that jeopardize the courts'
ability to ensure that a child's stay in the foster care system is as
brief as possible and that the permanent placement decided upon is in
the best overall interest of the child.  Despite their shared
involvement in the child welfare system, courts and child welfare
agencies often do not work well together.  For example, some judges
mistrust the judgments of caseworkers and routinely order additional
clinical assessments to compensate for what the judges perceive as
professional inadequacies.  In addition, courts face numerous
difficulties, including increased caseloads, short tenures for judges
and attorneys assigned to juvenile dependency courts, insufficient
training of judges and attorneys in child welfare law and concepts,
and information systems that do not adequately track the progress of
individual cases or monitor the courts' compliance with statutory
time frames for achieving permanent placements. 

In response to these problems, some states have initiated court
reforms that they believe reduce the length of time children spend in
foster care and improve the quality of the decisions made by the
courts.  These reforms generally fall into two categories.  Reforms
of the first type, which are designed to improve the overall
operation and infrastructure of the courts, include convening
multidisciplinary advisory committees to resolve differences that
exist between the courts and the organizations involved in court
proceedings as well as developing juvenile dependency court
information systems.  The second type of reform is focused on
improving the quality of decision-making on individual cases.  These
reforms include holding mediation sessions in which all relevant
parties meet to resolve issues in dispute in a nonadversarial setting
outside the courtroom, as well as increasing the time allotted for
specific hearings.  Regardless of the nature of the reform, state and
local officials at the sites we visited identified three ingredients
that successful reform efforts have in common.  These essential
reform components are the presence of judicial leadership and
collaboration among court participants, the availability of timely
information on case processing performance, and the availability of
financial resources to initiate and sustain reforms.  As the impact
of the reforms is considered, one important caveat should be kept in
mind:  While states and localities believe they have made progress in
addressing problems, few results are documented.  To determine and
measure the effects of reform projects, and to institutionalize
successful initiatives, courts will need sound evaluation strategies. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

The child welfare system--composed mainly of state and local child
welfare agencies and juvenile dependency courts--is supported by a
complex mix of people and programs.  Approximately 1 million children
are the victims of abuse and neglect by their parents or caregivers
each year, and each participant in the system plays a role in
ensuring that maltreatment cases are resolved expeditiously while
taking into account the best interests of the child.\2 A natural
tension exists between the requirement to provide quality decisions
and the need to ensure the timeliness of those decisions.  While
courts must take time to preserve the integrity of their decisions by
examining all the facts, they must also consider the child's sense of
time and the serious emotional consequences that a child who waits
months or sometimes years for a permanent home can experience. 


--------------------
\2 The term "maltreatment" refers to child abuse and neglect.  Many
types of abuse (such as physical, sexual, or emotional) and neglect
(such as physical, educational, medical, or lack of supervision) can
occur. 


      COURTS PLAY AN EXPANDED AND
      CENTRAL ROLE IN THE CHILD
      WELFARE SYSTEM
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.1

The child welfare system involves many participants.  Child welfare
caseworkers receive and investigate reports of suspected maltreatment
and recommend and locate appropriate social services.  Private
service providers, such as mental health professionals, work with
these caseworkers to identify a family's difficulties and supply
needed help and services.  Juvenile dependency courts rely on
information from caseworkers, service providers, and others to reach
decisions on cases presented to the courts.  Court-appointed special
advocates (CASA), guardians ad litem, or both are often appointed by
the court to represent the child's best interests.\3 Some
attorneys--such as public defenders--provide legal representation for
indigent parents who are suspected of maltreating their children,
while others--such as state or county attorneys--provide legal
representation for child welfare agencies in presenting the facts and
recommendations of the cases.  Finally, the juvenile dependency court
judge distills the facts and information presented about a case and
decides whether a child should be placed in the foster care system,
how long the child will remain outside the home if removed, and where
the child will ultimately reside. 

In 1980, the Congress enacted the Adoption Assistance and Child
Welfare Act (P.L.  96-272).  The primary goals of the act were to
prevent the unnecessary separation of children from their families,
improve the quality of care and services for vulnerable children and
their families, and ensure that children did not languish in foster
care.  The act placed major new responsibilities on the courts to
oversee child welfare cases more rigorously than before and, as a
result, the number of hearings expanded dramatically.  Unlike other
cases, such as those dealing with criminal activities, child
maltreatment cases deal with ongoing and changing conditions.  As a
result, seven kinds of hearings may occur in child welfare cases: 
(1) preliminary protective hearing, (2) adjudication hearing, (3)
disposition hearing, (4) review hearing, (5) permanency planning
hearing, (6) termination of parental rights hearing, and (7) adoption
hearing (see table 1). 



                                Table 1
                
                  Hearings Held for Child Maltreatment
                                 Cases

Hearing type      Purpose
----------------  ----------------------------------------------------
Preliminary       To decide whether or not the child can be
protective        immediately and safely returned home while the trial
hearing           on the alleged maltreatment is pending. In most
                  states, this hearing is held within 1 to 3 working
                  days after a child is removed from the home.
                  Recommended time allocation: 60 minutes.

Adjudication      To determine if allegations of abuse or neglect are
hearing           sustained by the evidence presented and are legally
                  sufficient to support state intervention on behalf
                  of the child. The adjudication hearing should be
                  completed no later than 60 days after a child is
                  removed from the home. Recommended minimum time
                  allocation: 30 minutes.

Disposition       To decide who will have custody and control of the
hearing           child and to review the reasonable efforts made to
                  prevent removal of the child from the home. This
                  hearing should be completed within 30 days of the
                  adjudication hearing. Recommended minimum time
                  allocation: 30 minutes.

Review hearings   To periodically review case progress to ensure
                  children spend the least possible time in temporary
                  placement and to modify the family's case plan, as
                  necessary. Federal law requires these hearings to be
                  held at least every 6 months. Recommended time
                  allocation: 30 minutes.

Permanency        To decide the permanent placement of a child, such
planning hearing  as returning home or being placed for adoption.
                  Federal law enacted in 1997 now requires this
                  hearing to be held no later than 12 months from the
                  time a child is considered to have entered foster
                  care.\a Recommended time allocation: 60 minutes.

Termination of    To end the rights of the parents to visit,
parental rights   communicate with, and obtain information about the
hearing           child or to ever regain custody. This hearing should
                  be initiated whenever there is strong evidence that
                  a child will never be able to safely be placed with
                  his or her parents and that adoption is in the
                  child's best interests. Recommended minimum time
                  allocation: 60 minutes.

Adoption hearing  To build a new legal relationship between the child
                  and the individuals who are to become the child's
                  adoptive parents. Courts should make special efforts
                  to ensure adoptions are concluded without undue
                  delay once parental rights are terminated.
                  Recommended minimum time allocation: 30 minutes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 changed the definition
of when a child is considered to have entered foster care from that
of previous laws.  It considers a child to have entered care on the
earlier of (1) the date of the first judicial finding that the child
has been subjected to abuse or neglect or (2) 60 days after the date
on which the child is removed from the home. 

Source:  NCJFCJ, Resource Guidelines:  Improving Court Practice in
Child Abuse and Neglect Cases (Reno, Nev.:  NCJFCJ, 1995) and the
Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. 

The preliminary protective hearing, the first hearing in a juvenile
abuse or neglect case, occurs either immediately before or after a
child is removed from the home in an emergency.\4 The main purpose of
this hearing is to decide, on the basis of an assessment of risks and
dangers to the child, whether or not the child can be immediately and
safely returned home while the trial on the alleged maltreatment is
pending.\5 During this hearing, the court determines if the child
welfare agency made reasonable efforts to preserve the family.\6

During the adjudication hearing, the judge determines if allegations
of abuse or neglect are sustained by the evidence and, if so, are
legally sufficient to support state intervention on behalf of the
child.  If the allegations are sustained, the court proceeds to the
disposition hearing, where the reasonable efforts that were made to
prevent the child's removal from the home are again discussed and
decisions concerning who will have custody and control of the child
are made.  Review hearings are then held periodically in accordance
with federal and state laws to ensure that children spend as short a
time as possible in temporary placement and to modify the case plan
for family services as necessary.  The permanency planning hearing is
a special type of court proceeding designed to reach a decision
concerning the permanent placement of the child.  Possible permanent
placements include the child's return home and the child's adoption. 
Choosing adoption necessitates holding a termination of parental
rights hearing to end the rights of the parents to visit, communicate
with, and obtain information about the child or to ever regain
custody.  Finally, the adoption hearing builds a new legal
relationship between the child and the individuals who are to become
the child's adoptive parents. 


--------------------
\3 CASAs, usually volunteers, are trained to provide assistance to
the court and to oversee a child's case.  Guardians ad litem are
attorneys appointed to represent children in maltreatment
proceedings. 

\4 All states have laws that determine the allowable time frame
within which to hold the preliminary protective hearing.  In most
states, this hearing must occur within 1 to 3 judicial working days
after the child is removed from the home. 

\5 Although it is not conducted in many courts, a pretrial conference
may be held.  Pretrial conferences are designed to promote case
resolution by providing an informal forum for settlement
negotiations.  If the parties can agree that the child has been
maltreated, further time-consuming court proceedings become
unnecessary.  Case resolution agreements must be properly drafted to
create an adequate record for future court involvement. 

\6 P.L.  96-272 requires that "reasonable efforts" be made to prevent
or eliminate the need for removal of a child from the home and to
reunify the family if the child is removed.  The requirement is
designed to ensure that families are provided with services to
prevent their disruption and to respond to the problems of
unnecessary disruption of families and children remaining in foster
care for long periods of time.  The Adoption and Safe Families Act of
1997, however, provides that reasonable efforts are not required in
certain cases, such as when the court has determined that the parent
has subjected the child to aggravated circumstances or the parent has
murdered another of his or her children. 


      FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTINUES
      TO MONITOR AND ASSIST
      JUVENILE DEPENDENCY COURTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.2

In 1980, the same year the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act
was enacted, in part, to improve judicial consideration of child
maltreatment cases, NCJFCJ established the Permanency Planning
Project for Children--primarily with private funding--that provided
limited training and technical assistance to courts.  A separate
grant from the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation allowed NCJFCJ to
establish model jurisdictions in 14 states to improve the
implementation of reasonable efforts to reunite children with their
families.  The success of these privately funded initiatives helped
prompt the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to provide
funds to NCJFCJ in 1983 to expand these model court efforts to three
additional states.  In 1984, the Department of Justice (DOJ) provided
the first phase of funding to establish state permanency planning
task forces and to support interdisciplinary training and technical
assistance for improving juvenile court systems.  DOJ provided
additional funding between 1992 and 1997, for a total of $4.25
million.  Approximately $1.5 million was used to develop a document
to set forth the elements of a high-quality judicial process in child
maltreatment cases, including the essential elements of properly
conducted court hearings and the requirements of juvenile and family
courts in fulfilling the role given them by federal and state laws. 
The resulting Resource Guidelines:  Improving Court Practice in Child
Abuse and Neglect Cases was issued in 1995 and endorsed by the ABA
and the Conference of Chief Justices.  The remaining funds are being
used to support model court initiatives in 17 locations to improve
court practice in child maltreatment cases. 

Because of perceptions that problems were still present in juvenile
dependency courts, the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993 authorized
funds for CIP to be administered by HHS.  The act set aside $35
million--$5 million for fiscal year 1995 and $10 million for each of
fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998--in entitlement grants for state
courts to help them perform their role in making decisions about
families and children at risk.  The first year of CIP funds was to be
used to conduct assessments of state foster care and adoption laws
and judicial processes and to develop a plan for improvements. 
Funding in subsequent years was targeted for implementing
improvements according to the plan.  CIP funding was awarded to 48
states\7 and the District of Columbia; 42 states and the District of
Columbia have completed the required assessment, and 46 states and
the District of Columbia have begun implementing various reform
activities.  These reforms generally affect the quality and content
of hearings; legal representation of parties such as children and
parents; timeliness of decisions; notice to and participation of
parties in court proceedings; treatment of parties; quality and
professionalism of judges and other judicial officers; staffing of
courts in child protection cases; use of technology; training or
education of judges and court staff; and state legislation, court
rules, forms, or court-related policies. 


--------------------
\7 Idaho and Wyoming have not yet applied for CIP funds. 


      RECENT LEGISLATION HAS
      CREATED NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR
      THE COURTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.3

Just as the 1980 Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act sought to
improve the way child maltreatment cases were handled by increasing
judicial oversight, the Congress enacted the Adoption and Safe
Families Act (ASFA) in November 1997 in part as a response to the
fact that more children were entering the foster care system each
year than were exiting.  The act firmly established safety,
permanency, and child well-being as the national goals for children
in the child welfare system.  Many of the act's provisions exert new
pressure on the courts to move cases more quickly and affect how the
courts conduct child maltreatment proceedings.  For example, states
are now required to file a court petition to terminate parental
rights if the child has been in foster care for 15 of the most recent
22 months.  Although some exceptions to this provision exist, a
preliminary HHS estimate is that approximately 177,600, or 34
percent, of the children in foster care as of March 31, 1998, will
fall into this new category.  Some practitioners believe this
provision will increase the number of termination of parental rights
hearings that must be held as well as the overall court calendar time
needed, since these hearings can take several days to conduct. 
Further, the permanency planning hearing--previously held about 18
months after the child's original placement in foster care--must now
take place no later than 12 months after the child is considered to
have entered foster care.  In addition, ASFA reauthorized funding for
CIP for an additional 3 years, providing $10 million for each of
fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001. 


   JUVENILE DEPENDENCY COURTS FACE
   SERIOUS PROBLEMS THAT HAMPER
   EFFECTIVE DECISION-MAKING
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

Juvenile dependency courts are fraught with systemic problems that
affect their ability to make sound decisions in a timely manner
regarding where a child will ultimately reside.  We found two key
problems to varying degrees in all five states we visited:  (1) a
lack of cooperative working relationships between the courts and
other participants involved in the child welfare system, including
conflict over how courts and child welfare agencies resolve issues,
and (2) difficult personnel and data management issues, such as
inadequate numbers of judges and attorneys to handle large caseloads;
frequent turnover among judges and attorneys; inadequate training of
judges and attorneys in the area of child welfare; and a lack of
efficient, automated information systems for tracking case data. 
Together, these problems hinder the courts' ability to produce
decisions within time frames that meet both the needs of children as
well as the requirements of child welfare legislation. 


      COURTS AND AGENCIES LACK
      COOPERATIVE WORKING
      RELATIONSHIPS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

The courts and child welfare agencies each play key roles in the
child welfare system.  Despite this shared involvement in handling
child maltreatment cases, the courts and agencies often do not work
well together.  Experts we interviewed confirmed a lack of effective
working relationships among the courts and other participants in the
system, and local officials at all five sites we visited stated that
there was a lack of cooperation before reform efforts were instituted
and that it may still exist to some extent.  This lack of effective
working relationships is illustrated in a variety of ways. 

For example, the CIP assessment of Cook County, Illinois, found a
pervasive mistrust among officers of the court directed toward the
caseworkers assigned to addressing the needs of children and their
families.  Judicial officers\8

indicated that because children's cases may be managed by several
caseworkers in different agencies, the court is left with the sense
that only the court is considering the interests of the entire
family.  The assessment further reported that because judges do not
trust the judgments of caseworkers, they routinely order additional
clinical tests and assessments by experts and may require frequent
progress reports and case status hearings to ensure that caseworkers
are conducting their assigned tasks appropriately, thus lengthening
the court process for resolving cases. 

In addition, relationships among the participants can at times be
adversarial.  According to the Illinois CIP assessment, the many
attorneys involved in dependency cases may focus on winning those
cases rather than on obtaining services for the family.  The
attorneys, each representing a different party to the proceedings,
may have separate agendas.  For example, a district attorney in
California representing children in the juvenile dependency court
commented that her office may recommend a different course of action
for a child than the one proposed by the child welfare agency.  While
the social worker oversees the plan for the entire family, the
attorney approaches the case from the child's perspective only.  In
addition, CIP and court officials as well as an attorney for the
child welfare agency in Illinois pointed out that the courts and
child welfare agencies have frequently blamed each other for failures
of the child welfare system, such as child deaths.  The adversarial
nature of litigation can make the process of finding permanent homes
for abused and neglected children less efficient.  For example,
attorneys representing the child welfare agency and children in North
Carolina's District 20 told us that when key participants in the
system do not work together at the beginning of a case to develop
plans for solving the family's problems, the delivery of social
services can be delayed.  This delay, in turn, can lengthen the time
it takes to find a permanent home for a child or to return a child to
his or her biological parents. 


--------------------
\8 Judicial officers include judges as well as a variety of officials
who are appointed to hear cases and make decisions.  Magistrates,
commissioners, hearing officers, and referees are examples of these
other judicial officers.  Typically, the decisions made by these
other officials are reviewed by the judge who appointed them. 


      COURTS FACE DIFFICULT
      PERSONNEL AND DATA
      MANAGEMENT ISSUES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

A number of personnel and data management problems in the juvenile
dependency courts also hamper the process of finding permanent homes
for abused and neglected children.  First, the courts in many
jurisdictions do not have a sufficient number of judges and attorneys
to handle the large number of child maltreatment cases in an
expeditious manner.  Second, some juvenile dependency courts
experience frequent turnover of both judges and attorneys, which
reduces the level of expertise they bring to the dependency process. 
Third, the courts may not always ensure that judges and attorneys
have received training in the legal and nonlegal aspects of child
maltreatment before they begin working in the dependency field. 
Last, the courts do not have adequate automated information systems
in place to monitor their dependency caseloads. 


         PERSONNEL ISSUES
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2.1

Child welfare proceedings can be long and complex.  According to
experts in the juvenile dependency court process, to complete the
demanding work of the court, there must be enough judicial officers
and attorneys who possess sufficient expertise to ensure that
children are protected and placed in a permanent home in a timely
fashion.  Further, experts such as those at NCJFCJ also report that
judicial and attorney caseloads have risen at the same time that
court demands, such as the number of hearings and parties involved in
child maltreatment cases, have increased.  The problem of large
caseloads appeared in the CIP assessments of three of the states we
visited and was confirmed by local officials at four of the five
local sites we visited.  Although formal caseload size standards do
not exist, two juvenile court jurisdictions--Hamilton County, Ohio,
and Kent County, Michigan--are recognized by experts and cited by ABA
as successful courts with appropriate judicial caseloads.\9 \10
Hamilton County judicial officers each handled an average of 239
child protection cases in 1991, while Kent County judicial officers
each handled approximately 181 cases in 1993.  Court caseloads in
four of the five sites we visited, however, often exceed these
suggested levels.\11 For example, the presiding judge at one site we
visited handles approximately 1,000 cases per year.  As part of its
court improvement program, California studied judicial resources and
found that many counties needed additional judges to meet the ratios
in effect in Hamilton County, Ohio.  In Los Angeles County, for
example, about 53 additional judges were needed, while San Bernardino
County needed about 12 more judges. 

Similarly, local officials at the sites we visited reported excessive
attorney caseloads, and experts confirmed that caseloads for
attorneys in many jurisdictions are unreasonably large.  According to
the ABA, a caseload of 40 to 50 active cases for a full-time staff
attorney for a child welfare agency is reasonable.\12 By comparison,
attorneys in the Cook County, Illinois, Public Defender's Office have
an average of 650 juvenile dependency cases at any given time, while
the state's attorneys each have about 1,000 such cases on average. 
In Santa Clara County, California, the Deputy District Attorney,
whose office represents children, reported average attorney caseloads
of 600.  Similarly, a managing attorney for the child welfare agency
at that site reported that 13 attorneys handle 4,000 child
maltreatment cases at any given time.  California's CIP assessment
showed that large caseloads are also a problem in other locations in
the state.  Of attorneys in six counties responding to a survey as
part of the California CIP assessment, half had caseloads of more
than 150, 25 percent had 250 or more, and the 10 percent with the
largest caseloads had 600 or more. 

Experts in the juvenile dependency court process note that large
caseloads result in hearings that may not be substantive and may be
frequently delayed or continued,\13 ultimately contributing to the
courts' failure to meet statutory deadlines for moving children out
of the foster care system.  For example, although NCJFCJ's Resource
Guidelines suggest hearing times for the various hearings in the
dependency process, CIP assessments from California, Florida, and
Illinois confirmed that hearings often do not meet these minimum time
frames.  The guidelines indicate that preliminary protective hearings
should last about 1 hour, but Florida reported that 56 percent of its
preliminary protective hearings lasted only 4 minutes.  In Cook
County, Illinois, the average preliminary protective hearing lasted
about 16 minutes.  Similarly, CIP assessments in four states cite
continuances as problematic.  For instance, the Cook County,
Illinois, assessment indicates that the most observable manifestation
of delay in the court is the continuance.  Adjudication and
permanency hearings had the highest rates of continuances, at 54 and
51 percent, respectively.  Permanency hearings were continued an
average of 75 days, with a range of 8 to 203 days.  Similarly,
Florida's assessment noted that in the 882 court observations
conducted, all of the 169 requests for continuances were granted. 
Both Florida and Illinois link such continuances to the courts'
inability to meet statutory time frames for finding permanent homes
for children.  Florida's assessment noted that missed deadlines
between the preliminary protective hearing and termination of
parental rights translate, on average, to nearly an additional year
that a child spends in the dependency process.  Illinois' assessment
found that 90 percent of children who entered foster care from 1993
through 1994 were still in nonpermanent placements in 1996. 

Judicial and attorney turnover is another problem.  Turnover impairs
expertise in child welfare issues, according to experts such as those
at the National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) and the ABA.  For
example, the ABA testified before the Congress in 1997 that juvenile
dependency courts are confronted with frequent rotation of judges who
may or may not have expertise or an interest in child welfare law. 
Similarly, CIP officials in three of the five states we visited said
that judicial rotation is a problem.  For instance, a Florida CIP
official told us that some judges may be rotated out of juvenile
dependency court after only 6 months, with the result that many
dependency cases are heard by judges who are unfamiliar with
dependency law.  California CIP officials stated that judicial
officers change constantly--for example, interested and dedicated
judges may be rotated out after 1 year on the bench.  The frequent
rotation of judges can contribute to decisions that are not based on
a thorough knowledge of the individual child and family and can
result in unnecessary delays in reaching decisions about permanent
homes, according to experts in the dependency court process.  For
example, one expert noted that in some cases a series of judges makes
sequential decisions about the child--that is, one judge removes the
child from the home, another oversees efforts to reunify the family,
another handles permanency planning, and yet another terminates
parental rights.  These dependency court experts also commented that
a succession of judges unfamiliar with the family and the child
increases the potential that key facts about the case will be
overlooked. 

Juvenile dependency courts also experience high rates of attorney
turnover, according to experts in the dependency court process and
local officials in four of the five sites we visited.  In its review
of 25 state CIP assessments and in a related study on attorney
representation, NCJFCJ found that frequent rotation of prosecutors
and agency attorneys is a problem.\14 \15 California's CIP assessment
found rapid rotation of some county public defenders and noted that
parents should not have to adjust to two to four attorneys over the
life of a case.  Local attorneys in Illinois, North Carolina, and
Ohio confirmed that rapid turnover occurs among various attorneys in
the dependency arena.  Experts agree that the parties to child
maltreatment proceedings need consistent legal representation to
ensure that the information these attorneys supply to the judge is
complete and thorough.  According to one expert, children, in
particular, need a single representative to retain their history,
including the reasons they entered the child welfare system. 

Limited or underutilized child welfare-related training opportunities
further affect the level of skill and experience the participants
bring to the courtroom.  According to experts, such as officials at
HHS and NCJJ, and CIP assessment reports, some judges and attorneys
lack training specific to child welfare law, as well as to other
family-related topics, such as child development and the dynamics of
child maltreatment.  For example, HHS' CIP "Program Instruction," a
document that describes the program and its requirements, cites
insufficient training in child welfare issues for many participants
in the system as a common problem.  Additionally, the principal
finding of a national research project conducted by NCJFCJ was the
need for improved training in both the legal and nonlegal aspects of
dependency cases.\16 The CIP assessment of Cook County, Illinois,
noted that attorneys are poorly trained to handle the types of social
service issues inherent in child maltreatment cases.  The North
Carolina assessment noted that judges are not subject to any specific
training requirements other than possessing a law degree.  Similarly,
attorneys in Illinois, North Carolina, and Ohio; judges in Florida
and Ohio; and local child welfare officials in California and Ohio
stated that dependency court participants need further training.  For
example, a judge in Florida remarked that juvenile dependency court
judges must understand the dynamics of child maltreatment cases and
have a grasp of child psychology.  According to this official, many
judges have preconceived notions about child sexual abuse that are
changed after the judges take a class on the impact of child
maltreatment. 

Experts in the dependency court process agree that a lack of training
and experience in dependency law can also reduce the quality of
decisions in child maltreatment cases.  According to these experts,
this lack of training and experience inhibits judicial officers'
ability to gather enough facts about a case to make fully informed
decisions about the child and family.  Similarly, experts indicate
that hearing effectiveness is negatively affected if attorneys are
not adequately trained to handle the special demands of child
maltreatment cases and to expedite the cases. 


--------------------
\9 ABA, Judicial Implementation of Permanency Planning Reform:  One
Court That Works (Washington, D.C.:  ABA, 1992). 

\10 ABA, A Second Court That Works:  Judicial Implementation of
Permanency Planning Reforms (Washington, D.C.:  ABA, 1995). 

\11 Court caseloads in three of the five sites comprise only
dependency-related cases.  Court caseloads in the fourth site
comprise a mix of dependency, civil, and criminal cases because the
judges in this location hear cases in each of these categories. 

\12 Segal, E.C., Evaluating and Improving Child Welfare Agency Legal
Representation:  Self-Assessment Instrument and Commentary
(Washington, D.C.:  ABA National Legal Resource Center for Child
Advocacy and Protection, 1990). 

\13 When a continuance is granted by the judge, the case is
rescheduled for another day. 

\14 NCJFCJ, Technical Assistance Bulletin:  Summaries of Twenty-Five
State Court Improvement Assessment Reports (Reno, Nev.:  Permanency
Planning for Children Project, NCJFCJ, Mar.  1998). 

\15 NCJFCJ, Technical Assistance Bulletin:  Child Abuse and Neglect
Cases:  Representation as a Critical Component of Effective Practice
(Reno, Nev.:  Permanency Planning for Children Project, NCJFCJ, Mar. 
1998). 

\16 NCJFCJ, Child Abuse and Neglect Cases:  Representation as a
Critical Component of Effective Practice. 


         DATA MANAGEMENT ISSUES
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2.2

The lack of adequate automated information systems to effectively
manage child maltreatment case flow is a nationwide problem,
according to NCJFCJ.  Information about individual cases is critical
for diagnosing and responding to the problems of the children and
families that come before the court.  For example, courts need data
such as the name, age, and ethnicity of the child; the type of
alleged abuse or neglect; dates of scheduled court hearings; and
information on nondependency cases involving the same family,
including domestic violence, divorce, or criminal actions.  The
California CIP assessment reported that California lacks statewide
standards for information systems and that, although the courts
studied have information systems in place, none are well-designed for
tracking dependency cases, with the possible exception of the Los
Angeles system.  North Carolina's assessment indicated that most of
the information necessary to measure court performance is available,
but it is dispersed among the guardians ad litem, the Administrative
Office of the Courts, and the child welfare agency.  Furthermore,
many juvenile courts in North Carolina completely lack automated
systems.  Fewer than half of the juvenile court clerks in 40 North
Carolina counties surveyed reported using a computer for any purpose,
and none reported using any court management software or preparing
case management information reports for use at the district or county
level.  In addition, all 25 state CIP assessments reviewed by NCJFCJ
cited the need for improved data systems in juvenile dependency
courts.\17

The lack of effective information systems not only affects the
courts' ability to reach decisions about permanent homes for children
but may also lead to other serious consequences.  Experts in the
dependency court process indicate that without automated data systems
that track key events in the court process, courts may not be able to
reliably follow the progress of individual cases through the system
and, as a result, may miss statutory deadlines for making permanency
decisions.  Furthermore, dependency courts may be unable to track
civil or criminal cases in other courts within the jurisdiction or in
other jurisdictions or simply to share information between courts. 
For example, a juvenile dependency court judge in California related
an incident in which he gave custody of a child to one of the
parents.  However, because the different courts do not share case
information, this judge did not know the details of the parents'
divorce suit pending in another court.  As a consequence, the other
parent's attorney was able to change the terms of the custody
arrangement during divorce proceedings and essentially overturn the
juvenile dependency court decision.  A new juvenile court hearing
became necessary to resolve the conflicting decisions.  More serious
consequences are also possible.  According to a report on information
management in the Cook County, Illinois, juvenile court,\18 the
presence of an automated information system that maintained critical
case information in a usable format might have made a significant
difference in a prominent case involving the death of a child.  The
report said that, in this case, important information was amassed
only in hard copy, and caseload demands prevented the judge and
attorneys from becoming familiar with essential facts.  The judge who
last heard the case had no prior experience with the family and
relied on the assurances of others regarding necessary actions. 
While many factors contributed to the child's death, an independent
committee identified a collective failure to provide the court with
crucial information as a major systemic failing and concluded that
information must be more timely and better disseminated. 


--------------------
\17 NCJFCJ, Summaries of Twenty-Five State Court Improvement
Assessment Reports, p.  17. 

\18 Children and Family Justice Center, Northwestern University
School of Law, Information Management in the Juvenile Court of Cook
County (Chicago, Ill.:  Northwestern University School of Law, Jan. 
1995), p.  2. 


   STATE AND LOCAL REFORMS SEEK TO
   IMPROVE QUALITY AND TIMELINESS
   OF DECISIONS, BUT EVALUATION IS
   NEEDED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

States we visited have implemented a variety of reforms to address
some of the problems that have hindered the courts' ability to
quickly resolve dependency cases.  These reforms can be divided into
two categories:  those that seek to improve the overall operation and
infrastructure of the courts, such as convening multidisciplinary
advisory committees and developing automated information systems, and
those that target improving decision-making in individual cases,
primarily by using information-gathering and dispute-resolution
techniques in addition to formal court hearings.  Regardless of the
methods chosen to change the way juvenile dependency courts handle
child maltreatment cases, state and local officials identified three
components essential to instituting and sustaining reforms over time. 
Although some progress in reducing caseloads and shortening case
processing times has been noted since reform efforts began, most
locations are just beginning to evaluate and document results.  As a
result, states and localities currently do not know which
interventions have improved their courts and which have not. 


      MANY REFORMS SEEK TO IMPROVE
      WORKING RELATIONSHIPS AND
      THE AVAILABILITY OF COURT
      PROCESS INFORMATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

To improve cooperation between the courts and agencies, states and
localities we visited convened multidisciplinary advisory committees
to (1) work on resolving turf battles, (2) dispel the mistrust among
system participants, and (3) develop and implement other reforms.  At
the state level, all five states convened multidisciplinary CIP
advisory committees, typically including representatives from key
participant groups, such as child welfare agencies, CASAs, the state
bar, judges, state attorneys, and other advocates.  The advisory
committees planned and oversaw the CIP assessment process, analyzed
the results, and jointly developed an action plan to implement
reforms.  According to CIP officials, the value and benefits derived
from these committees far exceed expectations, given the small size
of the CIP state grants.  CIP officials at all sites credited the
program with providing the impetus to assemble a statewide group of
key individuals to consider court reform, adding that the committees
represented the first time system participants were talking and
working together statewide.  According to these officials, this
unifying force has proven invaluable in initiating and
institutionalizing reforms. 

Similarly, the Cook County, Illinois, juvenile court convened local
advisory committees to work on local issues.  One such committee, the
Table of Five, which consists of the presiding judge and the heads of
the child welfare agency and the Offices of the Public Guardian,
State's Attorney, and Public Defender, meets to discuss systemic
problems and the pressing issues surrounding the dependency court. 
In addition, Table of Five members work to resolve turf battles, to
dispel fear and mistrust, and to model the right behavior for their
employees.  Cook County's Child Protection Advisory Group, composed
of 32 individuals representing all offices of the court, the child
welfare agency, private social service agencies, legal service
providers, advocacy groups, and universities, is charged with
advising the presiding judge on all matters relating to improving the
court's Child Protection Division.  The Group is divided into
subcommittees that focus on various issues, such as alternatives to
court intervention, making decisions in the best interests of the
child, and terminating parental rights. 

Multidisciplinary conferences and training sessions are used in all
five states we visited to impart information to juvenile dependency
court participants on child welfare concepts and court priorities and
goals, to build relationships, and to cross-train to learn each
others' roles in the child welfare system.  According to CIP and
court staff in these states, understanding each others' roles and
identifying common goals have helped reduce the adversarial
environment of the court.  California's CIP convened a December 1997
Beyond the Bench Conference, for example, to enhance collaboration
among all participants and to cover court improvement-related topics,
such as collaborative ways to improve child protection, establishing
dependency mediation programs, ensuring quality in court-appointed
attorney representation, and addressing child sexual abuse.  The
conference also served as the kick-off activity for CIP, whose staff
encouraged each county's participants to brainstorm as a team on
needed court improvements.  North Carolina's District 20--the state's
CIP pilot site comprising four rural counties--initiated CIP with a
joint meeting of key child welfare system participants, such as
county social service directors, mental health directors, and
guardian ad litem administrators.  Monthly training sessions allow
court participants to take part in making reform decisions.  The four
counties host the sessions on a rotating basis, with some sessions
being county-oriented, some district-oriented, and some oriented by
job discipline.  According to CIP staff, training across disciplines
helps each participant learn about the roles and responsibilities of
others as well as builds camaraderie among and a higher degree of
professionalism in all court participants. 

For courts to meet statutory time frames and to understand the
dynamics and needs of the clients they serve, information is
critical.  To improve this key element of court infrastructure, three
of the five locations we visited--California, Illinois, and North
Carolina--are developing information systems statewide or in specific
counties.  A fourth location--Hamilton County, Ohio--developed its
current juvenile court information system beginning in 1992 and
continues to enhance its capability.  Although the county's Juvenile
Case Activity Tracking System is not linked to the child welfare
agency's computer system, the court downloads information to the
agency as needed.  The systems in the sites we visited are used, or
will be used, to gather and track case data, evaluate trends, manage
workload, and share information.  For example, California's CIP is
providing computers to all jurisdictions and has created an Internet
Web page for information sharing and networking among the various
counties.  The Web site will contain a variety of items, such as case
summaries--since some courts do not have law libraries--and judicial
opinions.  Cook County, Illinois, is developing a comprehensive
computer system for the county's entire juvenile court, known as the
Juvenile Enterprise Management System (JEMS).  JEMS electronically
links the court and its agencies (such as the public guardian, public
defender, sheriff, and state's attorney) to gather case data and
manage workload.  North Carolina's CIP is developing a case
management system using laptop computers and case tracking software
developed by the guardian ad litem program. 


      OTHER REFORMS ARE FOCUSED ON
      IMPROVING INDIVIDUAL CASE
      DECISION-MAKING
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

Other reforms under way in the states we visited focus on making
decisions in an individual child's case, intervening at key points in
the process to gather and share comprehensive information among court
participants, and resolving issues outside the courtroom.  State and
local officials believe additional time invested at the beginning of
a case can shorten the length of time it takes to make a permanent
placement decision.  For example, Day One Conferences in North
Carolina's District 20 are held on the first business day after a
child is taken into custody by the child welfare agency.  In
attendance are the parents, child welfare caseworkers, guardians ad
litem, public and mental health liaisons, attorneys, public education
liaisons, child support liaisons, law enforcement officers, and the
court improvement case manager.  These meetings provide a forum to
arrange services for the family immediately, on the basis of the
belief that the more quickly the family receives services, the more
likely the family will be able to stay together or be reunified.  The
meetings also provide an opportunity to reach agreement on many
aspects of the case outside the courtroom and can reduce the number
of times a case is continued.  The Day One group discusses the need
for continued out-of-home placement, case planning and services
provided to the family before removal of the child from the home, and
future service needs.  Should a decision be made for the child to
remain in out-of-home care, paternity, parental visitation, and
financial support are also discussed.  Cook County, Illinois, has
initiated Court Family Conferences, similar to Day One Conferences,
to provide an opportunity for parents to participate in the process
to expedite their children's return home.  These conferences are held
approximately 55 days after the preliminary protective hearing to
discuss issues in the case and, if possible, set a realistic target
date for a successful return home.  Attempts are made to reach
agreement on key issues, such as the facts that led to removal of the
children, the tasks the parents must complete in order to have their
children returned, and the date by which social services will be
provided. 

Mediation--seen as a way to handle escalating court caseloads and
possibly decrease court hearings--is used at a variety of different
points in the court process in two of the five local sites we
visited.  Mediation involves the intervention of a neutral third
party who has no authoritative decision-making power.  The mediator
helps the parties--such as the parents and other relatives, assigned
social workers, and child advocates--come to agreement on issues in
dispute in a nonadversarial setting.  Mediations allow all parties to
be active in the decision-making process and to develop a plan in the
best interests of the child, thus reducing the number of issues the
court must decide. 

The Ninth Judicial Circuit in Florida, for example, uses mediation
for the more difficult cases and a companion initiative--case plan
conferences--for the remaining ones.  Case plan conferences follow
the mediation protocol but are not facilitated by a trained mediator. 
One goal of these initiatives is to have parents acknowledge the
problems that brought them into the system.  According to circuit
officials, each method allows the parties to reach resolution faster
and enhances the quality of trials because every issue in the case
does not need to be discussed in court.  Further, the number of
trials has decreased as more cases have been fully resolved in
mediation.  Circuit officials believe the juvenile dependency court
system has become less adversarial and that the focus has shifted
away from winning or losing a case.  Mediations and case plan
conferences, however, place additional resource demands on the system
because the mediation or conference must take place between the
preliminary protective hearing and when the abuse and neglect
petition is officially filed--generally a 3-week period in the Ninth
Circuit.  Similarly, Santa Clara County, California, began using
mediation in 1992 after the state legislature encouraged its use as a
way to intervene in cases in a more constructive manner.  Mediation
may be used at any stage in the court proceedings.  After all areas
of agreement are presented to the court, the court determines the
acceptability of any agreements reached. 

Another reform--the one-judge model of case management--is used in
four of the five local sites we visited--Hamilton County, Ohio; Santa
Clara County, California; the Ninth Judicial Circuit in Florida; and
District 20 in North Carolina.  This staffing process requires the
judicial officer presiding over the preliminary protective hearing to
also conduct all subsequent hearings until the child is returned home
or a decision has been reached about where the child will permanently
reside, generally no later than 12 months after the child is
considered to have entered foster care, as required by federal law. 
The one-judge model can enhance case management and guarantees that
one person has all the information regarding the child.  According to
NCJFCJ's Resource Guidelines, a judge who remains involved with a
family is more likely to make decisions that are consistent with the
best interests of the child. 

Finally, two of the five local sites we visited have increased the
length of the preliminary protective hearing.  NCJFCJ's Resource
Guidelines recommend that courts allocate 1 hour for these
hearings--which are generally held immediately after a child's
removal from the home--to allow adequate time to conduct a thorough
assessment of the case.  Cook County, Illinois, created an adjunct to
its preliminary hearing, known as the extended temporary custody
hearing, resulting in an increase in the average time spent from
about 7 minutes to about 45 minutes.  The extended temporary custody
hearings are conducted off-the-record and cover topics such as
visitation plans, placement options, and the initial service needs of
the family, as well as reasonable efforts made by the child welfare
agency and a court review of the necessity of removing the child from
home.  At the conclusion of the hearing, information is summarized
and presented to the court at the official preliminary protective
hearing.  The Hamilton County, Ohio, juvenile court generally
schedules an initial hearing for 1 hour on the same day the petition
has been filed to initiate the court process.  The purpose of the
extended hearing is to get the case moving quickly and to review the
child welfare agency's initial handling of the case before the
preliminary protective hearing.  Counsel for parents and a guardian
ad litem for the child are appointed, and the court makes an in-depth
inquiry regarding the child's current placement, early parental
visitation, and the availability of relatives to care for the child. 


      KEY INGREDIENTS ARE
      NECESSARY FOR SUCCESSFUL
      REFORM
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

The experiences of the states and localities that have begun efforts
to reform their juvenile dependency court systems provide valuable
lessons to other jurisdictions contemplating similar reform efforts. 
During our field work, state and local officials that have undertaken
reforms identified three ingredients that are key to successful
reform efforts:  (1) the presence of judicial leadership and
collaboration among child welfare system participants, (2) the
availability of timely information on how the court is currently
operating and processing cases, and (3) the availability of financial
resources to initiate and sustain reform. 


         JUDICIAL LEADERSHIP AND
         COLLABORATION ARE
         CRITICAL
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3.1

Experts as well as state and local officials in all five locations we
visited agree that reforms cannot occur without strong judicial
leadership.  These experts and officials believe that judges set the
tone for how reform will occur; have the authority to institute new
court rules, policies, and practices; and are key to bringing all
child welfare system participants on board.  For example, in 1995 the
ABA reported on reforms undertaken in the Kent County, Michigan,
juvenile dependency court.\19 The ABA found that a key element of
that court's ability to perform the additional functions designed to
help achieve permanent and safe homes for maltreated children was a
strong commitment from the presiding judge, other judges, and almost
all court staff to meet the individual needs of children and to
achieve safe permanent placements for maltreated children.  According
to the NCJFCJ, judges in juvenile dependency courts need to feel
comfortable taking a leadership role beyond their traditional role. 
The juvenile court judge is expected to actively develop resources
and services for at-risk children and families and to encourage
interagency cooperation and coordination. 

Similarly, the juvenile court system is unique in its reliance on the
work of a variety of nonlegal professionals--such as caseworkers,
private agency social workers, and physicians--to make the most
informed decisions possible about an individual child.  Collaboration
of these participants is necessary to get reforms under way and keep
reforms moving.  This collaboration is critical because these
individuals share responsibility with the judiciary for providing
care, representation, and protection for children removed from their
homes.  Two ABA reports document the importance of interdisciplinary
collaboration.  In 1993, the ABA's Center on Children and the Law
concluded in a book for child welfare administrators that the biggest
mistake made by child welfare agencies is underestimating their
ability to solve problems together with the court.\20 According to
the Center, agencies should develop well-reasoned strategies for
working with the juvenile courts and give it top priority. 
Similarly, the ABA's 1995 report on the model juvenile court in Kent
County, Michigan, found that the court's interdisciplinary efforts to
resolve individual cases as well as systemic problems was a key
element in its successful reform.\21

HHS and state and local officials in all five states we visited
emphasize using a team approach for identifying and implementing
reforms, drawing in all relevant groups within the system.  For
example, in its CIP "Program Instruction," HHS strongly encouraged
state courts to coordinate and collaborate with other interested
parties, programs, and resources, such as state child welfare
agencies, guardians ad litem, and attorneys, in administering the CIP
and designing new systems.  Similarly, Florida CIP officials
commented that the strength of the CIP program is its
multidisciplinary focus.  The Florida CIP assessment represented the
first time all court participants had been asked their opinion about
the condition of child welfare and the courts.  The high level of
animosity between the court and the child welfare agency has
diminished, and dialogue between court participants has increased. 
Officials added that new child welfare legislation could not have
been passed without the teamwork of the court and the child welfare
agency. 

Without the leadership of judges, reform efforts can fail.  We found
evidence of this type of failure in North Carolina, where reforms
were originally scheduled for piloting in two judicial districts. 
Although reforms were implemented in District 20, the second district
dropped out of the pilot project primarily because of a lack of
judicial commitment and vision, according to a CIP document.  The
document outlines the problems encountered and states that although
this district had other positive attributes that increased its
chances of implementing successful reforms--such as cooperative
working relationships between the court and the child welfare
agency--the lack of complete support and commitment from the juvenile
court judges impeded the district's ability to identify common goals
and priorities for change.  This lack of support was manifested in
several ways, including the court system's tolerance for attorney
tardiness at mediation sessions, disagreements among judges on how
mediation results would be presented in court, and a lack of judges'
involvement in CIP committee meetings and training. 


--------------------
\19 ABA, A Second Court That Works. 

\20 ABA, Center on Children and the Law, How to Work With Your Court: 
A Guide for Child Welfare Agency Administrators (Washington, D.C.: 
ABA, 1993). 

\21 ABA, A Second Court That Works. 


         BASELINE AND ONGOING
         INFORMATION ON COURT
         OPERATIONS IS NECESSARY
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3.2

State and local officials in some of the states we visited indicated
that statewide baseline data on how well their courts were meeting
statutory permanency time frames and on the nature of delays in the
court process provided the necessary information to structure reform
efforts and to convince others of the need for change.  For example,
Florida presented the results of its CIP assessment at a statewide
summit to show participants their role in delaying case resolution. 
As a result, judicial officers came to understand the nature of
problems in the juvenile court and how the officers contribute to
delays in reaching decisions about permanent homes for children. 
According to a CIP official, never before has Florida experienced
such judicial activism or court participants seeking change on the
basis of data and analysis.  Similarly, Illinois officials indicated
that the results of the statewide data collection for the CIP
assessment provided the proof of what everyone suspected was wrong
with the system, gave validity to the need for reform, and helped
identify the types of reform needed.  Judicial officers in California
said the CIP assessment was potentially the most powerful document
involved in getting court improvement moving. 

Effectively managing abuse and neglect cases over time is essential
for successful permanency planning.  According to NCJFCJ, a key
component of case management is the use of a monitoring and
information system capable of measuring court progress in moving
cases and identifying cases that have been seriously delayed, among
other things.  Similarly, ABA's 1992 report on the Hamilton County,
Ohio, court stated that a key to this court's successful reforms was
its routine collection and use of data.\22 California CIP officials
told us that data are critically needed because the state does not
know how many children are under the jurisdiction of the court. 
These officials are requiring all local CIP projects to provide data
because they believe such data are critical for making good decisions
and policies for children. 


--------------------
\22 ABA, Judicial Implementation of Permanency Planning Reform. 


         FINANCIAL RESOURCES ARE
         ESSENTIAL TO SEED AND
         SUSTAIN REFORM EFFORTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3.3

HHS and DOJ have provided and administered funds for a variety of
reforms, such as development of model courts, the Resource
Guidelines, and CIPs.  These funding streams are significant because
experts and state and local officials agree that juvenile dependency
courts have few resources to independently undertake reform
activities.  In 1995, ABA reported that child maltreatment cases
still have low priority in most court systems, in terms of attention
by court administrators, assignment of qualified judges, and
allocation of resources.\23

Some state and local officials echoed this concern, adding that
programs such as CIP were critical to the reform work now occurring. 
According to these officials and other experts, CIP provided funding
to help the courts improve the handling of maltreatment cases,
enabling and mandating each state to gather the necessary baseline
information and orchestrate reforms.  For example, a Cook County,
Illinois, official told us the court had previously tried to gather
baseline information about the permanency process to no avail--the
project was difficult because funding was not available from federal,
state, or local sources.  Similarly, Florida CIP officials and court
staff told us that, as a result of CIP's initiation and funding,
juvenile dependency courts are in the spotlight for the first time,
and judges are more interested than they were previously in
implementing court improvements.  These officials added that the
Florida assessment would not have been possible without CIP funding
and that no other entity would have funded other critical activities,
such as the establishment of working groups to develop major
revisions to the state's child protection statute. 


--------------------
\23 ABA, A Second Court That Works, 1995. 


      LOCAL OFFICIALS NOTE
      PROGRESS, BUT FEW RESULTS
      ARE DOCUMENTED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.4

Most sites we visited are just beginning the process of evaluating
and documenting the effectiveness of implemented reforms, although
progress has been made in addressing some of the problems that plague
juvenile dependency courts.  For example, Cook County, Illinois, has
seen its court caseload drop from 58,000 in 1994 to 38,000 in 1997,
and Hamilton County, Ohio's, caseload dropped from 4,000 in 1979 to
1,500 in 1995.  Cook County and Hamilton County officials view the
drop in caseload as an improvement in their dependency court process. 
In addition to smaller court caseloads, local officials told us
anecdotally that other improvements are occurring, such as (1) fewer
court continuances are requested, granted, or both; fewer cases are
contested; and cases seem to be resolved more quickly; (2) judges are
more active in cases, and court participants are working toward
developing a less adversarial environment; and (3) services for the
family begin earlier, and better information on the family's progress
may be available for court decision-making on cases. 

These improvements, however, have not been formally evaluated. 
Although determining the right measures for evaluation can be
difficult, without this kind of information, officials are unable to
determine which interventions have improved their courts and which
have not.  Evaluation plans in the states we visited are limited. 
For instance, the CIP Advisory Committees in all five states are in
the early stages of developing evaluation plans.  Illinois CIP
officials have required all projects funded with CIP dollars to
provide regular status reports and conduct an evaluation of the
project.  Projects previously funded are currently working on
developing evaluations, and projects funded in 1998 must provide a
reporting and evaluation plan to the CIP Committee before receiving
the money.  In addition, all projects must provide baseline data so
that change can be measured.  Illinois officials acknowledge that
evaluation will be difficult, since several changes may be undertaken
in one location and it will be hard to separate out results.  In
addition, good statistical data are usually lacking in the counties,
which impedes baseline development.  Similarly, a Florida CIP
official told us that the state plans to evaluate court improvements
statewide using a self-evaluation tool sent to the local circuits. 
Unfortunately, judicial circuits are not required under CIP to
maintain statistics, and therefore some do not. 


   CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

The juvenile dependency courts face numerous systemic problems that
hinder their ability to oversee, monitor, and guide decision-making
to protect children and ensure that they are placed in an
appropriate, permanent home.  To address these problems, states and
localities have initiated reforms aimed at improving the quality and
timeliness of judicial decisions, in order to minimize the amount of
time children spend in the foster care system.  However, if the
courts are to move forward in addressing children's long stays in the
foster care system, they must remain cognizant of the essential
reform components--such as strong judicial leadership--that we found
are common to successful reform efforts.  Adding to the demands of
reforming dependency courts, new federal legislation poses challenges
for courts in their attempts to change the way they monitor and
process child maltreatment cases.  ASFA requires states and
localities to file a court petition to terminate the parental rights
of the child's parents if the child has been in foster care for 15 of
the most recent 22 months, as well as to hold the permanency planning
hearing no later than 12 months after the child is considered to have
entered foster care.  These provisions exert new pressure on the
courts to move cases more quickly and affect how the courts conduct
child maltreatment proceedings.  States and localities not actively
engaged in reform will need to recognize the importance of
identifying and implementing new ways to more quickly move children
through the dependency court process and meet the requirements of
this legislation.  States and localities already implementing changes
will need to anticipate the consequences of their reform efforts and
restructure them, if necessary, so additional problems are not
created.  For example, as the amount of time it takes to establish
plans for where children will permanently live diminishes, states and
localities may see increases in the number of children for whom
parental rights have been severed and for whom they will need to
identify potential placements. 


   AGENCY AND OTHER COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

We obtained comments on a draft of this report from HHS, state CIP
officials, and local judges responsible for the juvenile dependency
courts in the five locations we visited.  HHS commented that it has
actively worked with the states to address court reform issues since
the inception of CIP and outlined a variety of activities the
Department has undertaken.  HHS also provided technical comments,
which we incorporated where appropriate.  State CIP and local
officials from the five juvenile dependency courts generally agreed
with the report's findings and provided technical clarifications
about the reforms under way, which we also incorporated in the report
as appropriate. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, state CIP liaisons, state child welfare agencies, and
other interested parties.  Copies will also be made available to
others on request.  If you or your staff have any questions about
this report, please call me at (202) 512-7215.  Other major
contributors to this report are listed in appendix II. 

Sincerely yours,

Mark V.  Nadel
Associate Director
Income Security Issues


SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I

To determine what problems the juvenile dependency courts face, we
reviewed the relevant literature and interviewed experts in the
dependency court process, such as officials at national court-related
organizations and researchers.  We obtained the perspectives of
representatives of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court
Judges (NCJFCJ), American Bar Association (ABA), National Center for
Juvenile Justice, National Center for State Courts, National
Court-Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) Association, National
Association of State Foster Care Managers, Annie E.  Casey
Foundation, and Kellogg Foundation.  In addition, we interviewed
officials of the Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, and the Department of Health and Human
Services, Children's Bureau.  Finally, for the states we visited, we
reviewed assessments of foster care and adoption laws and judicial
processes in child maltreatment proceedings.  These assessments were
required under the Court Improvement Program (CIP). 

To obtain first-hand information on dependency court activities, we
conducted field visits in California, Florida, Illinois, North
Carolina, and Ohio, where we reviewed reforms funded by CIP as well
as by other programs.  We chose these five locations--Santa Clara
County, California; the Ninth Judicial Circuit in Florida, composed
of Orange and Osceola counties; Cook County, Illinois; Judicial
District 20 in North Carolina, composed of Anson, Richmond, Stanly,
and Union counties; and Hamilton County, Ohio--because experts
considered them to be implementing significant reforms or because CIP
had been a major impetus for change there.  We also chose a mix of
rural, suburban, and urban locations.  Florida and North Carolina
were chosen because CIP had been the catalyst for change in those
states.  Florida's Ninth Judicial Circuit was chosen because its CIP
pilot project had implemented several reforms, including several of
the provisions proposed under the Adoption and Safe Families Act but
not yet enacted by the Congress when Florida's pilot began in August
1997.  North Carolina, a predominantly rural state, had established a
CIP pilot project in Judicial District 20.  We also selected three
states--California, Illinois, and Ohio--that had reforms under way
before CIP.  California was chosen because it contained approximately
23 percent of the nation's foster care population in fiscal year
1996, and Santa Clara County, because of its history of reform since
the early 1980s.  The presiding judge in Santa Clara County is also
seen as a leading expert in reforming child maltreatment proceedings,
according to the ABA and NCJFCJ.  Illinois was also chosen because of
its high share of the nation's foster care population--about 9
percent in fiscal year 1996--and Cook County, because of its urban
character, known problems in the courts, and status as an NCJFCJ
model court.  Finally, Hamilton County, Ohio, was selected because it
has been actively reforming its juvenile dependency courts since the
mid-1980s and is considered a model for other courts seeking to
reform. 

In each state, we met with state CIP officials to obtain an overview
of ongoing and planned court improvement efforts throughout the
state, as well as with state child welfare officials to discuss their
involvement in court reform.  We also obtained state officials' views
of problems in their courts and challenges that lie ahead.  At the
local sites we selected, we met with a variety of participants in the
child welfare system, including judicial officers, attorneys,
guardians ad litem, CASA representatives, court administrative staff,
child welfare officials, and service providers.  We discussed
problems and barriers to reforms, progress achieved under the reforms
in place, and remaining obstacles.  Finally, we observed court child
maltreatment proceedings in each site. 


GAO CONTACTS AND STAFF
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
========================================================== Appendix II

GAO CONTACTS

David D.  Bellis, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7278
Diana M.  Pietrowiak, Evaluator-in-Charge, (202) 512-6239

STAFF ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Ellen Soltow also made important contributions to this report. 

RELATED GAO PRODUCTS

Child Welfare:  Early Experiences Implementing a Managed Care
Approach (GAO/HEHS-99-8, Oct.  21, 1998). 

Foster Care:  Agencies Face Challenges Securing Stable Homes for
Children of Substance Abusers (GAO/HEHS-98-182, Sept.  30, 1998). 

Foster Care:  Challenges Faced in Implementing the Multiethnic
Placement Act (GAO/T-HEHS-98-241, Sept.  15, 1998). 

Foster Care:  Implementation of the Multiethnic Placement Act Poses
Difficult Challenges (GAO/HEHS-98-204, Sept.  14, 1998). 

Parental Substance Abuse:  Implications for Children, the Child
Welfare System, and Foster Care Outcomes (GAO/T-HEHS-98-40, Oct.  28,
1997). 

Child Protective Services:  Complex Challenges Require New Strategies
(GAO/HEHS-97-115, July 21, 1997). 

Foster Care:  State Efforts to Improve the Permanency Planning
Process Show Some Promise (GAO/HEHS-97-73, May 7, 1997). 

Child Welfare:  States' Progress in Implementing Family Preservation
and Support Activities (GAO/HEHS-97-34, Feb.  18, 1997). 

Child Welfare:  Complex Needs Strain Capacity to Provide Services
(GAO/HEHS-95-208, Sept.  26, 1995). 

Child Welfare:  Opportunities to Further Enhance Family Preservation
and Support Activities (GAO/HEHS-95-112, June 15, 1995). 

Foster Care:  Health Needs of Many Young Children Unknown and Unmet
(GAO/HEHS-95-114, May 26, 1995). 

Foster Care:  Parental Drug Use Has Alarming Impact on Young Children
(GAO/HEHS-94-89, Apr.  4, 1994). 

Residential Care:  Some High-Risk Youth Benefit, but More Study
Needed (GAO/HEHS-94-56, Jan.  28, 1994). 


*** End of document. ***