©
2000 Jordan Institute
for Families
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dc461/dc4617b645c06ff3f1e1a4753d15624421674ca9" alt=""
Vol. 5,
No. 3
August
2000
The North Carolina Court Improvement Project
What Some Courts Are Doing to Achieve Timely Permanance for Foster
Children
Things sometimes happen in court that keep children in foster care longer
than they need to be. Lawyers don't show. Parents appear, only to ask
for a court-appointed attorney. The court is asked, after a child has
been in foster care for 18 months, "What about the father?"
Parents who have been absent or disinterested suddenly appear in the "eleventh
hour," saying they want their children back. These things can result
in continuances.
These kinds of delays help
explain why, in 1992-93, the median length of stay in foster care in North
Carolina was 18.4 months (544 days). Because of the way child welfare
was practiced in departments of social services (DSS's) and processed
by the courts, some kids were literally growing up in foster care.
A Climate of Reform
Since that time, many North
Carolina DSS's have worked very hard to turn this situation around. Through
their involvement in initiatives such as Families for Kids and
Challenge for Children, DSS's have made significant changes in
the way they do business, both internally and in their interactions with
other parts of the child welfare system.
Judges, attorneys, and others
in the court system also recognized what was happening to foster children.
Concerned about the negative affect judicial procedures had on childrenup
to one-third of the waiting time for child welfare cases is spent on procedurethe
federal government launched an initiative. Adopted in North Carolina as
the Court Improvement Project (CIP), this initiative focused on tightening
up administrative judicial procedures to reduce the length of foster care
stays.
The North Carolina Court
Improvement Project
The CIP was adopted by five
of North Carolina's 39 district courts. District 20 (Anson, Richmond,
Stanly and Union Counties) and District 25 (Burke, Caldwell Catawba),
are currently involved in four-year (1997_2001) pilot projects called
"Model Court Rules and Case Management." These projects have
been implemented in order to determine the effectiveness of using model
court judges and judge-supervised case managers as a way of increasing
greater permanence for children and families.
Mini-grant projects on "Case Management,
Court Rules and Training" are also currently being implemented in
Districts 8 (Greene, Lenoir and Wayne Counties), 16B (Robeson County),
and 19C (Rowan County). These district courts have received funding for
two years to identify problems, system weaknesses, and other barriers
to achieving permanence for children. Advisory committees and multidisciplinary
training are incorporated into the projects. By the end of the project
each jurisdiction is expected to:
- Have judges assigned to cases so that any
time a family appears in court their case is heard by the same judge
(referred to as "one judge, one family")
- Hold conferences the day after a petition
is filed ("day one conferences") and having early substantive
hearings
- Conduct pre-adjudication and pre-hearing
conferences
- Conduct earlier diligent searches, giving
orders to parents at time of hearing
- Appoint a lawyer for parents when the petition
is filed
The 20th Judicial District
Under the leadership of chief
district court judge, Ronald W. Burris, the court that serves Anson, Richmond,
Stanly, and Union Counties (20th Judicial District) has made many procedural
changes as part of its involvement in the CIP.
One step Burris took to reduce
the continuances that lead to longer foster care stays was to make juvenile
court a court of priority in his district. Prior to this,
if a lawyer representing a parent wished, she could tell the court she
could not attend a court date and the case would be continued. Now that
juvenile court is the court of priority, lawyers in the 20th judicial
district who fail to show up to represent their clients could be charged
with contempt of court (Hall, 2000).
To further reduce continuances,
parents in the 20th judicial district no longer need to request a court-appointed
attorney. "Since the majority are entitled to an attorney, we automatically
assign them one the day the case is filed," explains Martha Sue Hall,
an administrator for the CIP in the 20th judicial district (Hall, 2000).
The number of continuances has also been reduced by specific administrative
changes. For example, before anyone leaves the courtroom, the date of
the next hearing is set, as are timeframes for summaries. All parties
who must be present at the next hearing are served notice at this time;
this takes the burden of delivering these notices off the sheriff's department.
In an effort to encourage collaboration
and to ensure that all concerned parties get the information relevant
to a case, Burris also made day one conferences mandatory. Occuring
the day after a petition is filed and every time a nonsecure petition
is filed, day one conferences bring a wide range of people to the table.
In addition to the usual parties (attorneys, DSS, parents) these meetings
are sometimes attended by representatives from the schools, GAL, public
health, mental health, law enforcement, and many others.
Every conference occurs at
the same time and place (e.g., 2 p.m. at the courthouse) and covers the
same issues: placement (why the child was removed, where the child should
be placed), visitation issues, services being provided to the family and
child, paternity of the child, and whether someone is paying child support.
Martha Sue Hall personally
testifies to the effectiveness of these changes. She notes that 18 months
into the CIP the average time a child spent in foster care in the 20th
judicial district was 583 days. One year later, the length of stay had
been reduced to 263 days. "The secret," she says, "is no
continuances" (Hall, 2000).
Elsewhere in North Carolina
Three years into the project,
Lana Dial, state-level coordinator of the CIP, already sees positive changes.
In the CIP districts, Dial sees more conversations between DSS and court
staff, more pre-trial and review meetings, increased efficiency in the
use of court time, and judges who are more involved in court proceedings
than ever before.
Dial also notes that although
the judicial system is still adversarial, there is a new team approach
toward the goal of permanence for children. As a result, child welfare
workers in the five CIP districts are more likely to discuss with judges
their recommendations for children. "Now everyone feels accountable
for the time children spend in foster care," Dial says.
Parents' attorneys have been
the last to get on board with the improvement efforts, Dial admits, but
this doesn't surprise hertraditionally they have not been trusted
within the court process simply because they represent the parents. Increasingly,
though, judges are trying to increase parent attorney compensation. Better
compensation would serve both as a reward for difficult work and an incentive
to attract higher quality lawyers for parents.
The CIP and Child and Family
Outcomes
Although the evaluation results
are not yet in, there are anecdotal reports of CIP initiatives that have
helped children and families. Reduced continuations, more respect for
children and families, and better decision-making processes are some of
the reported changes. Better decision-making processes reflects a commitment
to deal with tough cases today, preventing a cycle of court
involvement known as the "revolving door."
Earlier access to services
for children and families is another very important change. In the past,
DSS has been forced to make petitions simply to get access to resources
(i.e., mental health services). Judicial resources are being saved because
agencies are now giving services to children and families up front, without
the pressure from the courts. Judges are also becoming less patient with
unpreparedness in juvenile proceedings where juvenile court is a priority.
An evaluation of the effectiveness
of these funded demonstration projects is currently underway. Ray Kirk
and Diane Griffith, from the Jordan Institute for Families at the UNC-Chapel
Hill School of Social Work, will publish the evaluation results later
this year.
References
Dial, L. (2000). Personal communication. February 2000.
Hall, M. S. (2000, March). Court improvement: What "we"
can do! Workshop presented at the annual N.C. Division of Social Services
Children's Services Conference, Charlotte, NC.
Kirk, R. (2000). Personal communication. February 2000.
© 2000 Jordan Institute for
Families
|