Endnotes and Resources: Court Outcome Measures for Children in Foster Care

Endnotes

1  Focus group members are Ms. Kate Burdick, Zubrow Fellow, Juvenile Law Center, Philadelphia; Dr. Gretchen Cusick, Chapin Hall; Hon. Robert R. Hofmann, associate judge, Child Protection Court of the Hill Country, Mason County, Texas; Dr. Michelle L. Lustig, MSW, Ed.D., coordinator, San Diego County Office of Education, Student Services and Programs, Student Support Services, Foster Youth Services; Ms. Kathleen McNaught, assistant director, ABA Center on Children and the Law; Mr. Ronald M. Ozga, Governor’s Office of Information Technology, agency IT director for CDHS, HCPF, CBMS, Colorado Department of Human Services; and Ms. Regina Schaefer, director, Education Unit, New York City Children’s Service. Their invaluable contribution to this project is gratefully acknowledged.

2  In the wake of federal dependency-court-reform efforts, including the Court Improvement Program (CIP) and the passage of ASFA, court performance measures in child abuse and neglect cases were developed by the ABA, NCJFCJ, and NCSC with support from the David and Lucille Packard Foundation. One result of this collaboration was the 2004 publication Building a Better Court: Measuring and Improving Court Performance and Judicial Workload in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases, which proposed performance measures in the areas of safety, permanency, due process, and timeliness. These measures were field-tested in 11 states in 2009 and published as the Toolkit for Court Performance Measurement in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases (2009).

3  For information on privacy and confidentiality issues, see Legal Center for Foster Care and Education (2008); see also Administrative Office of the Courts, Center (2010).

4  These preliminary measures were derived from, with minor modifications, the educational outcomes identified by Casey Family Programs (2007b).

Resources

Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children and the Courts (2010). AOC Briefing: Sharing Education Information for Children in Foster Care. San Francisco: Judicial Council of California. www.chhs.ca.gov/Documents/AOCFosterCareEd.pdf

— (2009). Implementation Guide to Juvenile Dependency Court Measures. San Francisco: Judicial Council of California.

— (2005). California Juvenile Dependency Court Improvement Program Reassessment. San Francisco: Judicial Council of California.

American Bar Association, National Center for State Courts, and National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (2004). Building a Better Court: Measuring and Improving Court Performance and Judicial Workload in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.

Casey Family Programs(2007a). Higher Education Reform: Incorporating the Needs of Foster Care Youth. Seattle: Casey Family Programs.

— (2007b). A Roadmap for Learning: Improving Educational Outcomes in Foster Care. Seattle: Casey Family Programs.

— (2006). It’s My Life: Postsecondary Education and Training. Seattle: Casey Family Programs.

Flango, V. E. (2009). “Can Data Exchange Between Courts and Child Welfare Agencies Improve Outcomes for Children?” Issue Brief, National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, Va. http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=706

Gatowski, S. I., T. Medina, and M. Warren (2008). Asking the Right Questions II: Judicial Checklists to Meet the Educational Needs of Children and Youth in Foster Care. Reno, NV: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Permanency Planning Department, and Casey Family Programs.

Legal Center for Foster Care and Education (2008). Solving the Data Puzzle. Seattle: Casey Family Programs. www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/pdf/SolvingDataPuzzle.pdf

Leone, P., and L. Weinberg (2009). “Addressing the Unmet Needs of Children and Youth in the Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare Systems.” Report, Georgetown University, Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, Washington, D.C.

National Child Welfare Resource Center on Legal and Judicial Issues (2010). “Current Use of Dependency Court Performance Measures.” Unpublished paper, American Bar Association, Washington, D.C., September.

National Working Group on Foster Care and Education (2008). “Educational Outcomes for Children and Youth in Foster and Out-of-Home Care.” Fact sheet, Casey Family Programs, Seattle, December

New York State Permanent Judicial Commission on Justice for Children (n.d.). Addressing the Education Needs of Children in Foster Care: A Guide for Judges, Advocates, and Child Welfare Professionals. Albany: New York State Permanent Judicial Commission on Justice for Children.

Poister, T. (2003). Measuring Performance in Public and Nonprofit Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Toolkit for Court Performance Measures in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases (2009). Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.