Transcript Empowering Families For Success: Best Practices in Dependency
15
th
Judicial Circuit – Palm Beach County
September 2011
Objectives
Learn about innovative approaches to working with families in Dependency Court Understand how to design and structure systems of coordination and collaboration Identify benefits of multi-system collaborations Identify strategies and tools to help implement similar programs
Who We Are
Mary Quinlan, LCSW
Mental Health Operations Manager
Cristy Altaro, MA
Juvenile Alternative Sanctions Coordinator
Kathy Sanchez
Juvenile Court Case Manager
Angela Bess, Ed D
Court Education Liaison Program Manager
15
th
Circuit – Best Practices
Family Drug Court Crossover Case Management Independent Living Court Court Education Liaison program
What We’re Doing
A 12 month, 5 phase specialty court for parents in dependency court where substance abuse is the main reason for the removal of the children Phase 1, CHOICE Phase 2, CHALLENGE Family Group Conferencing, Assignment of Family Intervention Specialist and Case Manager Substance Abuse Assessment within 72 hours Weekly court appearances Daily AA/NA meetings Begin inpatient or outpatient treatment Frequent random drug testing Obtain a sponsor Continued Treatment Weekly court appearances Daily AA/NA meetings Frequent random drug testing
What We’re Doing – cont’d.
Phase 3, COMMITMENT Phase 4 and 5, COMMENCEMENT AND SELF RELIANCE Continued Treatment (inpatient typically moving to outpatient) Bi-Weekly court appearances Daily AA/NA meetings Frequent random drug testing Continued Treatment Moving into aftercare Monthly court appearances Daily AA/NA meetings Frequent random drug testing SANCTIONS AND INCENTIVES ARE USED THROUGHOUT THE PROGRAM
Why It’s Necessary
There is a more elaborate support system for families while ensuring child safety There is heightened judicial oversight of children and families Family Drug Court parents are motivated to get treatment they would otherwise not receive Family Drug Court parents are more likely to enter treatment, spend more time in treatment, and are more likely to complete treatment than parents in comparison groups Parents are more likely to be reunited with their children. Source: FDC: A National Evaluation, Children and Family Futures (OJJDP) Technical Assistance Program
A Team Effort
Grant for Family Drug Court written with input from stakeholders Judge Kathleen Kroll, Administrative Judge of the Juvenile Division championed the effort and became the FDC Judge Committees were formed to design the court, write the policies and procedures, identify community resources, develop an advisory board A Drug Court team was identified and traveled together to observe Miami’s Dependency Drug Court
How It Helps
Data Collection: FDC vs. Control Group
CONTROL= 20 clients PERMANENCY
Reunifications: TPR: Perm. Guardianship: 4 families 3 families 2 families
FAMILY DRUG COURT = 18 clients PERMANENCY
Reunifications: TPR: Perm. Guardianship: 6 families 0 families 0 families
TIME FRAMES
Time to Treatment: 30-45 days Average Time to Reunification : 8.5 months
TIME FRAMES
Time to Treatment: 20 days Average Time to Reunification : 6 months
Challenges
Achieving buy-in from all the stakeholders, esp. the parent's attorneys Instituting Family Group Conferencing Availability of Treatment Beds Availability of Affordable Housing Differing views on procedural issues: diluted drug screens, sanctions, reunification
What We’re Doing
A coordinated, collaborative approach for early identification and notification of youth involved in the delinquency and dependency systems Specific, written identification and notification procedures Specialized crossover dockets
Why It’s Necessary
Various “players” Separate silos Inadequate communication Avoid a duplication of services Streamline the court process
A Team Effort
Formation of a committee and develop stakeholder buy-in Numerous meetings to achieve success: Creation of an Administrative Order Implementation of an Memorandum of Understanding Written procedures Identification of Points of Contact for each agency
How It Helps
Early identification of crossover youth Increased communication relating to these youth Reduction in duplication of services Specialized hearings including delinquency and dependency players Earlier intervention
Challenges
Initial definition of “crossover” - vague Out-of –county, diversion, direct file, etc.
Addressing confidentiality Different goals for different committee members Length of time from formulation of committee to implementation
What We’re Doing
The purpose of the Independent Living Court program is to evaluate a youth’s progress in developing independent living skills and take the necessary steps to help the youth obtain his/her goals.
Four Juvenile Judges hold specialized Independent Living Court dockets every other week for youth over age 16 in foster care for 6 months or more
Why It’s Necessary
To ensure youth exiting the foster care system are provided every opportunity to become self sufficient and achieve the goals they have identified for their future.
Due to the fact that placements often change the longer a child is in care, these youth are especially at risk of falling through the “cracks” and not receiving the services they need to thrive on their own.
A Team Effort
Our Current Chief Judge Peter Blanc spearheaded the effort to start an Independent Living Court and piloted the first ILR when he was in the juvenile division. A committee was formed and traveled to Tampa to observe their Independent Living Court In addition to Legal Aid and our CBC Agency, a local agency, Vita Nova, joined the effort to serve as specialized ILR case managers
How It Helps
Enhanced judicial oversight to ensure youth’s needs are being adequately addressed Vocational and educational goals are reviewed and any previously assigned tasks are followed up with to ensure compliance Most importantly, it allows the youth to voice his/her concerns and become engaged in the decision-making process
Challenges
Initial identification of youth eligible for Court Procedures for getting case on the docket and cancelling other judicial reviews Handling judicial reviews when an ILR child has younger siblings Timely filing of reports
The Program
Court Education Liaisons (School District employees) are housed in the juvenile courthouses for immediate access to information, increased collaboration and improved services for court-involved youth Program staff: (1) Program Manager (4) Education Liaisons – one assigned to each juvenile Judge Officially began in April, 2008
How We Made It Happen
Former Chief Judge Kroll spear-headed an initiative to increase the collaboration between the Court system and School District A large committee was formed, followed by several smaller subcommittees to identify needs and address education-related issues School District made a commitment to this issue and allocated personnel to expand the level of services provided to court-involved youth
The Many Benefits…
Provide updated information and interpretation of educational records to the Court Conference with youth/families to review student needs, educational options and requirements Work with the schools on matters concerning registration, re-enrollment and transition Improved relationship between the Courts and School District, especially HS and MS Principals Assist with specialty Courts/programs
What the Judges Say
“An invaluable resource from providing instantaneous information on grades, conduct, classes, etc., to assisting children to get back to or into school, the appropriate school, to obtaining a better understanding of the difficulties faced by children in the delinquency system and the school system, to explaining education options to children and their parents.”
“I have been in juvenile court almost five years. From my experience these liaisons are the most effective tool I have in addressing the educational dysfunctions of the children who come before me. The correlation between educational and social dysfunction is obvious. If I can get a child back on track educationally, I have a far better chance of turning that child's life around.”
Challenges
Understanding the Court process (delinquency & dependency) Defining responsibilities and protocols for Liaisons Maintaining dual rules – school district vs. Court Continuous struggle to maintain program staffing levels
Questions/Comments
Mary Quinlan
(561) 355-1925
Cristy Altaro
(561) 355-6586
Kathy Sanchez
(561) 330-1772
Angela Bess
(561) 355-3497