Empowering Families For Success: Best Practices in Dependency Court

1. Empowering Families For Success: Best Practices in Dependency Court 15th Judicial Circuit – Palm Beach County September 2011

2. 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

3. 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

4. 15th Circuit – Best Practices • Family Drug Court • Crossover Case Management • Independent Living Court • Court Education Liaison program

5. Family (Dependency)Drug Court

6. 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 • 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 Phase 2, CHALLENGE • Continued Treatment • Weekly court appearances • Daily AA/NA meetings • Frequent random drug testing

7. What We’re Doing – cont’d. Phase 3, COMMITMENT • Continued Treatment (inpatient typically moving to outpatient) • Bi-Weekly court appearances • Daily AA/NA meetings • Frequent random drug testing Phase 4 and 5, COMMENCEMENT AND SELF RELIANCE • Continued Treatment Moving into aftercare • Monthly court appearances • Daily AA/NA meetings • Frequent random drug testing SANCTIONS AND INCENTIVES ARE USED THROUGHOUT THE PROGRAM

8. 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

9. 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

10. How It Helps Data Collection: FDC vs. Control Group CONTROL= 20 clients FAMILY DRUG COURT = 18 clients Permanency Reunifications: 4 families TPR: 3 families Perm. Guardianship: 2 families TIME FRAMES Time to Treatment: 30-45 days Average Time to Reunification : 8.5 months Permanency Reunifications: 6 families TPR: 0 families Perm. Guardianship: 0 families TIME FRAMES Time to Treatment: 20 days Average Time to Reunification : 6 months

11. 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

12. Crossover CaseManagement

13. 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

14. Why It’s Necessary • Various “players” • Separate silos • Inadequate communication • Avoid a duplication of services • Streamline the court process

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. Independent Living Court

19. 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

20. 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.

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. Court Education LiaisonProgram

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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.”

29. 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

30. Questions/Comments • Mary Quinlan mquinlan@pbcgov.org (561) 355-1925 • Cristy Altaro caltaro@pbcgov.org (561) 355-6586 • Kathy Sanchez ksanchez@pbcgov.org (561) 330-1772 • Angela Bess BessA@palmbeach.k12.fl.us (561) 355-3497