Get documents about "PENNSYLVANIA�S COURT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Document Sample
PENNSYLVANIA’S COURT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS GRANT
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR
FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2010
OCTOBER 1, 2009 - SEPTEMBER 31, 2010
Office of Children and
Families in the Courts
Pursuant to the Administration for Children and Families Program Instructions
ACYF-CB-PI-07-09, the Office of Children and Families in the Courts (OCFC),
Pennsylvania’s Court Improvement Project (CIP) hereby submits its annual Program
Assessment Report for the CIP Data Grant for Federal Fiscal Year 2010 to the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Administration of Children and
Families (ACF) Region III. This annual program report addresses all Data Collection and
Analysis Activities of Pennsylvania’s 2010 CIP; the outcomes of court improvement
activities; and how they help provide for the safety, permanency and well-being of
children and youth in Pennsylvania’s foster care system.
I. Description of needs and activities undertaken with CIP funds to
meet those needs during the program period
The following list represents those needs as identified by the OCFC and
Children’s Roundtables addressed throughout the fiscal year. These identified needs are
a result of the 2005 CIP Reassessment produced by the National Center for Juvenile
Justice (NCJJ); the Pennsylvania Children’s Roundtables Initiative; and ongoing
meetings with the Department of Public Welfare’s Office of Children, Youth and
Families (DPW/OCYF) officials. Some of these identified needs include:
Need foran automated statewide capacity to track dependency caseloads at the
local level or reliable dependency court data to enable courts to assess its key
performance measures;
Need for a mechanism to collect court data statewide;
Need to implement court performance measures/indicators;
Need to enhance knowledge regarding the use of data in system reform efforts;
Need for local courts to become more involved in the day-to-day scheduling,
operation and management of the dependency docket;
Need to track timelines of cases through the system from the initial hearing to
TPR; and
Need for new/updated equipment to access the CPCMS Data System
II. Activities and progress towards the goals delineated in the
strategic plan and results of the assessment of activities funded
under this grant
Implementation of CPCMS – Dependency Data System
The AOPC Judicial Automation Department has implemented a Dependency Data
System with OCFC staff providing ongoing programmatic support to the Judicial
Automation Department and local jurisdictions. Roll-out to counties commenced in
March 2009. As of September 2010, all 67 Pennsylvania counties were using the new
system (with Philadelphia going live in August and Allegheny going live September).
2010 CIP Data Grant Program Assessment Report 2
Case management reports for 65 counties were available with a limited number of
statistical reports being developed, released and refined.
Implementation of the statewide dependency data system has been a monumental
task. In addition to gathering statistical data, Pennsylvania’s dependency court data
module created judicial Findings & Orders documents for the majority of dependency
hearings. The forms, based on the Pennsylvania Dependency Judicial Rules of Court,
require local jurisdictions to adjust business practices. The forms and court orders that
are now part of the system were created using the Pennsylvania Model Court orders,
originally developed by the Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission (JCJC), as well as
information from other states.
System document changes are updated through a sub-committee of the
Pennsylvania Juvenile Procedural Rules Committee in collaboration with DPW/OCYF.
Any changes to the forms or the CPCMS system are first reviewed by the Forms Sub-
committee with any change that has a potential impact of federal funding requirements
also reviewed by DPW/OCYF prior to implementation. This oversight process ensures
that no change is made that conflicts with the Juvenile Dependency Rules or jeopardizes
much needed financial resources for abused/neglected children and their families.
With all counties now actively entering data into the system, AOPC Judicial
Automation and OCFC staff continues assisting counties on issues of data accuracy and
business practice realignment. Because counties inputted initial case conversion data
differently across the Commonwealth with some counties entering all dependency cases
elements as they went live on the system and others adding only enough information to
create the case; statewide data collection will not be possible for several years. However
counties do have access to their own data and have worked to enhance its accuracy.
As such, AOPC’s Judicial Automation and OCFC staff continue to make county
site visits, providing technical assistance as well as additional training sessions. In
addition, OCFC staff provided significant business process technical support during
2010. As expected with any new data system during its infancy, data integrity will
continue to be a primary focus for several years. Judicial Automation and OCFC staff
will continue to collaborate in their efforts to assist counties.
In addition to the 65 counties live on the system, in 2010 special attention and
support was provided to Philadelphia and Allegheny counties (the two largest
jurisdictions in the Commonwealth). Ironically, their issues were at opposite ends of the
spectrum. Allegheny already had an incredibly sophisticated court computer system
which allowed for e-filing (something not currently possible in CPCMS) while
Philadelphia had a combination of several independently functioning systems. Both
Philadelphia and Allegheny were committed to fully implementing the CPCMS system
and diligently worked with AOPC staff to implement the module. Simultaneously AOPC
staff worked closely with the two counties making system adjustments to accommodate
local court needs. Monthly project update conference calls for both counties occurred
throughout implementation. These calls included the Administrative Judge of the County
(and any county staff the judge may want to include), AOPC’s Judicial Automation
2010 CIP Data Grant Program Assessment Report 3
Director, AOPC’s Judicial Automation CPCMS Project Manager, and OCFC’s
Administrator. The primary purpose of these calls was to identify problems early, create
and implement solutions and, to the extent possible, meet the implementation timeline.
Throughout 2010, the initial 65 counties ran their data reports which listed county
specific case loads. Upon doing so, the need for system revisions became evident and
AOPC staff identified and fixed system flaws. AOPC Judicial Automation staff also
released several (not all) statistical reports which pull information from the caseload data
reports for each county.
During all three Leadership Roundtable meetings within this reporting period
(November, March/April and September) as well as the 2010 State Roundtable, AOPC’s
Judicial Automation Department provided an overview of system updates, including
forms and court orders. Comments and feedback from each Leadership Roundtable were
used to further improve the CPCMS Dependency Module.
OCFC Data Analyst:
In May 2009, at its annual meeting, the State Roundtable approved the addition of
a judicial analyst research position to assist counties with the development and
comprehension of their county specific reports and with statewide data/research
information. This position was subsequently included in the CIP Strategic Plan and
Budget. After extensive and thoughtful recruitment, Ms. Justine Taylor was hired to fill
this position in August 2010.
Since joining the OCFC, Ms. Taylor has focused her work on analyzing, revising
and developing a more robust level of data related to the Permanency Practice Initiative.
To this end, Ms. Taylor has: 1) reviewed the initial three quarters of PPI data submitted
by counties; 2) identified areas of concern with the current reporting form; 3) refined the
reporting form to better collect data; 4) presented the revised form for approval to the PPI
Oversight Committee; and 5) created a statistical report for analysis of the PPI data (see
more detail below).
Development & Initiation of Data Reports
The OCFC currently has available data from two court data sources related to
CIP. These include the Pennsylvania Common Pleas Case Management System
(CPCMS) Dependency Module and the Permanency Practice Initiative Quarterly Reports
(for PPI counties and discussed in detail below). In addition, the OCFC works closely
with the DPW/OCYF utilizing available AFCARS data to create a more robust picture of
Pennsylvania’s child dependency system.
CPCMS:
2010 CIP Data Grant Program Assessment Report 4
Developing, implementing, organizing and analyzing detailed court dependency
data is a new experience for Pennsylvania’s dependency court system. Upon initiation of
Supreme Court oversight of the CIP in Pennsylvania, Justice Max Baer led a court reform
effort that included the creation and implementation of a statewide court dependency data
& outcome monitoring system. Funded entirely by the Pennsylvania Judiciary, the
Dependency Module of the Common Pleas Case Management System (CPCMS) was
initiated.
The system was developed with county & state child welfare as well as local court
input and based on the national court performance measurements. System
implementation began in March 2009. By September 2010 all 67 counties/60 judicial
districts were utilizing the module for dependency case court action with Allegheny &
Philadelphia counties going live August and September 2010 (respectively). As a result,
Judicial Automation and OCFC staff provided counties with significant support and
technical assistance during 2010.
The system, which was implemented voluntarily by all counties, is a huge change
for local jurisdictions but provides a level of uniformity not previously seen in
Pennsylvania’s Dependency Courts. The system provides for the scheduling of events,
creation of court findings & orders for all major hearings (shelter, adjudication,
disposition & permanency reviews) and corresponding case management/statistical
reports. Any requested changes to the system are reviewed by a sub-committee of the
Pennsylvania Juvenile Procedural Rules Committee to ensure conformity to state statute
& procedural rules. In addition, the Department of Public Welfare’s Office of Children,
Youth & Families is consulted when proposed system changes have financial or
significant practice implications.
Because the system is relatively new and a significant change for local
jurisdictions, staff from the AOPC’s Judicial Automation Department and OCFC is
working to assist counties with data integrity. To this end, staff from both departments
made numerous county visits to assist county review of Case Management reports,
initiate data clean-up and support business process clarification. During this reporting
period, all counties (with the exception of Allegheny and Philadelphia) were able to print
county specific caseload data reports. OCFC staff continues working with counties to
ensure data integrity of these reports and recognizes, from consultation with national data
experts, the task of assuring data integrity will be an ongoing one.
That said, upon ensuring an acceptable level of data integrity with basic data
caseload reports, statistical reports will be more fully implemented. In time, these reports
will provide statewide aggregate Dependency data information as well as county specific
data. Data will be provided to local jurisdictions as well as the Leadership and Statewide
Roundtables. OCFC staff will support counties by sharing data trends within the county
and support strategic planning, development of programs and implementation of practices
that may address any concerns.
PPI Quarterly Data Reports:
2010 CIP Data Grant Program Assessment Report 5
In close consultation with the Permanency Practice Initiative Oversight Team,
OCFC staff developed a PPI Quarterly Data Report (Attachment A). Effective April
2010, Phase One & Phase Two counties began reporting PPI data. Upon hire, analyzing
and recording data reflected in the reports became the priority task for OCFC Data
Analyst Justine Taylor.
To this end, Ms. Tayor evaluated the initial three quarters of data submitted by
PPI counties. In so doing, several issues became clear. First, the layout of the reporting
form was backwards, with the PPI “Model Outcome” items at the beginning and the PPI
“Model Fidelity” items at the end. Ultimately, it was decided to move the PPI Model
Fidelity items to the beginning of the reporting form so counties could focus on how well
they were implementing the total model before they focused on their subsequent
outcomes.
Second, in some instances it appeared the reporting form instructions were
unclear or misinterpreted, and as a result, the wrong data was reported, particularly in
regards to the outcome measures. To correct this problem and enhance the
validity/reliability of future date, supplemental instructions to the reporting form were
written.
Third, it became apparent that certain information needed to complete meaningful
statistical analysis of the data was not captured on the reporting form. These value blocks
have been added to the revised PPI reporting form and will be covered in the 2011 Data
Grant Assessment Report.
Finally, it was concluded there are better ways to capture data on Family Finding
efforts which would be more reflective of the Kevin Campbell Family Finding Model
being utilized in Pennsylvania. This section of the PPI data form was significantly
changed.
Despite the concerns noted above, Ms. Taylor did complete a preliminary analysis
of the PPI data submitted during 2010 identifying two additional challenges. First, the
OCFC never specified that PPI counties had to select only one PPI population and keep
that population for the entire year. As a result, some counties had multiple PPI
populations over the year (for a multitude of legitimate reasons), making data analysis
almost impossible. To overcome this particular challenge, the OCFC will be instructing
PPI counties to select one PPI population and keep the same population for the entire
2011 calendar year.
Second, it was evident that children outside of the county identified PPI target
population were receiving PPI services since counties were never required to have a
“control” group. While this has potentially positive implications for all children in the
PPI counties, this lack of control group coupled with the fact that counties were free to
choose their own PPI Target Populations, has made it difficult to associate county success
specifically with PPI practices. The OCFC and the PPI Oversight Team are currently
exploring the best way to answer this question.
2010 CIP Data Grant Program Assessment Report 6
Regardless of data imperfections, Ms. Taylor did create a statistical data format
for analysis of initial PPI data (Attachment B). These reports have been created for all
PPI Phase One & Two counties. OCFC judicial analysts will be meeting with the lead
dependency judge and child welfare administrator from each PPI county in 2011 to
review the report and address concerns/issues. Overall, it became apparent that counties
in which model fidelity was high had much better outcomes than those struggling with
model fidelity.
In addition the following general observations can be made after review of the 62
PPI reports submitted by the various PPI counties. These reports gathered data on
permanency practice initiatives that occurred between January 1, 2010 and September 30,
2010. Based on the reports, 49 meetings of Local Children’s Roundtables have
convened; 1,247 three-month Court Reviews have occurred; and 311 Family Group
Decision Making Conferences serving 617 children have been held, resulting in 272
Family Service Plans. Furthermore, 882 Accurint computer searches have been
performed, which resulted in approximately 400 new Life Connections for children in the
PPI Target population. In addition, 49 children in the PPI Target population have been
placed with someone identified during the Family Finding process. Finally, there are
currently 111 Family Development Credentialing Workers working with children within
the PPI Target populations.
Considering all the above practices (with the exception of FGDM) are new to
most Pennsylvania counties, it is clear PPI counties are attempting to implement the PPI
practices. In addition, it is clear that children are benefiting as seen in placement location
and life connections. That said, further data clarification and integrity will assist in the
evaluation process. Finally, a revised PPI Data Collection instrument is currently being
finalized, will be implemented in January 2011 and will be reviewed in the 2011 Data
Grant Assessment Report.
Equipment:
The OCFC purchased equipment for counties, as needed, to aid in accessing and
utilizing the CPCMS Dependency Data System. Various counties requested new or
replacement equipment to access the data system for the purposes of accessing data and
information on the bench; reviewing cases; providing court orders immediately following
the conclusion of the hearings; and enhancing dependency court procedures. The
equipment purchased during the 2010 Fiscal Year includes: 17 laptops, 5 Thin Clients,
13 PC desktop, 5 monitors, 9 PC cameras and 8 printers.
Information Gathering/Sharing with the Department of Public Welfare
(DPW), Office of Children, Youth and Families (OCYF)
The OCFC and OCYF continue to share various data reports. The Dependency
Data system provides information related to children and families involved with the court
system. Additional data can be gathered from OCYF related to abuse/neglect and
2010 CIP Data Grant Program Assessment Report 7
services provided prior to court involvement. This mutual sharing of data offers a wider
picture of the dependency system in Pennsylvania; shows areas still needing
improvement; and highlights progress made to date.
One of the ways in which OCYF and OCFC have collaborated has been through
the sharing of data for the purposes of the National Governor’s Association (NGA) –
Policy Academy. Staff from the OCFC participated in local team meetings and provided
support to counties in meeting their NGA goals. Each county participating as an NGA
county received extensive data packets regarding children in care.
According to the most recent OCYF data, 25 of 27 Phase One & Phase Two PPI
counties safely decreased the number of placements within their jurisdictions. In the two
counties were placements increased the increase was extremely small. Overall, the
number of children in out-of-home placement has significantly reduced throughout the
Commonwealth.
III. Pennsylvania’s overall activities and progress towards meeting
the recommendations delineated in the 2005 CIP Reassessment
Recommendation # 3: The Pennsylvania Statewide CIP Committee should examine
ways to encourage and support local efforts to develop an automated capacity to track its
dependency caseload. This may include developing a common automated solution that
can be offered to local counties – especially medium and smaller sized counties – that
currently have little on tracking capabilities in this area. – The CPCMS Dependency
System is operational in all 67 counties. Data integrity is the ongoing focus of current
efforts.
Recommendation # 5: Statutory changes should be considered to expand jurisdiction in
the juvenile court to include any termination of parental rights (TPR) and adoptions
matters resulting from an original dependency filing. In addition, specific timelines
should be established for the filing of the TPR petition after the court has determined a
goal change to adoption is appropriate, for the scheduling of the initial hearing on this
petition, and for the scheduling and completion of TPR proceedings. - Currently
Permanency Reviews are heard before a Dependency Court Judge, while Termination of
Parental Rights and Adoption matters are handled by the Orphans Court Judge, unless
one judge hears both types of cases (which is permissible under current law). While
highly unlikely this process will change, as a requirement of the Pennsylvania
Permanency Practice Initiative, courts are expected to enhance coordination between
Dependency and Orphans Court. Additionally, scheduling dependency hearings can be
completed using the CPCMS Dependency Data System, which can be accessed by judges
in both courts.
Recommendation # 8: The Statewide CIP Committee and AOPC should examine ways
to encourage the judiciary and court administration – particularly in medium-sized courts
– to become more involved in the day-to-day scheduling, operations and management of
the dependency docket. –The implementation of the CPCMS Dependency Data System
2010 CIP Data Grant Program Assessment Report 8
allows local courts to be more involved in day-to-day dependency court operations. The
local courts have access to all dependency information in the county and have the ability
to schedule various court hearings; complete corresponding Findings & Orders; and
manage the dependency caseload.
IV. Recommendations of the State Interdisciplinary Advisory
Committee (State Roundtable)
During the 2010 State Roundtable meeting (May 27 & 28, 2010) data integrity
and county/statewide statistical reports continue to be of primary concern. Counties were
encouraged to run data reports, identify errors, correct such and/or contact OCFC for
additional support and technical assistance.
V. Results of any Assessments of Activities Funded Under this Grant
One additional need identified as Pennsylvania’s data system was being
implemented related to the ultimate goal and use of data. Local jurisdictions identified a
need for training related to the use of data to inform system reform. As a result, both
Children’s Roundtable Summits contained significant information on data informed
decisions. Dr. Barbara Needell, University of California at Berkeley, and Mr. Larry
Brown, Casey Family Consultant, provided plenary sessions at each Summit. In addition,
each Summit planning document asked county teams to develop planning action
regarding the use of data for system reform (Attachments C & D).
Attachments
A 2010 PPI Quarterly Data Reporting Form
2010 CIP Data Grant Program Assessment Report 9
B County A Data Summary Report (high model fidelity = high outcome
results)
C 2009 Children’s Roundtable Summit Agenda-at-a-Glance
D 2010 Children’s Roundtable Summit Agenda-at-a-Glance
2010 CIP Data Grant Program Assessment Report 10
