1 analyses of court processing of child protection applications for very young children jeanette...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Analyses of Court Processing of Child Protection Applications
for Very Young Children
Jeanette LawrenceGreg Levine
Kirsty BownessHannah Biggins
The University of MelbourneChildren’s Court of Victoria
funding byAustralian Research CouncilVictoria Law Foundation
2
Attention focused onchild protection
Need for practitioner/researchercollaboration
Studying court processingof protection applications
Calls for evidence-based reform
Concerns aboutgood starts to life for young children
3
Attention
Evidence-based Collaboration
Studying court processingof protection applications
Good start to life Protection,Secure, stable environmentsfor children 0 to 47 months
The court’s contributionabout 6% come to court
The court’s data-base Collaborative activitiesfrom start & throughout
4
Studying court processing of protection applications
in 2 Steps
(1) Finding (or creating)a suitable data base
(2) Focusing analyses on appropriate
questions and data
5
(1) Finding (or creating)a suitable data base
• Existing sources- What sources of information already exist?- What can you do with what’s there?
the search may not be easy
• Creating new data sources- What data source do you need to construct?
• Making a data management system- Can you build on, supplement what’s there?
6
• Existing sources- Finding computerised records used for other purposes- with enough data to analyse- adding data from court files- lots of cleaning and checking
??Questions to ask of the data:- Institutional questions?
e.g., documenting court trends improving court processes
- Developmental questions
e.g., parental factorse.g., where is the child?
• Creating new data sources- mainly adding new variables from analyses
• Making a data management system- producing a procedural manual
7
Final Order:- Struck out- Parents’
undertaking- Supervision- Custody to
Secretary- Guardianship
to Secretary- Permanent
Care
Groundsfor application:
- abandoned- parent not
available- physical harm- emotional or
psych. harm- harm to dev.
or health- sexual harm
Court processingin hearings,contests,conferences
Reasons forreturn:
•Breach•Extension•New application(210)
•Exit CourtSystem(312)
•with“Exit Order”
ProtectionApplications(522 in 2001)childrenaged0 - 47 mos
Focusing analyses on appropriate questions and data
80
25
50
75
100
PermanentCare
Less Same More
0
25
50
75
100
Less Same More
0
25
50
75
100
Undertaking
Less Same More
0
25
50
75
100
Custody
Less Same More
Struck out
0
25
50
75
100
Supervision
Less Same More
0
25
50
75
100
Guardianship
Less Same More
Differences in Form of First Final and Exit Orders
9
Protection applications for 522 children (0 to 47 mos)- 1st heard in court in 2001- exited the court system by Sept., 2005
Age: • No difference in spread of ages for 262 boys, 260 girls• In 1st year of life 50%• 2nd year 18%• 3rd year 19%• into 4th year 13%
Questions to ask of this system
1. HOW? Court processing of applications:What orders? How long - until Final Order? - until Exit from Court System?
2. WHY? Reasons:- for applications?- returns to Court System after Final Order?
??
10
What orders?
• A final ordersubstantive order - determines:- if protection application proved- placement of the child- is first final order on file
• An exit order- was the final order for 60%- for 40% cases that return is
last final order on file at Sept 2005
• An interim order- Interim Accommodation Order
(reviewed every 21 days)- Interim Protection Order
(reviewed in 12 months)
Struck out, revokedwithdrawn,
Undertaking by parents
Supervision
Custody
Guardianship
Permanent Care
IntrusionIntrusion
11
abandoned,pars unavail
physical harm emotional,psych harm
de’al, health harm
Struck out
(26% - 137)
10% 80% 93% 22%
ParentsUndertaking
(9% - 49)10 90 88 14
Supervision(38% - 199)
8 81 92 20
Custody to Sec
(20% - 102)
17 67 89 33
Guardianship(5% - 26)
35 65 81 50
Original grounds in relation to first final order
+ 9 for Permanent care
12
abandoned,pars unavail
physical harm emotional,psych harm
de’al, health harm
Struck out
(172)
3% 79% 94% 24%
ParentsUndertaking
(54)6 89 87 13
Supervision(168)
6 82 92 17
Custody to Sec
(40)
0 65 85 33
Guardianship(38)
24 58 78 55
3 62 76 24
Original grounds in relation to exit order
Permanent care(50)
13
0-6 7-12 13-18Months in Six Months Bands
0
20
40
60
80
100
%
GuardianshipCustodySupervisionPars UndertakingStruck out
Time to first final order
0
20
40
60
80
%
0 12 24 36 48Months
Time to exit order
14
Subsample of 80 Protection CasesStratified RS (+ SD from Mean of Order) on length of time to exit the court system
• Is the protection application “proved” substantiated?• Make a Court Order (with legal conditions)
- for child’s protection and safety- for placement of the child
Medium18
7 to 23 mos
Short28
0 to 6 mos
Long34
24+ mos
15
Short Medium Long
No. hearings (Mean)
4.79(2.63)
14.22(9.77)
25.18(11.03)
Time between 1st & exit Order? (Mean months)
0.21(0.69)
9.67(11.91)
32.59(10.0)
% return after 1st final order?
10.7% 61.1% 100%
Change in 1st final to exit orders
3.6% 27.8% 82.4%
Drugs involved in: 39% 44% 77%
What distinguishes between Short, Medium, Long Cases?
16
0
20
40
60
%
Parents Relatives Community care
Placement with:
Medium
Short
Long
Where was the child placed - “finally by Sept. 2005”?
17
0
25
50
75
100
%
Good Average Poor
Stability
LongMediumShort
How stable was the child’s placement throughout?
18
In summary - for these most vulnerable children
Time is important indicator • Directions, processes, outcomes• For rehab, reunification or permanent care
Reasons for timing included• Statutory regulations• Changes in applications and Orders
e.g., extensions, assessmentse.g. parental agreement, acceptance of Department plans
• Returns to court
Related to placement with parents
19
Implications
• Accessing and using sources of data - as evidence- base for:
reflection collaborative talk (practitioner/researcher)change
• Existing data may not be large-scale - but is abasis for:- showing major trends- searching for the most appropriate next sourcee.g. computerised record -- then -- to intensive files
• As part of:- system improvement- policy decisions- cultural change - intervention strategies for families at the “top end”
20
21
4 Steps to Tracking Court Process and Case Flow Management
1. Develop base-line computerised records of court processes
2. Describe trends in processes3. Fill out trends with qualitative information in archival
files (e.g., reports, recommendations)4. Identify patterns of routes through the court system for
typical and atypical protection cases
All 522 protection applications for childrenaged 0 to 47 months in a calendar year(2001) processed in the Family Division of the Melbourne Children’s Court
22
23
Guardianship
Custody
Supervision
Struck out
Parents’ Undertaking
abandoned
harm to development & health
parents dead or unavailable
emotional, psych, harmphysical harm
Final orderGrounds
Association of original grounds with final order
24
Parents' UndertakingSupervision
Struck out
Custody
Permanent care
Guardianshipphysical harm
emotional, psych, harm
abandoned or parents unavailable
harm to development & health
Exiting orderGrounds
Association of original grounds with last orderOn file - regardless of time to make that order
25
Months in Six Months Bands
0
20
40
60
80
100
%
0-6 7-12 13-18
Guardianship
Custody
Supervision
Par Undertaking
Struck out
26
Exit
Exit
Exit
Exit
Exit
Exit
Interim Accomm.
Struck Out
Interim Protection
Undertaking
Supervision
Custody
Guardianship
Permanent Care
Application
27
0
25 50 75 100
%
Permanent Care (9)
Guardianship (25)
Custody (101)
Supervision (198)
Undertaking (50)
Struck out (141)
First Final Order
Percentage of First Final Orders Returning to Court System
0