youth engagement in court perspectives from two states

Youth Engagement in Court

Perspectives from Two States

Outline• Background• A youth perspective• Identification of issue• Interventions• Data collection• What we learned• Judicial perspective• Working with the Agency• Children’s Attorney perspective• The future of these efforts

BackgroundThe ABA Center on Children and the Law has long had a project that worked to include children in court.

The youth had consistently addressed the concerns a lot of people had about including youth with a general theme that not having youth in court was problematic, even traumatic.

But that was anecdotal. There was not a lot of research on child/youth attendance or engagement in dependency court proceedings.

BackgroundWe helped develop a technical assistance bulletin and a guide on evaluating youth court engagement projects.

TA Bulletin (2012) www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/CIC_FINAL.pdf

Evaluation Guide (2013)www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/children_in_court_programs_final.pdf

One of the few studies looked at how attendance at review hearings was harmful or beneficial children/youth ages 8 to 18.

Approximately half the children in the study attended court.

SurveysInterviewsCourt Observation

Around 100 kids total. All were interviewed (attended & did not attend)

Weisz, V., et. al., Children’s participation in foster care hearings. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35(4): 267-272 (2011).

Background

They found...

-Anxiety levels for children were overall low

-They were even lower for those that attended court after the hearings

-Children who attended court viewed the judgments are more fair

-Children who attended had a better understanding of their case plans, especially older youth

Weisz, V., et. al., Children’s participation in foster care hearings. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35(4): 267-272 (2011).

Background

Outline• Background• A youth perspective• Identification of issue• Interventions• Data collection• What we learned• Judicial perspective• Working with the Agency• Children’s Attorney perspective• The future of these efforts

A Youth’s Perspective

• Your experiences• What about common concerns?– Court will be upsetting– Court is not child friendly– They will miss school– Seeing people in court may be difficult– Judge may not do what the child wants

Outline• Background• A youth perspective• Identification of issue• Interventions• Data collection• What we learned• Judicial perspective• Working with the Agency• Children’s Attorney perspective• The future of these efforts

Issue Identification

• How did your states decide improving youth engagement in court should be a focus?

• What did you do to explore the problem?

Outline• Background• A youth perspective• Identification of issue• Interventions• Data collection• What we learned• Judicial perspective• Working with the Agency• Children’s Attorney perspective• The future of these efforts

Kansas Interventions

3 counties – large, rural, frontierYouth 12+

• Youth friendly notices• Judges use benchcards & encourage youth to attend• Youth court report• Youth Calendar (guides on court and court processes)• GAL training• Peer to Peer training (by and for youth)• Modified court orders

New Jersey Interventions

3 counties – large, medium, smallAll ages

• Site visits to each county• Local implementation teams• Training for all stakeholders• Law Guardian toolkits• Modified court orders

Outline• Background• A youth perspective• Identification of issue• Interventions• Data collection• What we learned• Judicial perspective• Working with the Agency• Children’s Attorney perspective• The future of these efforts

Data Collection

• In both states looking at:– How children feel about process• Emotionally• Reflections on due process

– How professionals think presence affected process• Case planning• Well-being information in court

• Not as much long-term outcome data– Very challenging to eliminate other variables

Kansas Data Collection

• Judicial surveys• Court observations by CASA• Youth surveys• Court order data• Pre & Post data periods

New Jersey Data Collection

• Surveys of all stakeholders after court• Monthly surveys of professionals• Court order data• On-going data collection

Outline• Background• A youth perspective• Identification of issue• Interventions• Data collection• What we learned• Judicial perspective• Working with the Agency• Children’s Attorney perspective• The future of these efforts

Kansas Results

Judge Surveys: Do you think the young person was prepared for the court hearing? N = 31; 44

Kansas Results

Judge Surveys: Did the youth answer questions you had about ______? (Yes) n = 31, 45

Kansas ResultsJudge Surveys:

Compared to just reading the written reports, did you find out more information from the young person about (list of topics): 2013 2014

Average - Yes 39% 51%n = 29; 43

Did you observe anything about the youth that was not reflected in the reports to the court?

2013 2014Yes 29% 64%n = 31; 44

Kansas Results

Judge Surveys: Did the youth being present impact your decision making?

2013 2014Yes 71% 81%n = 31; 43

Kansas ResultsCourt Observations: Most of the observation form items detailed the judge’s interactions with the youth. N= 13; 38• These included topics such as placements & visitation and• Actions such as avoiding acronyms & encouraging the youth to attend the

next hearing.

Overall there was an increase from 38% to 61% of these discussions/actions from 2013 to 2014.

Kansas ResultsCourt Observations: Some discussion/action examples:

Kansas Results

Judge Surveys: Overall, how engaged would you rate the young person? N= 31; 45

Kansas Results

Youth Surveys: Youth survey response rate was very low post. Too low to do meaningful data analysis.

What did we learn? Very hard to reach youth by phone and get them to complete surveys days after court.

Future plans to survey youth immediately after court.

New Jersey Results

Two types of surveys professional and youth. A total of 301 attorneys, 116 judges, 75 caseworkers, 24 CASA Case Supervisors, 21 Parents/Resource Parents, 9 CASA volunteers, 3 volunteers, and 41 other professionals (N=597) and 134 youth completed surveys after court; 170 professionals also completed monthly surveys.

New Jersey Results

Youth wanted to come to court even though some reported being anxious.

Did you want to come to court today? N=110Yes 97%

How do you feel right now? N= 117Relaxed 62%Nervous 12%Neither 26%

New Jersey ResultsThey seemed well prepared. Youth pre surveys: Who spoke with you about court and what to expect? N=117

New Jersey Results

In contrast to Kansas (12+), all ages of children have a right to attend court in New Jersey. Still, the vast majority could understand the process.

Youth post surveys:Did the Youth Understand Questions from the Court? N=133

New Jersey Results

Stakeholder surveys: Youth discussed their case plans, placements, and school the most during hearings. n=386

New Jersey Results

Stakeholder surveys: There seemed to be fewer barriers to getting youth to court than anticipated. (only 13% reported barriers on daily surveys – n=578)

But some practical barriers like transportation were persistent. A fair percentage of youth did not want to attend, but because surveys were done at court, we lack details as to why.

New Jersey Results

The vast majority of youth felt the judges ‘heard them.’ 89% n=115.

But to an open-ended question about what would happen after court, many youth recognized that they had an influence, but the judge had to weigh options.

New Jersey ResultsOverall, the vast majority thought court was good or very good. N=112

New Jersey ResultsBut even though 19% of the youth had a neutral or negative experience…97% said they were glad they came, and99% said they would come to court again.

N=111

New Jersey ResultsStakeholder Surveys: The majority of professionals and others in court thought it was beneficial to have the child present. N=580

Significant numbersof those in the ‘no’category were referring to youngerchildren.

New Jersey ResultsStakeholder Surveys: How did the child/youth’s presence benefit the court process? N=121

Outline• Background• A youth perspective• Identification of issue• Interventions• Data collection• What we learned• Judicial perspective• Working with the Agency• Children’s Attorney perspective• The future of these efforts

Judicial Perspective

• How has increasing youth presence and engagement changed court for you?– For the better?– For the worse?

• Has it changed the culture/climate in court?• What about parental rights? Representation?• What kinds of things do you learn more about

when youth are in court?

Outline• Background• A youth perspective• Identification of issue• Interventions• Data collection• What we learned• Judicial perspective• Working with the Agency• Children’s Attorney perspective• The future of these efforts

Working with the Agency

• How have these efforts affected the child welfare agency?

• How has transportation been handled?• Buy-in from stakeholders• Cross-system training

Outline• Background• A youth perspective• Identification of issue• Interventions• Data collection• What we learned• Judicial perspective• Working with the Agency• Children’s Attorney perspective• The future of these efforts

Children’s Attorney Perspective

• How have these efforts affected the job of children's’ attorneys?

• What advice do you have for children’s attorneys who are– Part of a panel?– A organizational model?

• Do you think best interest v. expressed interest models make a difference in this context?

Outline• Background• A youth perspective• Identification of issue• Interventions• Data collection• What we learned• Judicial perspective• Working with the Agency• Children’s Attorney perspective• The future of these efforts

Future Efforts

• Update on pilot activities– New Jersey expansion state-wide

• What could/should further research look into?

Questions?

Presenter Information

Lorraine Augostini – New JerseyHon. Daniel Cahill – KansasKaysie Getty – YouthMark Gleeson – KansasStephanie Petrillo - New JerseyScott Trowbridge - ABA