new jersey court improvement program … of whom was critical to the success of this effort: carl...

Final Report

NEW JERSEY STATE COURT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REASSESSMENT

Presented by:

The National Center for State Courts Court Consulting Services Division

Presented to:

STATE OF NEW JERSEY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE

OF THE COURTS: FAMILY PRACTICE DIVISION

June 2005

Daniel J. Hall National Center for State Courts Vice President, Court Consulting Services 707 17th Street, Suite 2900 (303) 293-3063 Denver, CO 80202


2005 The State of New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts

and The National Center for State Courts

This document has been prepared under an agreement dated November 17, 2004 between the National Center for State Courts and the State of New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts. The points of view and opinions offered in this report are those of the project consultants and do not necessarily represent the official policies or position of the State of New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts, the Children in Court Improvement Committee, or the National Center for State Courts.

NEW JERSEY STATE COURT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REASSESSMENT CHILDREN IN COURT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REASSESSMENT SUBCOMMITTEE

Judge Ellen Koblitz Bergen County

Rita Gulden, Director CASA of New Jersey

Judge Gerald Council Mercer County

Mary McManus, Esquire Legal Services of New Jersey

Judge Jo-Anne B. Spatola Union County

Erin O’Leary, Assistance Director Division of Youth and Family Services

Brendon Toner, Family Division Manager Ocean County

Lauren Carlton, Esquire Office of the Attorney General

Michael Krasner, Chairperson CPR Advisory Council Executive Board

Mary Coogan, Esquire Director, Children’s Legal Resource Center Association for Children of New Jersey

Sadie Davis, Esquire Office of the Public Defender Parental Representation Unit

James A. Louis, Esquire Office of the Public Defender Law Guardian Unit

Esther Canty-Barnes, Director Special Education Clinic Rutgers University School of Law

Nancy L. Gramaglia, Esquire Director Court Improvement Program

Joanne M. Dietrich, Esquire Chief Family Practice Division Administrative Office of the Courts


NCSC PROJECT TEAM

PROJECT PRINCIPALS DAWN MARIE RUBIO, J.D. .....................................................................................PROJECT DIRECTOR NCSC SENIOR COURT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT FRED L. CHEESMAN, PH.D. ................................................. RESEARCH AND METHODOLOGY DIRECTOR NCSC SENIOR COURT RESEARCH ASSOCIATE MARTHA WADE STEKETEE, M.S.W......................................................... LEAD PROCESS RESEARCHER INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT

CASE TRACKING SYSTEM WILLETT R. WILLIS, J.D........................................................................................ LEAD RESEARCHER PRINCIPAL CONSULTANT-INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, LLC

DATA COLLECTION TEAM MARY BETH KIRVEN, J.D. ..................................................................................... LEAD RESEARCHER NCSC COURT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT BRENDA BELLONGER, J.D. PRESIDENT-NORTH AMERICAN INDIAN LEGAL SERVICES JOHN DOUGLAS, B.B.A NCSC SENIOR COURT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT MARY DURKIN, M.A. INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT VENESSA GARCIA, PH.D. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR -KEAN UNIVERSITY JOHN K. KUENHOLD, B.A. NCSC PROGRAM SPECIALIST TRACY PETERS, M.A. NCSC COURT RESEARCH ANALYST ANNE SKOVE, J.D. NCSC KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT ANALYST


FINAL REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary.................................................................................................................... i Part A. Introduction, Federal Legislation, National Standards and Best Practice, Prior Evaluations, and Methodology ....................................................................1 Section I. Introduction ..................................................................................1 Section II. Federal Legislation .....................................................................4 Section III. National Standards and Best Practices .....................................8 Section IV. Prior Evaluations .......................................................................12 Section V. Methodology...............................................................................17 Part B. Legal Analyses.....................................................................................................25 Section VI. New Jersey Legal Framework and Conformance to Federal

Legislation and National Standards .........................................25

Part C. Research Findings...............................................................................................31

Section VII. Are prescribed time limits being met? What are the frequency and length of delays in child protection proceedings? To what extent do current calendaring practices contribute to the delays? ........................................................31 Section VIII. Is the time available for hearings sufficient to permit presentation of evidence and arguments? If not, how much time is needed for each type of hearing and what are the implications for the court? ............38 Section IX. To what extent do parties and counsel present witnesses, introduce evidence, and offer arguments in each type of hearing? To what extent do resource parents receive notice of hearings?.........................................44 Section X. What data are available for case tracking? Is it sufficient? Is it accurate? Do all the people who need it have access? ............................................49

Section XI. To what extent do the number of cases and the limited number of judges and personnel affect the ability of courts to meet safety, timeliness, due process, and permanency standards? .............................64 Section XII. How often are parents and children represented by counsel? To what extent is representation adequate? ...80 Section XIII. Are all participants in court proceedings treated with courtesy, respect, and understanding? ..........................86 Section XIV. To what extent is the information available to courts sufficient, timely, and accurate? ..............................................91 Section XV. How effectively do the state and tribal courts coordinate in ICWA cases?.......................................................93 Section XVI. Are prescribed appellate time limits being met? To what extent do appellate practices contribute to or deter safety, permanency, due process, and timeliness considerations for children?...........................96 Section XVII. The Child Placement Review Boards .......................................98 Section XVIII. Reasonable Efforts, Contrary to the Welfare, and Time to Permanency Findings.........................................104 Section XIX: To what extent is (1) the performance of New Jersey’s courts and the degree of collaboration with the Division of Youth and Family Services and (2) the sufficiency of judicial determination in court orders (i.e. reasonable efforts, contrary to the welfare, best interest) consistent with the findings, recommendations, and requirements of previous assessments? .....................................................111 Part D. Concluding Remarks and Recommendations.................................................112 Section XX. To what extent can the information generated from this Reassessment prepare the New Jersey Judicial Branch for the next federal audit? .....................................................112

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Court Performance Measures Appendix B. Data Collection Instruments Appendix C. Legal Analysis Flowcharts Appendix D. FC and FN Timeline Compliance

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 NJ CIP Reassessment Research Questions......................................................... 3 Table 2 Recommendations of the NCJFCJ Resource Guidelines .....................................9 Table 3 ABA, NCSC, and NCJFCJ Performance Measures for Abuse ............................10 And Neglect Courts Table 4 Key Findings from 1996 ACNJ CIP Assessment .................................................13 Table 5 CFSR and the Court’s Performance Indicator 1 ..................................................15 Table 6 CFSR and the Court’s Performance Indicator 2 ..................................................15 Table 7 CFSR and the Court’s Performance Indicator 3 ..................................................16 Table 8 CFSR and the Court’s Performance Indicator 4 ..................................................16 Table 9 New Jersey CIP Reassessment Locations for On-Site Activity .........................17 Table 10 Number of Focus Group and Discussions Conducted by..................................19 Participants by Vicinage Table 11 Distribution of On-line Survey Respondents by CIC Professional Type...........19 Table 12 Distribution of On-line Survey Respondents by Vicinage..................................20 Table 13 Types of CIC Cases Observed ..............................................................................20 Table 14 Types of FN Hearings Observed...........................................................................21 Table 15 Types of FC Hearings Observed...........................................................................21 Table 16 Breakdown of CPR Board Review Observations ................................................22 Table 17 Type of Cases in File Review ................................................................................22 Table 18 Type of File Review Cases by Vicinage ...............................................................23 Table 19 Average Number of Cases and Percentage of Caseload that ............................34 are CIC Cases by Types of CIC Professional Table 20 Actual and Recommended Duration of FN Hearings ..........................................39 Table 21 Child Placement Review Board Reports as Discussed and Considered ..........41 In FN Hearings Table 22 How Frequently Do Parties and Counsel Present Witnesses, ..........................44 Introduce Evidence, and Offer Arguments in FN Cases? Table 23 The Court Inquires about Notice to Parties and Appointment of.......................46 Counsel in FN Cases Table 24 Judge and CIC Staff Responses: Case Tracking Information is ......................49 Available and Sufficient to Meet Your Needs Table 25 Percentage of Judges and CIC Staff Not Receiving Information .......................49 About Court Performance Measures from Automation Systems Table 26 Manual or Word Processor CIC Case Tracking Lists..........................................58 Table 27 Excel CIC Case Tracking Lists..............................................................................59

Table 28 To What Extent Does Your Caseload Impact Your Ability to .............................65 Meet Safety Standards? Table 29 The Court Inquires about the Safety of the Children in the Current ..................67 FN Case Table 30 To What Extent Does Your Caseload Impact Your Ability to .............................69 Meet Timeliness Standards? Table 31 To What Extent Does Your Caseload Impact Your Ability to .............................71 Meet Due Process Standards? Table 32 Type and Frequency of Judge Change Observed in File Review ......................72 Table 33 To What Extent Does Your Caseload Impact Your Ability to .............................74 Meet Permanency Standards Table 34 The Court Inquires about the Permanency Goals of the Children.....................76 In the Current FN Case Table 35 Was There Discussion of the Child(ren)’s Permanency Goal(s)?......................77 Table 36 Was Law Guardian Present at Hearing Observed?.............................................80 Table 37 Was Mother’s Attorney Present at Hearing Observed?......................................80 Table 38 Was Father’s Attorney Present at Hearing Observed?.......................................81 Table 39 Attorney Presence at Hearing by Type of Hearing in File Review Cases..........81 Table 40 Are Participants in FN Court Proceedings Treated with Courtesy, ...................87 Respect, and Understanding? Table 41 Have You Ever Encountered an ICWA Case?......................................................93 Table 42 Issues Discussed During CPR Board Reviews ...................................................99 Table 43 CPR Board Recommendations .............................................................................99 Table 44 Agreement with DYFS Plan by Type of Review.................................................100 Table 45 CPR Board Recommended DYFS or other Custody .........................................100 Table 46 CPR Board Recommended Reunification..........................................................100 Table 47 CPR Board Recommended Adoption/KLG ........................................................101 Table 48 File Review: Contrary to Welfare and Reasonable Efforts Findings...............105 Table 49 Time Between Initial Hearing and First Compliance Review............................106 Table 50 Time Between First and Second Compliance Reviews.....................................107 Table 51 Time Between Initial and First Hearings ............................................................109 Table 52 Time Between Initial Hearing and Termination..................................................110 Table 53 Time to Permanency Outcome for File Review Cases......................................110 Table 54 New Jersey CIP Reassessment Report Card.....................................................111

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Map of New Jersey Vicinages ...............................................................................18 Figure 2 Comparison of NCJFCJ Guidelines and New Jersey Appellate Timelines .......30 Figure 3 Percentage of New Jersey Active Pending FC Cases Not in Compliance ........31 January 2002 – February 2005 Figure 4 Percentage of New Jersey Active FN Cases Not in Compliance with Fact-......33 Finding Goal, January 2002 – February 2005

NEW JERSEY STATE COURT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT REASSESSMENT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The National Center for State Courts’ New Jersey CIP Reassessment Project Team would

like to acknowledge many organizations and individuals to whom we owe a debt of gratitude. First and foremost, we must acknowledge the efforts of the CIP Reassessment Sub Committee. Thank you for your guidance, wisdom, and constructive feedback during the CIP Reassessment process.

To the many CIC professionals with whom we spoke, who we observed, and who completed the project’s statewide stakeholder survey, thank your for your participation. The list of professionals includes: judges, CIC team members, deputy attorneys general, law guardians, DYFS social workers and supervisors, public defenders, child placement review board members, court appointed special advocates, and Legal Services of New Jersey. We enjoyed your company and the opportunity to engage you on these very important issues. Keep up the good fight on behalf of New Jersey’s children.

NCSC would like to express our sincere appreciation to six very conscientious individuals,

each of whom was critical to the success of this effort: Carl Biscaldi, Assistant Family Division Manager-Hudson County; Deidra Carvin, CIC Team Leader-Essex County; Tim Houtenville, CIC Team Leader-Middlesex County; Ralph Suarez and Lydia Hernandez, CIC Team Leaders-Camden County; and Clare Turnbull, Assistant Family Division Manager-Cumberland County. Without your involvement, the multiple data collection activities in each of your sites would not have flowed as well. Thank you for your patience, hospitality, and graciousness.

To Mary Coogan and the Association for Children of New Jersey we are especially

indebted. ACNJ staff, interns, and volunteers spent hours diligently and conscientiously coding case files and performing hearing observations in Essex County. They include: Mary Coogan, Debra Pavignano, Dawn Stept, Simple Thomas, and Rosanna Santos. Thank you for your good work.

We are grateful for the collaborative work that produced Building a Better Court: A Guide

to Measuring and Improving Court Performance and Judicial Workload in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases. The ABA Center on Children and the Law, the National Center for State Courts, and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Permanency Planning for Children Department worked together for several years to produce that product and its companion Toolkit, with the generous funding of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. These documents served as critical resources for this Reassessment.

Finally, to the honorary member of the NCSC NJ CIP Reassessment Team, Nancy Gramaglia, thank you, thank you, thank you. We have found our New Jersey sister. Thank you for your assistance and encouragement at all stages of this project. Mostly, thanks for your good humor. It made the challenges less daunting. We could not have completed this work without you.

New Jersey State Court Improvement Program Reassessment Executive Summary

National Center for State Courts, June 2005 i

Executive Summary

The federal Court Improvement Program provides funding from the Children’s Bureau to state court systems to assess and improve the speed and success of ensuring permanent homes for children under court supervision for reasons of abuse and neglect. During 1995 and 1996 the Association for Children of New Jersey (ACNJ) conducted New Jersey’s initial assessment of the Court Improvement Program. The current assessment has been conducted by the National Center for State Courts as part of a Reassessment of New Jersey’s efforts in this area. In the intervening years, the federal, statewide and local contexts have changed for abused and neglected children: child abuse and neglect cases appear to have reached critical mass due rising caseloads, increased severity of allegations, the crisis and reorganization of the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services, and the passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act.

This reassessment outlines New Jersey CIP efforts to comply with AFSA and other national and federal standards and guidelines, achieve positive outcomes for children, increase the effectiveness and efficiency of children in court (CIC) case processing, and ensure continued federal funding. To address the issues associated with the critical assessment areas, the NCSC identified a series of research questions that, when answered, would not only inform the results of this CIP Reassessment but provide the basis for continuing refinement of CIP and CIC case processing. These research questions guided NCSC in the development of its focus, its instruments, and the analyses contained within this CIP Reassessment Report. Some of these questions are included in the list below. • Are prescribed time limits being met? What are the frequency and length of delays in child

protection proceedings? To what extent do current calendaring practices contribute to the delays?

• Is the time available for hearings sufficient to permit presentation of evidence and arguments? If not, how much time is needed for each type of hearing and what are the implications for the court?

• To what extent do parties and counsel present witnesses, introduce evidence, and offer arguments in each type of hearing? To what extent do resource parents receive notice of hearings?

• What data are available for case tracking? Is it sufficient? Is it accurate? Do all the people who need it have access?

• To what extent do the number of cases and the limited number of judges and personnel affect the ability of courts to meet safety, timeliness, due process, and permanency standards?

• How often are parents and children represented by counsel? To what extent is representation adequate?

• Are all participants in court proceedings treated with courtesy, respect, and understanding? • To what extent is the information available to courts sufficient, timely, and accurate? • How effectively do the state and tribal courts coordinate in ICWA cases? • Are prescribed appellate time limits being met? To what extent do appellate practices

contribute to or deter safety, permanency, due process, and timeliness considerations for children?

• To what extent is (1) the performance of New Jersey’s courts and the degree of collaboration with the Division of Youth and Family Services and (2) the sufficiency of judicial determination


National Center for State Courts, June 2005 ii

in court orders (i.e. reasonable efforts, contrary to the welfare, best interest) consistent with the findings, recommendations, and requirements of previous assessments?

Methodology

To assess the extent of change in the processing of child protection cases in New Jersey since the initial assessment in 1996, NCSC pursued a comprehensive multi-method strategy. The interview and focus group protocols, court observation forms, and the case file review forms were informed by prototype instruments developed by the NCSC, NCJFCJ and the ABA with funding from the Packard Foundation. Relevant data and information were collected from several sources: • Interviews and focus groups conducted with child welfare professionals • Court and Child Placement Review Board observation • Case file review • An on-line survey of child protection professionals • Analysis of time series data on compliance supplied by the FACTS data system • Analysis of case data supplied by the FACTS data system

Interviews and focus groups (38 total), court observations (139 total) and Child Placement Review Board observations (122 total), and case file review activities (104 files reviewed total) were conducted in five vicinages selected by the Court Improvement Program Reassessment Subcommittee to represent the diverse areas of the state and some of the vicinages with highest numbers of children under court supervision. These site visits in Camden, Cumberland, Essex, Hudson, and Middlesex counties occurred in March and April, 2005. Key Empirical Findings

This section presents project questions addressed by the empirical data sources collected, with some reference to focus group and interview data findings as appropriate. This is intended to provide a flavor of the results presented in the full Reassessment Report. This section concludes with a comparison chart making some global assessment on improvement since the time of the 1996 CIP Assessment. • Are prescribed time limits being met? What are the frequency and length of delays in

child protection proceedings? To what extent do current calendaring practices contribute to the delays?

Available evidence suggests that prescribed time limits are generally being met.

Aggregate FC and FN compliance rates have improved over time and are currently high. Most survey respondents felt that their jurisdiction was meeting prescribed time limits. Courts seem to be concerned about addressing these time limits and often inquire in court as to their status. The size and complexity of the respondents’ caseloads make meeting these time limits challenging, especially for DYFS workers. However, non-compliance of FN cases with the requirement that a Fact Finding Hearing be held within goal (four months or 120 days of the complaint) remains troubling high in some counties. Delay (interruption) seems to be an issue. Most survey respondents felt that it was and court observation found delay in almost every case (on the average of two hours). Given the relatively short duration of most proceedings, such delay


National Center for State Courts, June 2005 iii

becomes even more unpalatable. Adjournment was not as big an issue as delays to most survey respondents. The most frequently mentioned sources of typical delay and adjournment were, in both cases, “key party tardiness” and “court scheduling backup.” • Is the time available for hearings sufficient to permit presentation of evidence and

arguments? If not, how much time is needed for each type of hearing and what are the implications for the court?

The evidence from the survey suggests that most professionals feel that there is sufficient

time to permit presentation of evidence and arguments, especially for FN hearings. The majority of all professionals felt that there was often or usually sufficient time for FN cases, especially judges and law guardians. The results for FG and FL hearings are more difficult to interpret because so many professionals (excluding judges) had had little experience with these types of cases. However, for both FG and FL cases, it is clear that most professionals that had an opinion felt that there was sufficient time, especially judges. When asked about specific pieces of evidence, it is clear that the majority of respondents felt that DYFS, Psychological, and Psychiatric reports are usually or often used in hearings. CPRB and CASA reports are much less likely to be used, especially the former. • To what extent do parties and counsel present witnesses, introduce evidence, and offer

arguments in each type of hearing? To what extent do resource parents receive notice of hearings?

Most respondents to the survey felt that parties and counsel present witnesses, introduce

evidence, and offer arguments often or usually in FN, FG, and FL hearings and this was confirmed in part by court observation. These results suggest that these FN, FG, and FL hearings are not merely perfunctory, but rather are active and contentious. In addition, most survey respondents felt that the court made inquiries about service of notice to absent parties during most hearings. However, court observation data did not verify the survey results, since inquiries about service were observed in only about a quarter of the hearings observed and, in particular, in only a little more than 10 percent of the hearings observed was there any mention of attempts to notify absent foster/resource parent or pre-adoptive parent(s) or caretaker(s). • What data are available for case tracking? Is it sufficient? Is it accurate? Do all the

people who need it have access?

Although judges and CIC staff feel that case-tracking information was usually or often available and sufficient to meet their needs, it is clear that their automated systems are not supplying them with information on critical performance measures that could potentially improve court performance.


National Center for State Courts, June 2005 iv


Fairly consistently across all professional types, about a third of the survey respondents

felt that their caseloads interfered with their ability to meet safety, timeliness, due process, or permanency standards. Respondents were more likely to indicate that timeliness standards in particular were impacted by caseloads. According to the survey, court inquiries about the safety of the children involved were the norm in FN cases in particular and also in FG and FL cases. Judge change was not frequent and in most cases does not appear to be a threat to due process, but it still occurred at critical junctures in about a fourth of the cases examined in the file review. Both the survey and court observation confirmed that the court very actively tracks permanency goals. • How often are parents and children represented by counsel? To what extent is

representation adequate?

The best evidence suggest that law guardians are present at almost all child protection proceedings, while the mother’s attorney is present at little more than half of the proceedings and the father’s in about a third of the proceedings. Almost 79 percent of the survey respondents indicated that parents’ attorneys were usually or often present at proceedings. Evidence also suggests that law guardians rarely change between initial assignment and the end of the case. Most survey respondents (84 percent) feel that law guardian representation is often or usually adequate. A little more than half of the law guardians had received training on CIC cases prior to assuming their role but opinion was divided as to how well the training had prepared them for their role, with 54 percent responding very well but another 46 percent responded that the training had prepared them not at all or only a little. Continuing education on CIC cases seems to be the norm for law guardians but there still seems to be widespread lack of knowledge about statewide standards governing CIC cases among law guardians. • Are all participants in court proceedings treated with courtesy, respect, and

understanding?

Survey results show that a large majority of CIC professionals feel that participants in FN, FG, and FL cases are treated with “courtesy, respect, and understanding.” Court observation revealed that courts take the time to explain to the child(ren), parent(s), other caretaker(s), and relative(s) the reason for the hearing in the majority but not all of the cases. Likewise, courts were observed making an effort to ensure that the child(ren), parent(s), other caretaker(s), and relative(s) understood the proceedings in almost two-thirds of the cases but not all. Clearly, most courts afford parents and children the opportunity to speak or ask questions. • How effectively do the state and tribal courts coordinate in ICWA cases?

Survey respondents were asked if they had ever encountered an ICWA case and about 9 percent indicated that they had. Neither court observation nor file review encountered any mention of ICWA cases. The information resulting from focus groups suggests that cases involving Indian children are infrequent at best. There was consensus, however, that there are no current fail safe


National Center for State Courts, June 2005 v

mechanisms in place for the identification of a child as an Indian child, which would then trigger the application of ICWA. • To what extent is (1) the performance of New Jersey’s courts and the degree of

collaboration with the Division of Youth and Family Services and (2) the sufficiency of judicial determination in court orders (i.e. reasonable efforts, contrary to the welfare, best interest) consistent with the findings, recommendations, and requirements of previous assessments?

The NCSC project teams found that there have been significant and system-wide

improvements since the 1996 ACNJ Assessment. The implementation of ASFA is likely the greatest change to CIC case processing since the 1996 Court Assessment and what may be directly attributable to the implementation of ASFA in New Jersey is likely enhanced by other court improvement efforts and the activities of the CICIC. New Jersey CIP Reassessment Report Card Improvement Report

Section(s) Yes No Key Findings-ACNJ Initial CIP Assessment The court does not always have sufficient information to make appropriate decisions.

ü XIV

The quality of the court review is questionable. ü VII, VIII, IX, XI Lack of compliance with court orders is a critical problem and was identified as the major barrier to timely decision-making.

ü XVIII

The focus of the court is too often on the process, rather than the outcome.

ü VII, VIII

Judges do not receive sufficient preparation and support to do their job.

ü VII, XI

Implementation of the court process, as defined in statute and guidelines, varies widely from county to county.

ü VI, VII, XVI, XVIII

There is a lack of integration and coordination inside and outside the system.

ü XVII, XVIII

Case tracking and monitoring are not as effective as they could be and weaken accountability for case outcomes.

ü VII, X

Legal representation of parents is especially weak. ü XII Representation for the child needs to be strengthened. ü XII The Deputy Attorney General needs support. ü VII, XI There are continued problems in the CPR system which limit its quality and impact

ü XVII

Even if the quality of review is improved, there are inherent limitations which limit the effectiveness of CPR.

ü VIII, XVII

The lack of DYF’S resources have a negative impact on the court ü XIV, XVIII


National Center for State Courts, June 2005 vi

Concluding Remarks

There are one or two areas that require immediate attention for compliance with federal mandates such as developing the processes for the identification of a child as Indian and ICWA compliance. For the most part, the mechanisms in place for CIC case processing are consistent with federal mandates and do not impede safety, timeliness, permanency, and due process considerations. Opportunities for refinement and improvement, however, exist at every level and within every agency associated with CIC case processing. Additionally, strengthening the infrastructure for optimal CIC case processing should be emphasized. Moreover, CIC case processing should continue to be actively monitored and changes should be documented and noted for subsequent Court Improvement Program Reassessments. Finally, the time is ripe for the CICIC to take CIC case processing to the next level by adapting and incorporating the best practice standards of the Resource Guidelines and the ABA, NCSC, and NCJFCJ Performance Measures in child abuse and neglect cases. The Reassessment Report concludes with a summary of over fifty recommendations made throughout to improve CIC case processing.

New Jersey State Court Improvement Program Reassessment Final Report

National Center for State Courts, June 2005 1

Part A. Introduction, Federal Legislation, National Standards and Best Practice, Prior Evaluations, and Methodology

Section I. Introduction

During 1995 and 1996, the Association for Children of New Jersey (ACNJ) conducted the initial assessment of the Court Improvement Program. In July 1996 ACNJ issued its report and recommendations for improving child welfare court case processing in New Jersey.1 The themes identified in ACNJ’s Final Report focused on case practice, systemic support, legal representation, administrative reviews (e.g., Child Placement Review Boards), and other external issues. For many years, this document served as the New Jersey Children in Court Improvement Committee’s (CICIC) roadmap for its continuing efforts to improve the quality and timeliness of abuse, neglect, and termination or parental rights court proceedings. Since the 1996 Initial Assessment, child abuse and neglect cases appear to have reached critical mass due to a confluence of events such as rising caseloads, increased severity of allegations, the crisis and reorganization of the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services, and the passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, Public Law 105-89, which required increased court oversight of children in the child welfare system. As a state court system that receives Federal Court Improvement Program funding, New Jersey must now update ACNJ’s initial 1996 assessment in light of the requirements of ASFA, the state’s implementation of ASFA legislation, and Court Improvement Program (CIP) reform efforts. In November 2004, the New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) contracted with the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) to perform the Reassessment of its Court Improvement Program. NCSC is acutely aware of the importance of this reassessment for the New Jersey CIP in terms of its ongoing efforts to comply with AFSA and other national and federal standards and guidelines, achieve positive outcomes for children, increase the effectiveness and efficiency of children in court (CIC) case processing, and ensure continued federal funding. NCSC’s comprehensive reassessment includes an examination of the following critical areas: • The effectiveness, timeliness and quality of CIC case processing • The performance of the courts in complying with federal legislation such as the Indian Child

Welfare Act (ICWA), the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), and Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (AACWA), and the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA)

• The legal rules, statutes, standards, and federal criteria governing issues of safety, timeliness, and permanency in CIC cases

• The level of compliance with national standards such as the Resource Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases published by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

• The identification of barriers and best practices regarding optimal CIC case processing • The functioning and quality of case tracking systems to support effective and timely CIC case

processing • The interaction of the court with stakeholders involved in CIC case processing 1 See Cecilia Zalkin, Mary Coogan, and Deborah Croswell, Court Assessment Project: Final Report, July 1996, Association for Children of New Jersey.



• The adequacy of legal services provided to children and families involved in a CIC case • Improving calendaring practices in family court cases • Enhancing appeals in children in court cases • Preparing for the next federal audit.

To address the issues associated with the critical assessment areas, the NCSC identified a series of research questions that, when answered, would not only inform the results of this CIP Reassessment but provide the basis for continuing refinement of CIP and CIC case processing. Table 1 identifies the specific research questions that guided NCSC in the development of its focus, its instruments and the analyses contained within this CIP Reassessment Report.



Table 1. NJ CIP Reassessment Research Questions • What are the rules, standards, and criteria that

govern New Jersey’s judicial decisions in child protection cases? How have they changed since the initial CIP Assessment?

• What are the rules and practices governing whether a proceeding is administrative or judicial, legal representation of parties, admissibility of evidence, presentation of witnesses, due process protections, and conducting the various types of child protection proceedings?

• To what extent do New Jersey’s court rules and practices governing child protective proceedings conform to national standards and recommendations?

• To what extent do particular practices or procedures facilitate compliance or contribute to non-compliance with the applicable legal requirements?

• Are prescribed time limits being met? What are the frequency and length of delays in child protection proceedings? To what extent do current calendaring practices contribute to the delays?

• Is the time available for hearings sufficient to permit presentation of evidence and arguments? If not, how much time is needed for each type of hearing and what are the implications for the court?

• To what extent do parties, resource parents, and counsel present witnesses, introduce evidence, and offer arguments in each type of hearing? To what extent do resource parents receive notice of hearings?

• What data are available for case tracking? Is it sufficient? Is it accurate? Do all the people who need it have access?


• How often are parents and children represented by counsel? To what extent is representation adequate?

• Are all participants in court proceedings treated with courtesy, respect, and understanding.

• To what extent is the information available to courts sufficient, timely, and accurate?

• To what extent do statutory, regulatory, and procedural requirements facilitate or impede assuring the safety, well being, and permanency of children in foster care and the program goals set forth in titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act?

• To what extent is (1) the performance of New Jersey’s courts and the degree of collaboration with the DYFS and (2) the sufficiency of judicial determination in court orders consistent with the findings, recommendations, and requirements of previous assessments?

• To what extent do statutory, regulatory, and procedural requirements impose significant administrative burdens on the courts?

• Are prescribed appellate time limits being met? To what extent do appellate practices contribute to or deter safety, permanency, due process, and timeliness considerations for children?

• How effectively do the state and tribal courts coordinate in ICWA cases?



Section II. Federal Legislation The New Jersey Court Improvement Program functions within a child welfare system rich with laws, procedures, and multiple executive and legislative branch agencies. Federal legislation provides much of its context and places many demands on the court system, the CIC judge, the CIC team, and other CIC professionals. As such, it is critical to have an understanding of this framework for the interpretation of the findings associated with the CIP Reassessment. By reviewing and interpreting the applicable federal legislation, national standards and best practices, and the results associated with prior reports discussing the court’s performance in CIC case processing, the NCSC project team is well positioned to assess the current performance of the CIP and CIC case processing. Sections II, III, and IV briefly presents an overview of: (1) the most pertinent pieces of federal legislation affecting the CIP; (2) a series of best practices for child welfare case processing as outlined in the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), Resource Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse & Neglect Cases2 (Resource Guidelines); (3) a series of dependency court performance measures developed by the American Bar Association-Center on Children and the Law (ABA), NCSC, and NCJFCJ in Building a Better Court: Measuring and Improving Court Performance and Judicial Workload in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases; and (4) the pertinent findings associated with two prior evaluations including the previously mentioned Initial Assessment performed by ACNJ and the 2004 Final Report: New Jersey Child and Family Services Review. An analysis of this type serves multiple purposes. First, the analysis of the legal framework highlights a discussion of New Jersey statutes in comparison to the essential provisions outlined in (1) federal legislation and (2) the nationally recognized best practices outlined in the Resource Guidelines. Second, it permits a review of historical evaluation findings and any subsequent changes and improvements to previous evaluation findings may serve as a baseline or a point of departure for the current CIP assessment. The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, Public Law 93-247 The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) is the first piece of federal legislation to address the issue of child abuse and neglect. The first iteration of CAPTA was promulgated in 1974, and the Act has been amended multiple times. Its most recent reauthorization took place in June 2003 under the auspices of Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-36). Of major significance to CIC case processing is that CAPTA (1) identifies a minimum definition of child abuse and neglect; (2) requires the development of mandatory abuse reporting mechanisms; and (3) requires the appointment of a competent, trained guardian ad litem to any child subject to an abuse or neglect proceeding. CAPTA also provides federal funding to states in support of prevention, assessment, investigation, prosecution, and treatment activities and also provides grants to public agencies and nonprofit organizations for demonstration programs and projects. Additionally, CAPTA strengthens the role of the federal government in supporting research, evaluation, technical assistance, and data collection activities. Finally, CAPTA 2 See National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Resource Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse & Neglect Cases (Reno, Nev.: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 1995.)



established the Office on Child Abuse and Neglect and the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information. The Indian Child Welfare Act, Public Law 95-608 In November 1978, Congress enacted the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. §1901-63.3 This act resulted from a series of Senate oversight hearings beginning in 1974 which produced, among other things, statistical data and overwhelming expert testimony documenting the unwarranted and “wholesale removal of Indian children from their homes.” Mississippi Bank of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 109 S. Ct. 1957, 1600 (1989). ICWA provisions reflect the importance of Indian culture in determining the best interest of the Indian child. First, a determination must be made that a child is or is not an Indian child. Second, a system of notice provisions requires a state court to give notice to the relevant tribe upon commencement of a child custody proceeding involving an “Indian child.” Third, a tribal court may take jurisdiction of a commenced state court child protection matter through a motion to transfer. Finally, procedural and evidentiary requirements are placed upon Indian child custody proceedings remaining in the state court system. Specific ICWA requirements include the following: • the right for a child custody proceeding to be transferred to a tribal court for any Indian child

living off the reservation, absent good cause to the contrary or objection by a parent; • a tribe’s right to intervene at any point during a child custody proceeding involving an Indian

child; • the tribe’s right to a receipt of notice of any involuntary child custody proceeding involving an

Indian child; • the requirement that state agencies show that active efforts be made to provide remedial

services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that these efforts have proved unsuccessful; and

• the stringent burdens and sources of proof than regular child abuse and neglect proceedings to substantiate the need for foster care placement or termination of parental rights

The failure to make an early identification that a child is an Indian child or the failure to adequately notify the tribe of a CIC proceeding involving an Indian child can have devastating effects. For example, in instances when a tribe intervenes during the very late stages of a CIC proceeding, the court process is substantially slowed. The tribe will likely review the case history, perform a relative search, conduct a home study, and prepare for a mediated settlement or litigation. In effect, the tribe must catch up to the stage of the state’s proceedings in the case. As a result, the state court proceeding could take months, or even years, longer than it would have in other circumstances.

3 The Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. §§1901-63.



The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, Public Law 96-272 The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, Public Law 96-272 is the federal legislation governing foster care and permanency planning for dependent and neglected children.4 The fundamental principle behind the Act is securing permanent homes for dependent and neglected children. The goals of this federal legislation are: to improve the quality of care provided to children in foster care, to reduce the removal of children from their homes for placement in foster care, to reunify the family and return children as soon as conditions in the home permit, and to facilitate adoption for those children who cannot or should not be returned to their family. The most pertinent feature of the Act for courts is the increased judicial oversight of cases involving children in foster care. It requires as a condition of states’ eligibility for federal payments for children in foster care, courts must: • Make a determination that remaining in the home would be detrimental to the welfare of the

child (unless removal from the home occurred pursuant to a voluntary placement agreement entered into by the child’s parent );

• In the case of voluntary placements, make a judicial determination within the first 180 days that the placement is in the best interests of the child and decide whether the return of the child to the home would be contrary to the child’s best interests when the parents request a revocation of the voluntary placement and the state agency contests the request;

• Find that the state made “reasonable efforts” (1) to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child from the home, and (2) to return the child to the home if removed;

• Find that the child welfare agency develops a case plan; and • Review the case of each child in foster care, including both an 180 day periodic review and an

18 month permanency planning hearing.5 The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, Public Law 105-89 Of primary concern since the 1996 CIP assessment is the impact of and compliance with the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA).6 ASFA was in part “a response to the fact that more children were entering the foster care system than were exiting.”7 This landmark legislation clearly and unequivocally established the national goals of safety, permanency, and well being for children in foster care. Five principles underlie ASFA, evolving from several of the assumptions underlying Adoption 2002, and these apply to professionals working with families through public and private agencies as well as state courts. These principles are: • Safety is the paramount concern that must guide all child welfare services • Foster care is temporary • Permanency planning efforts should begin as soon as the child enters care • The child welfare system must focus on results and accountability

4 The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 670 et seq. 5 42 U.S.C. § 671 (a) (16); 42 U.S.C. § 675 (5); This requirement also can be carried out by administrative bod(ies) appointed or approved by the court. 6 ASFA regulations are found at 45 C.F.R. §§ 1355, 1356 & 1357. 7 U. S. General Accounting Office, Juvenile Courts: Reforms Aim to Better Serve Maltreated Children, 1999 at 8.



• Innovative approaches are needed to achieve the goals of safety, permanency, and well being.8

ASFA necessitates more timely, decisive, and substantive hearings, and more frequent court and administrative case reviews. These include: • Review Hearings every 6 months • 12-month time limit for permanency hearing • 22-month time limit for termination hearing ASFA also requires a focus on outcomes and performance reports, and stresses both court and child welfare system accountability. ASFA also stresses the need for collaboration and community partnerships that are focused on child safety and timely permanency. ASFA places demands on state court resources. Moreover, the passage of ASFA also significantly increases the role of the court as well as the agencies and advocates throughout the processing of the case, and ultimately places responsibility for compliance and good outcomes for children and families squarely on the shoulders of the court.

8 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau, Guidelines for Public Policy and State Legislation Governing Permanence for Children (Washington, D.C.: June, 1999).1-5—1-6.



Section III. National Standards and Best Practices The NCJFCJ Resource Guidelines9 The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) has published Resource Guidelines that identify a series of “best practices” as to how courts should process child welfare cases. The Resource Guidelines identify (1) the purpose and intent of key court hearings, (2) the timing of key court hearings, (3) the minimum duration of key court events, and (4) the key decisions court should make during each court hearing. Because consideration should be given to how New Jersey’s provisions compare to the processes envisioned in the Resource Guidelines, Table 2 provides a brief overview of the court hearing milestones and their optimal conduct according to the Resource Guidelines. To be consistent with the activity and time allotments suggested by the Resource Guidelines requires that the court dedicate a significant period of time for each hearing type. The Resource Guidelines do not distinguish between contested and uncontested hearings and involve the minimum suggested time to be allocated for a hearing event. Currently, Essex County has adopted the Resource Guidelines and is referred to by the NCJFCJ as a “model court.”

Recommendation 1: The CICIC should consider expanding the adoption and incorporation of the Resource Guidelines to all vicinages across the state. Specific attention should be paid to incorporating Resource Guidelines’ recommendations in the areas of hearing duration and key judicial decisions for each hearing type.

9 See National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Resource Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse & Neglect Cases (Reno, Nev.: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 1995.)



Table 2. Recommendations of the NCJFCJ Resource Guidelines

Hearing Timing Critical Issues/Key Decisions Minimum Duration

Preliminary Protective Hearing

Should occur promptly (within 72 hours) after the child has been placed outside the home.

The court must determine whether reasonable efforts have been made by the child protection agency to preserve the family

60 Minutes

Adjudication Hearing

Should be completed within 60 days after the child has been removed from the home, whether or not the parties agree to extensions.

Key Decisions • Which allegations of the petition have been

proved or admitted, if any; • Whether there is any legal basis for continued

court and agency intervention; • Whether reasonable efforts have been made to

prevent the need for placement or to safely reunify the family.

30 Minutes

Disposition Hearing

Should be considered a separate proceeding from adjudication in order to ensure that there will be appropriate focus on such disposition issues such as removal, custody and reunification services. Adjudication focuses on the elements of establishing dependency, while disposition should focus on what is to happen to the child.

30 Minutes

Review Hearing

At a minimum, should be held every six months. During critical times in a case, however, the court should review the case more frequently.

30 Minutes

Permanency Planning Hearing

Should take place at a minimum, at least annually.

60 Minutes

Termination of Parental Rights

Should take place within 60 days of service of process.

Key Decisions • Whether the statutory grounds for termination

have been met • Whether termination is in the best interests of the

child.

60 Minutes



Building a Better Court: Measuring and Improving Court Performance and Judicial Workload in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases

The ABA, NCSC, and NCJFCJ have collaborated for some years on several projects to refine, share ideas and strategies, pool resources, and continue to keep each other informed about court reform projects. Among the most significant achievements of this collaboration is the development of court performance measures. These are the first set of measures specifically developed for courts hearing child abuse and neglect cases. The performance measures cover four basic categories of outcomes: Safety, Permanency, Due Process, and Timeliness. They were designed as corollaries to the AFCARS performance measures and the CFSR standards in recognition that coordination between courts and child welfare agencies is essential. Table 3 identifies the performance areas and the goals associated with each performance area. The measures are based upon a series of optimal core values and goals. Within each value and sub-goal, there are key measures that provide, when reviewed, insights into how court performance affects the lives of children and families. Please refer to the table in Appendix A for a comprehensive list of the performance measures, the performance outcomes, and the recommended data for collection and analysis.

Table 3. ABA, NCSC, and NCJFCJ Performance Measures for Abuse and Neglect Courts

Court Performance Area

Goals

Safety Goal 1: Children should be safe from abuse and neglect while under court jurisdiction

Permanency Goal 2: Children should have permanency and stability in their living situations

Due Process Goal 3: To ensure cases are decided impartially and thoroughly, based on evidence brought before the court

Timeliness To expedite permanency by minimizing the time from the filing of the petition or protective custody order to permanency

With funding form the David and Lucile Packard Foundation between 2000 and 2004,

these partners were able to develop a Guide10 and a set of data collection Tools that courts and their partners could use to monitor dependency courts’ status in ensuring Safety, Permanency, Due Process, and Timeliness of decisions to meet the mandates of ASFA and best practice in dependency court cases. The creators of the Guide and Toolkit also envisioned that the tools could help courts prepare for their involvement in the Child and Family Services Reviews conducted by the Children’s Bureau, and also be used in the state Court Improvement Project Reassessments. In the end, the authors hoped that courts use the ideas behind the Guide and Toolkit to assess and improvement performance and to build their internal capacity for self-examination and self-improvement in the four key measurement areas.

10 ABA Center on Children and the Law, National Center for State Courts, and National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Permanency Planning Department (Spring 2004) Building a Better Court: Measuring and Improving Court Performance and Judicial Workload in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases. http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Res_CtPerS_TCPS_PackGde4-04Pub.pdf.”]



The Toolkit instruments were used as a starting point for the case file review, court observation, interview instruments, and the statewide survey used in the NJ CIP Reassessment project reported in this document. This point is restated and elaborated in Section V, Methodology of this Reassessment Report.

Recommendation 2: The CICIC should develop a comprehensive performance measurement system for CIC court case processing. As a resource, the CICIC may wish to consider adapting the performance measures developed by the ABA, NCSC, and NCJFCJ and identified in Building a Better Court. For the short term, the CICIC should develop one measure in each of the performance areas: safety, timeliness, permanency, and due process. Additionally, the CICIC should identify where the data to address the measures are located, how they will be collected, the frequency of data collection, and who will be responsible for data analysis and compilation. These performance measures will serve as an excellent indicator of court performance and will assist in achieving the goal of optimal CIC case processing.



Section IV. Prior Evaluations 1996 Court Assessment Project In 1995 and 1996, the Association for Children of New Jersey performed a multi-phase review of the judicial decision-making process in court cases involving children in the child welfare system. Like the current CIP Reassessment, the 1996 Assessment focused on quality and timeliness of the CIC case processing.11 Phase I focused on the identification of the decision-making child welfare cases by case type: (1) review of children in placement (FC); (2) child abuse and neglect (FN); and (3) termination of parental rights (FG). In-depth activities (e.g., interviews, court observation, file review) took place in the five selected counties of Atlantic, Camden, Essex, Passaic, and Somerset. As a result of the data collection efforts, syntheses, and analyses, ACNJ developed a list of short-term and long-term recommendations for improved statewide practice. Moreover, ACNJ identified a series of key findings which provided the foundation for these recommendations. The ACNJ Assessment categorized their findings and recommendations by themes, which include: case practice, systemic support, legal representations, child placement review, and external issues. Table 4 outlines the series of key findings associated with the ACNJ 1996 Assessment.

11 See Cecilia Zalkin, Mary Coogan, and Deborah Croswell, Court Assessment Project: Final Report, July 1996, Association for Children of New Jersey.



Table 4. Key Findings from 1996 ACNJ CIP Assessment Case

Practice Systemic Support Legal Representation Child Placement

Review External Issues

CASA Program

The court does not always have sufficient information to make appropriate decisions.


Legal representation of parents is especially weak.

There are continued problems in the CPR system, which limit its quality and impact.

Case processing by DYFS presents some obstacles to timely, effective case processing by the court.

CASA‘s limited outreach makes it difficult to assess the impact of existing programs or the potential for its expansion.

The quality of the court review is questionable


Representation for the child needs to be strengthened.

Even if the quality of review is improved, there are inherent limitations which limit effectiveness of CPR.

The lack of DYFS resources have a negative impact on the court

There are internal program barriers which limit outreach and impact.

Lack of compliance with court orders is a critical problem and was identified as the major barrier to timely decision-making.


The Deputy Attorney General needs support.

Even if system were re-designed, a question remains as to whether it would make a difference in permanency outcomes for children.

The potential for a CASA program should be explored further.





2004 Children and Family Services Review During the 2004 New Jersey Child and Family Services Review (CFSR), the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) reviewed the state’s performance in seven key systemic areas12 and seven child welfare outcomes associated with permanency, safety, and well-being. The results of the CFSR indicate that the state is not in substantial conformity with the nationally established systemic and child welfare performance measures. The state did not achieve a passing score and, as a result, New Jersey developed a corrective Program Improvement Plan to improve areas of deficiency.13 The most pertinent of the seven systemic areas to CIC case processing, court performance and the current CIP Reassessment involves the court’s role in achieving case system review compliance. As discussed in the CFSR, five indicators were used to assess the State’s performance with regard to the Case Review System. The indicators examine the development of case plans and parent involvement in that process, the consistency of six-month case reviews, and twelve-month permanency hearings, the implementation of procedures to seek termination of parental rights (TPR) in accordance with the ASFA timeframes, and the notification and inclusion of foster and pre-adoptive parents and relative caregivers in case reviews and hearings. The findings of the CFSR indicate:

The State of New Jersey is not in substantial conformity with the systemic factor of Case Review System.

• Case plans are not developed jointly with the child’s parent on a consistent basis. • DYFS is not consistent with regard to conducting a case review for all children in foster care at least once every 6 months. • Permanency hearings are not consistently conducted every 12 months for children in foster care. • Although the State has established a process for TPR in accordance with the provisions of the ASFA, there are delays in filing for, and achieving, TPR. • DYFS and the courts are not consistent with regard to ensuring that foster parents, pre-adoptive parents, and relative caregivers of children in foster care are notified of, and have an opportunity to be heard, in all case reviews or hearings held with respect to the child.14

It appears that four of the five Case System Review indicators are intrinsically related to the activities, infrastructure, and performance of the court. These include: (1) Provides a process for the periodic review of the status of each child, no less frequently than once every 6 months, either by a court or by administrative review; (2) Provides a process that ensures that each child in foster care under the supervision of the State has a hearing in a qualified court or administrative body no later 12 New Jersey Child and Family Services Review: Final Report, May 21, 2004, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau, ACF Region II, (Washington, DC. 2004). The systemic areas include Statewide Information System, Case Review System, Quality Assurance System, Training, Service Array, Agency Responsiveness to the Community, and Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment and Retention. 13 State of New Jersey Child and Family Services Plan Review: Program Improvement Plan, September 23, 2004. 14 New Jersey Child and Family Services Review: Final Report, May 21, 2004, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau, ACF Region II, (Washington, DC. 2004).



than 12 months from the date the child entered foster care and no less frequently than every 12 months thereafter; (3) Provides a process for termination of parental rights proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Adoption and Safe Families Act; and (4) Provides a process for foster parents, pre-adoptive parents, and relative caregivers of children in foster care to be notified of, and have an opportunity to be heard in, any review or hearing held with respect to the child. Ultimately, ACF determined that the state was not in conformity with these four specific indicators. Tables 5 through 8 identify the specific Case Review System indicator, the factors contributing to the non-conformity as indicated in the CFSR, and the key actions developed by the state to address the deficiencies within the context of the Program Improvement Plan.

Table 5. CFSR and the Court’s Performance-Indicator 1 Indicator-Provides a process for the periodic review of the status of each child, no less frequently than once every 6 months, either by a court or by administrative review.

Factors Contributing to Non-Conformity • Reviews are not occurring consistently in a timely manner statewide • Gaps exist with respect to periodic reviews of cases after TPR has been attained • Not enough CPRB boards to conduct review and not enough staff to support the boards • CPRB not receiving timely notification of a child’s entry into foster care • Members of CPRB do not reflect the diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds of families served by DYFS • CPRB rubber stamps the DYFS plan rather than conducting a thorough examination • Parents do not understand the review process and what is expected of them • DYFS caseworkers are not required to attend the CPRB review, in his absence meaningful discussion

is limited. • There is a lack of interface between the CPRB and the court hearings.

Key Actions • Implement CPRB Standards • Improve systems to support notification timeliness

Table 6. CFSR and the Court’s Performance-Indicator 2 Indicator- Provides a process that ensures that each child in foster care under the supervision of the State has a permanency hearing in a qualified court or administrative body no later than 12 months from the date the child entered foster care and no less frequently than every 12 months thereafter.

Factors Contributing to Non-Conformity • Although a process is in place, the hearings are not being held consistently every 12 months • Parents do not have a meaningful opportunity for input before or during permanency hearings • There is no consistent practice that ensures that parents are aware of and understand the outcome or

consequences of a permanency hearing. • Continuances are granted because there is not a plan for the child.

Key Actions • Form the ICCF • The CICIC will coordinate with the respective agencies involved in developing a training for attorneys

and judges, on the importance of, and sensitivity to, the need for parental participation and input into permanency hearings.

• Family courts identified as not in substantial compliance with timeliness will develop and implement performance improvement plans to meet the requirement of timely permanency hearings.



Table 7. CFSR and the Court’s Performance-Indicator 3

Indicator- Provides a process for termination of parental rights proceedings in accordance with the provision of the Adoption and Safe Families Act.

Factors Contributing to Non-Conformity • Petitions for Termination of Parental Rights are not being filed in a timely manner • Length of time it takes to obtain evaluations • Failure of parents to show up at evaluations or court • Time is required to schedule the TPR hearing • Since many TPRs are appealed, the process becomes lengthy. The appeals process is lengthy • Transferring cases from DYFS to ARC before filing TPR delays achievement of TPR • Agency not completing necessary paperwork • Reluctance of courts to grant TPR absent an identified adoptive resources • Findings that reasonable efforts were not made especially when parents have substance abuse

problems and are not able to access treatment services

Key Actions • Assign Adoption Specialists/paralegal staff to the district offices • The CICIC will make recommendations to the ICCF to address the appeals process, once TPR has

been granted. • A strategy will be developed to increase the availability of necessary experts in Family Court

proceedings. • Hire additional Law Guardian personnel. • Hire additional legal and support staff in DLPS (Attorney General) to represent DYFS. • Hire Parental Representation Unit (PRU) staff

Table 8. CFSR and the Court’s Performance-Indicator 4 Indicator- Provides a process for foster parents, pre-adoptive parents, and relative caregivers of children in foster care to be notified of, and have an opportunity to be heard in, any review or hearing held with respect to the child.

Factors Contributing to Non-Conformity • DYFS and the courts are not consistent with regard to ensuring that caregivers of children in foster care

are notified of, and have an opportunity to be heard in all case reviews and hearing • Stakeholder perspectives on involvement differ depending on locations • Foster parents may not be permitted to speak during court hearings • Foster parents may believe they “have nothing new to contribute”

Key Actions • CICIC will make recommendations so that resource family parents receive notice of, and have an

opportunity to be heard at, proceedings regarding children in their care. • The CICIC will make recommendations to strengthen the role of resource families in the court process. • The CICIC, in partnership with county-based local teams, will undertake in vicinage assessment of the

larger picture of what families and children experience in the court building and make recommendations to improve their experience.



Section V. Methodology To assess the current status of and the extent of change in the processing of child protection cases in New Jersey since the initial 1996 assessment in, NCSC pursued a comprehensive multi-method strategy. Relevant data were collected from several sources: • Interviews and focus groups conducted with child welfare professionals • An on-line survey of child protection professionals • Court and Child Placement Review Board observation • Case file review • Analysis of time series data on compliance supplied by the AOC’s FACTS data system • Analysis of case data supplied by the FACTS data system It should be noted that the interview and focus group protocols, court observation forms, and the case file review forms were informed by prototype instruments developed by the NCSC, NCJFCJ and the ABA with funding from the Packard Foundation. Selection of Research Sites for On-Site Data Collection Activity Groups In November 2004, members of the NCSC project team met with the CIP Reassessment Workgroup. Among the specific items addressed included the selection of the research sites for on-site data collection activity, which included interviews/focus groups, court and CPR Board observation, and file review. As a result of the discussions between the NCSC project team and the CIP Reassessment Workgroup, five locations were selected for on-site activity. Table 9 identifies the locations and the selection justification. To provide context to the selection, a map of the state and its vicinages is located in Figure 1.

Table 9. New Jersey CIP Reassessment-Locations for On-Site Activity

Location Justification

Camden • Large established jurisdiction • Site of original 1996 assessment • Nine percent of active case

Essex • Largest jurisdiction in State • Site of original 1996 assessment • Strong CASA program • Mediation program • 26 percent of active cases

Cumberland • Medium to large sized and rural jurisdiction • Four percent of active cases • New CASA programà first class of volunteers

Middlesex • Urban and diverse jurisdiction • Five percent of active cases

Hudson • Urban and suburban mixed jurisdiction • Young CASA program • Eight percent of active cases



Figure 1. Map of New Jersey Vicinages (Counties)

Interviews and Focus Groups Interviews and focus groups (or group interviews) of key child protection professionals, including judges, DYFS workers, law guardians (child attorneys), CASA volunteers, Child-in Court (CIC) team members, Child Placement Review (CPRB) Board members, deputy attorneys general (DAGs), parent and pool attorneys from the Office of Parental Representation (OPR) of the Public Defenders Office, and other pertinent professional groups were conducted at each research site. Interview protocols that were used to guide the focus groups can be found in Appendix B. Personnel



from the court at each site arranged the interviews and focus groups, and they were conducted by NCSC project staff. Table 10 firsts lists the number focus groups or discussions held, and then the number of participants (by CIC professional category) who participated at each project vicinage during the site visits in March and April 2005. Some groups included individuals from different professional roles in CIC cases to accommodate availability. Table 10. Number of Focus Groups and Discussions Conducted and Participants by Vicinage

Vicinage

#

grps Judges

DYFS Workers/

Supervisors DAGs Law

Guardians

Parent Attorneys OPR&Pool

CIC Team Members

CASA Volunteers

CPR Board

Members Camden 8 3 9 5 5 -- 9 -- 5 Cumberland 7 1 15 3 4 5 8 8 6 Essex 8 4 4 11 9 4 13 6 2 Hudson 7 3 13 8 3 3 7 3 4 Middlesex 6 1 13 4 2 7 3 -- 6 Online Survey of Child Protection Professionals A statewide online survey of child protection professionals was conducted via the internet (see Appendix B). Introductory and follow-up letters containing the URL link to the survey were distributed by the AOC and the designated state agency representatives on the CIP Reassessment Sub Committee to relevant child welfare professionals statewide on May 2, 2005. Surveys received through May 16, 2005 were analyzed. A total of 145 responses were received during this time interval and subsequently analyzed. Table 11 shows the distribution of respondents by professional type while Table 12 gives the distribution of respondents by vicinage.

Table 11. Distribution of On-line Survey Respondents by CIC Professional Type

Type of CIC Professional N DYFS worker 56 DAG 19 DYFS supervisor 18 Law Guardian 17 Judge 14 CIC staff 11 CASA staff 5 CPRB volunteer 2 Legal Services of New Jersey (Family Representation Project) 2 Public Defender (OPR Staff) 1 Total 145



Table 12. Distribution of On-line Survey Respondents by Vicinage Vicinage N Percentage Atlantic 6 3.9 Bergen 3 1.9 Burlington 7 4.5 Camden 13 8.4 Cape May 2 1.3 Cumberland 6 3.9 Essex 39 25.3 Gloucester 5 3.2 Hudson 9 5.8 Hunterdon 6 3.9 Mercer 7 4.5 Middlesex 7 4.5 Monmouth 6 3.9 Morris 4 2.6 Ocean 5 3.2 Passaic 6 3.9 Salem 8 5.2 Somerset 4 2.6 Sussex 2 1.3 Union 7 4.5 Warren 2 1.3 Total 154 100.0

Court Observation Protocols for direct observation of (1) Court and (2) Child Placement Review Board (CPRB) proceedings were developed and pre-tested (see Appendix B) for use at the research sites. A total of 139 court observation forms were completed by NCSC project staff and volunteers and subsequently analyzed. Table 13 shows the types of cases observed.15

Table 13. Types of CIC Cases Observed Type of Case Frequency Percent

FN 125 89.9 FG 10 7.2 FL 2 1.4 FC 2 1.4 Total 139 100.0

15 Case types include FN (abuse and neglect), FG (termination of parental rights), FL (kinship/legal guardianship) and FC (custody).



Table 14 show the distribution of hearing types observed for FN cases.

Table 14. Types of FN Hearings Observed

Type of Hearing N

Percent of Observed FN Cases with

Hearing Type OTSC/Initial/Dodd Removal 3 2.4 Return OTSC 15 12 Case Management Conference 7 5.6 Fact Finding 20 16 Disposition 2 1.6 Compliance Review 61 48.8 Permanency Review 19 15.2 Summary Hearing 0 0 Other 17 13.6

Table 15 shows the distribution of hearing types observed for FG cases. One of the two FL cases involved a trial/evidentiary hearing while the other involved compliance review.

Table 15. Types of FG Hearings Observed

Type of Hearing N

Percent of Observed FG Cases with Hearing Type

OTSC/Initial 0 0 Return OTSC 1 10 Case Management Conference 5 50 Trial 3 30

Child Placement Review Board Observation The NCSC project team observed the decision making processes of six Child Placement Review Boards in the five selected vicinages in the state of New Jersey using the CPRB observation form and data from these forms was subsequently analyzed. In all there were 122 cases at various stages reviewed. Table 16 reveals that 28 percent of the cases were reviewed in Camden Vicinage, 25 percent, 10 percent in Cumberland Vicinage, 25 percent in Essex Vicinage, 17 percent in Hudson Vicinage, and 21 percent in Middlesex Vicinage.



Table 16. Breakdown of CPR Board Review Observations

Vicinage Frequency Percent Camden 34 28 Cumberland 12 10 Essex 30 25 Hudson 21 17 Middlesex 25 21 Total 122 100* *Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Types of reviews observed included the 45-Day Review (24 percent), Six Month Review (3 percent), Status Review (21 percent), Permanency Review (44 percent), and other reviews (8 percent). During reviews, there were usually at least three members of the board present (69 percent), four members present (30 percent), and sometimes only two members present (0.8 percent). CPRB reviews were rarely attended by anyone other than the CPRB members, the Children-in-Court (CIC) coordinator or staff member, and the DYFS worker. For seven of the children reviewed, nine had a biological or resource parent or other relative present, while twenty six (21 percent) of the cases did not have a DYFS worker present. Case File Review A case file review instrument was developed and pre-tested (see Appendix B). Files were randomly selected from cases opened after 1/1/97 (i.e., at the conclusion of the last Court Improvement Project) but closed in 2004. Thirty FC cases were selected for review from each Vicinage, except Essex, where 50 cases were selected. A list of the desired cases was sent in advance to each research site. CIC personnel were also asked to pull the files for each listed FC case as well as any associated FN, FG, or FL cases that also involved the same juvenile. Files were generally ready for review when the research team arrived, though file retrieval (especially of associated FN, FG, or FL cases) proved to be problematic in Essex. Files for 104 cases were reviewed and analyzed. Table 17 shows the types of cases in the file review. Table18 shows the types of cases in the file review by vicinage.

Table 17. Type of Cases in File Review Type of Case Frequency Percent

FC 12 11.5 FL 1 1.0 FG 9 8.7 FN 67 64.4 FC/FN/FL 7 6.7 FC/FN/FG 8 7.7 Total 104 100.0



Table 18. Type of File Review Cases by Vicinage

Type of Case Vicinage FC FL FG FN FC/FN/FL FC/FN/FG Total Camden Count 2 13 2 1 18 % within Camden 11.1 72.2 11.1 5.6 100.0 Cumberland Count 4 17 1 3 25 % within Cumberland 16 68 4 12 100.0 Essex Count 10 2 14 2 2 30 % within Essex 33.3 6.7 46.7 6.7 6.7 100.0 Hudson Count 2 1 1 7 1 12 % within Hudson 16.7 8.3 8.3 58.3 8.3 100.0 Middlesex Count 16 1 2 19 % within Middlesex 84.2 5.3 10.5 100.0 Total Count 12 1 9 67 7 8 104 % within Total 11.5 1.0 8.7 64.4 6.7 7.7 100.0

The file review faced many obstacles. Files from every vicinage were rarely complete, often

missing critical documents. Mention of service of notice to participating parties was almost never encountered. It was also often difficult to determine the outcomes of hearings. Findings of “Contrary to the Welfare” and “Reasonable Efforts” were rarely explicit and had to be inferred at times. Likewise, permanency goals were infrequent in the documents in the file. Court orders appeared in the files in a hit-or-miss fashion. It is very difficult to follow the processing events of a case in a consistent, step-by-step fashion using the file alone in any vicinage visited. In addition, Essex County in particular had a lot of difficulty in locating FN, FG and FL case files associated with the FC case the NCSC requested and ultimately were unable to produce many of these files.

Recommendation 3: The CICIC should develop a statewide protocol governing the content of CIC court files with the ultimate objective of being able to track what happened in a case from filing to closure from documents in the file.

Analysis of Time Series Data on Compliance Data on compliance with case processing requirements for FC and FN cases were supplied by the AOC for the time period from January 2002 to February 2005 on a monthly basis. Specifically, the percentage of active, pending FC cases that had not had a permanency review within 12 months of placement was given for each month of the study period, by vicinage. Similarly, the percentage of active, pending FN cases that had not had a fact finding hearing within goal (four months or 120 days of the complaint) was given for each month of the study period, by vicinage. Analysis of FACTS Automated Case Data The NCSC requested FACTS automated data for all FC cases closed between July 1, 2001 and June 1, 2005 along with any associated FN, FG, and FL cases opened subsequent to the FC



case. The requested data elements are located in Appendix B. Unfortunately, the FACTS data were not available to perform a comprehensive analysis in sufficient time for inclusion in this New Jersey CIP Reassessment Final Report to meet the federal deadline of June 30, 2005. Human Subject Protection and Confidentiality

The terms and conditions of the contract between the AOC and NCSC did not require NCSC to submit its evaluation design to the NCSC Institutional Review Board. The NCSC project team, however, took many precautions to ensure that the data collection activities and the resulting data did not compromise the anonymity of the human subjects of this study and the stakeholders participating in the data collection process. This includes administrative and physical security of identifiable data to preserve the anonymity of individuals. Steps taken to protect the confidentiality of our human subjects include:

• Hard copies of court files and all completed case file review instruments were stored in secure file cabinets.

• Electronic data were maintained on a secure, password accessed computer. These data are backed-up nightly by the Management Information Systems (MIS) staff. The back-up data is stored in a fire-proof safe and is accessible only to MIS staff.

• No identifying information for human subjects or stakeholders is presented in the results or the New Jersey Court Improvement Program Reassessment Report.

• All identifying information will be stripped from all electronic data at the conclusion of the project. • Both electronic and paper files will be destroyed based on federal requirements for retention of

records. Back-up electronic data will be destroyed after one year. • Focus group and survey participants were advised that individual comments will be kept

confidential and anonymous prior to participation. • The NCSC project team operated under a Supreme Court Confidentiality Order.16 • All volunteers participating in the case file review and court observation processes signed a

confidentiality statement that incorporated the above-referenced Supreme Court Confidentiality Order.

16 Order Relaxing Confidentiality of Juvenile Court Records for National Center for State Courts and Rutgers University for Research Purposes, Supreme Court of New Jersey, January 18, 2005.



Part B. Legal Analyses Section VI. New Jersey Legal Framework and Conformance to Federal Legislation and National Standards The discussion and analyses in this section and the flowcharts identified in Appendix C respond to the following research questions: • What are the rules, standards, and criteria that govern New Jersey’s judicial decisions in child

protection cases? How have they changed since the initial CIP Assessment? • What are the rules and practices governing whether a proceeding is administrative or judicial,

legal representation of parties, admissibility of evidence, presentation of witnesses, due process protections, and conducting the various types of child protection proceedings? How have they changed since the initial CIP Assessment?

• To what extent do New Jersey’s court rules and practices governing child protective proceedings conform to national standards and recommendations?

• To what extent do statutory, regulatory, and procedural requirements facilitate or impede assuring the safety, well being, and permanency of children in foster care and the program goals set forth in titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act?

The New Jersey statutes governing CIC cases are included in Title 9 and Title 30 of the New Jersey Statutes Annotated. The figures in Appendix C are comprehensive flowcharts of CIC case processing (from removal through adoption) in New Jersey. The flowcharts include the court review process and the parallel administrative process conducted by the CPRB. New Jersey state statute and ASFA provisions are included as references and to identify where key court milestones and decision points are consistent with federal legislation. The promulgation of ASFA at the federal level is undoubtedly the most significant change to New Jersey’s statutes governing CIC proceedings since the 1996 CIP Assessment. ASFA requires that, as a condition of federal funding, courts must process CIC cases in accordance with specific minimum criteria. Each state, however, can promulgate laws that are more demanding than ASFA so long as the restrictions do not violate the constitutional rights of the parties. The Resource Guidelines, while aspirational, represent optimal case processing, court activity and oversight. The review and comparison of New Jersey statutes and court process to ASFA and the Resource Guidelines is helpful to determine how New Jersey’s courts compare to the processes envisioned in the Resource Guidelines and the mandatory provisions of ASFA. The following is a brief discussion of New Jersey’s critical court milestones within the context of ASFA and the Resource Guidelines. Court Process for Child Welfare Cases in New Jersey Preliminary Hearing When DYFS receives a report of abuse or neglect the child’s health is of paramount concern, therefore the child may be taken into physical custody if there is an imminent threat or actual harm to the child. If there is no imminent or actual physical harm, DYFS should make immediate reasonable



efforts for the next 30 days to maintain the family pursuant to state statute and ASFA.17 If physical harm is imminent then the child is removed from the home and a preliminary hearing must be held within two days of removal and a complaint filed within in the same period.18 New Jersey’s 48-hour preliminary hearing requirement is more stringent than the 72-hour recommendation of the Resource Guidelines.19 ASFA does not reference a specific time for the preliminary hearing but stresses that the child’s welfare is of paramount concern and reasonable efforts must be made to eliminate the need for the child’s removal.20 Both ASFA and state statute permit the waiver of reasonable efforts under specific circumstances, which must be found by the court before waiver is allowed.21 The purpose of the preliminary hearing is to determine whether the child should continue to live outside the home. Children are represented by the Law Guardian Program within the Office of the Public Defender and are assigned when the complaint is filed or at the preliminary hearing. This appointment of an attorney for the child is consistent with the provisions of CAPTA. Indigent parents are also entitled to representation by the Office of the Public Defender under a different program (referred to as the Office of Parental Representation) than the children, however. Fact-Finding Hearing After the preliminary hearing a fact-finding hearing is held to determine whether the child is in fact abused, neglected or dependent. Neither state statue nor ASFA set a definite time frame for the date of this hearing, although ASFA provisions are implicitly premised on prompt adjudication of the child’s status as abused, neglected or dependent. Resource Guidelines, however, specifically recommend that the fact-finding hearing be held within 60 days of removal of the child.22 Best practice in New Jersey is that the hearing be held within four months or 120 days of the complaint.23 The principal decisions that the court must make at adjudication are: (1) which allegations of the petition have been proved or admitted, if any; (2) whether there is a legal basis for continued court and agency intervention; and (3) whether reasonable efforts have been made to prevent the need for placement or safely reunify the family.24 As a practical matter, this practice appears to delay the timeliness of the forward progression of the FN case and, more importantly the permanency of the child. Moreover, the four-month “best practice” target appears to back up into the permanency hearing and the time to achieving permanency. On its face, this gap in articulated timelines and current practice is likely the most significant impediment to achieving the permanency pf children and the court related standards set out in Title IV-E of the Social Security Act.

Recommendation 4: As outlined in the Resource Guidelines, the New Jersey Judicial Branch should establish actual and written 60-day timelines for the completion of the fact finding (adjudication) hearing.

17 N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.35 and 42 U.S.C. 671(a)(15)(B) 18 N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.30 19 NCJFCJ, Resource Guidelines, pg. 30 20 42 U.S.C. 671(a)(15) 21 42 U.S.C. 671(a)(15)(D) and N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.3 22 NCJFCJ, Resource Guidelines, pg. 47 23 ACNJ, The Attorney Manual for Child Welfare Cases, 5th Edition, pg. 10 24 NCJFCJ, Resource Guidelines, pg. 49



Disposition Hearing Upon a finding of abuse, neglect or dependency by a preponderance of the evidence at the fact-finding hearing, a dispositional hearing “may commence immediately after the required findings are made.”25 By New Jersey statute the dispositional hearing must be held within 30 days of the fact-finding hearing, which is in accordance with the Resource Guidelines.26 ASFA refers to a disposition hearing as a “permanency hearing” and requires that it be held within 12 months of the date the child entered foster. 27 A child is considered to have entered foster care on the earlier of (a) the date of the first judicial finding that the child has been subjected to child abuse or neglect; or (b) the date that is 60 days after the date on which the child is removed from the home.28 Neither the New Jersey state statute nor ASFA prevent the dispositional hearing from commencing on the same day as the fact-finding hearing, however the NCJFCJ Resource Guidelines suggest that: The dispositional hearing should be considered a separate proceeding from the

adjudication because a separate or bifurcated hearing assures that there will be appropriate focus on dispositional issues such as removal of the child and visitation. When adjudicatory and dispositional functions are not separated, emphasis often falls on the placement decision at the expense of other dispositional issues.29

New Jersey law allows for six possible dispositions:30

• Suspension of judgment • Conditional release to parents • Placement for initial period of 12 months • Order of protection with conditions • Probation • Therapeutic Services

Dispositions may be modified by the court on its own motion or on the motion of an interested party on a showing of good cause. As a matter of current practice, disposition hearings are often collapsed or appended to hearings once jurisdiction and adjudication are achieved, either by plea or judicial determination. It is rare that there is a full-fledged hearing on the dispositional issues such as remedial services, parent and sibling visitation, child placement, and timelines.

Recommendation 5: As indicated by Resource Guidelines, a disposition hearing should be a separate and comprehensive hearing addressing the dispositional issues in the case.

25 N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.47 26 N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.48 and NCJFCJ, Resource Guidelines, pg. 55 27 42 U.S.C. 675(5)(C) 28 42 U.S.C. 675(5)(F) 29 NCJFCJ, Resource Guidelines, pg. 54 30 N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.51



Permanency Hearing Permanency hearings are required 30 days after a finding either that (1) reasonable efforts to prevent placement are not necessary to prevent removal, or (2) reasonable efforts are not necessary to reunify the family.31 In all other placement cases the permanency hearing must be held within 12 months of placement.32 The purpose of the permanency hearing is to set forth the permanency goal, the anticipated date of achievement of permanency goal and the services to be provided to the both the parent and the child but individually and as a family. The permanency plan must be review periodically and can be reviewed as often as the court deems appropriate. Termination of Parental Rights Termination of parental rights is considered a separate action under New Jersey statute and is initiated when one of five grounds for termination exists:33 • The individual having custody and control of any child has been convicted of abuse,

abandonment, neglect or cruelty of a child; • The best of any child in the care of DYFS requires that the child be placed under guardian ship; • Reasonable efforts to unify the family have failed; • Parent has abandoned the child; or • Parent of the child has been convicted of murder; aggravated manslaughter or manslaughter of

another child of the parent; aiding, attempting, conspiring or soliciting to commit such crime; or to have committed, or attempted to commit an assault that resulted or could have resulted in significant bodily injury to the child or another child of the parent; or the parent has committed a similarly serious act which resulted or could have resulted in the death or significant bodily injury to the child or another child of the parent.

Termination must be initiated as soon as any one of the five conditions is met but not later than when a child has been in placement for 15 of the last 22 consecutive months,34 Unless one of three exceptions is met: (1) the child is in the care of relatives and the permanency goal can be achieved without termination of parental rights; (2) DYFS has documented compelling reasons for determining that termination of parental rights is not in the best interest of the child; (3) DYFS is required to make reasonable efforts to reunify the family but has not provided services within the required time frame.35 The grounds for termination are not sufficient on their own and must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. In addition, the parents must receive notice of the proceedings and a “default” judgment will only be entered if the court finds that the parent’s failure to appear was done with the knowledge of the potential consequences.

31 N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.54 32 N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.61.2 33 N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15 34 N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15 and 42 U.S.C. 675(E) 35 N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.3



Appeals of Termination of Parental Rights According to the NCSC, 45 states report aspects of an expedited appellate procedure for dependency cases either through court rule, statutes, constitutional amendment, or internal appellate operating procedure.36 Pursuant to administrative protocol in the appellate division of the New Jersey courts, appeals for parental termination cases are subject to an expedited process, as follows: 1) the appellant has 45 days to file their notice of appeal from the date of the decision; 2) the transcript must be filed within 30 days of the appellate division receiving the notice of appeal; 3) upon the filing of the transcript an attorney for the parent must be assigned within five days; 4) the appellant’s brief and appendix are due within 45 days from assignment of attorney; 5) the DAG’s reply brief is due within 30 days from the date of filing and service of the appellant’s brief; and 6) the calendar assignment for the appellate division will be made for four weeks from the date the last brief is due, with a decision in 30 days.37 The NCJFCJ has promulgated timelines for achieving adoption and permanency for children, which include appellate timelines.38 From the final judgment to appellate decision, NCJFC recommends an elapsed time of 150 days. The elapsed time for New Jersey is 215 days, however, it should be mentioned that the appellate court does gain control of the case until the appeal is filed. At that point, the appellate court has 170 days to process the case to achieve established expedited timeframes. Figure 2. illustrates a side-by-side comparison of New Jersey’s expedited appellate process and the NCJFCJ Guidelines.

Recommendation 6: As indicated by the NCJFCJ Adoption and Permanency Guidelines, the New Jersey Judicial Branch should reduce the time from final judgment to notice of appeal from 45 days to 30 days.

36 National Center for State Courts, Examining the Work of State Courts, 2003 (Williamsburg, VA, 2003.) 37 New Jersey Appellate Court Administrative Protocol for Parental Termination, Child Abuse and Neglect and Contested Custody Appeals, April 19, 2001. These timelines are applied to all CIC case types including FN, and FL cases. 38 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Adoption and Permanency Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases (Reno, NV, 2000.)



Figure 2. Comparison of NCJFCJ Guidelines and New Jersey Appellate Timelines

NCJFCJ Appellate Timelines New Jersey Appellate Timelines

Final Judgment (FJ) TPR Final Judgment (FJ) TPR

Notive of Appeal (30 days from FJ)

Notice of Appeal (45 days from FJ)

Record and Transcript(30 days from NOA)

Record and Transcript(30 days from NOA)

Assignment of Public Defender(5 days from transcript)

Appellant Brief(20 days from transcript)

Appellant Brief(45 days from Public Defender)

Appellee Brief(10 days from Appelant Brief)

Appellee Brief(30 days from Appelant Brief)

Oral Arguments(30 days from Appellee brief)

Calendar Assignment(30 days from Appellee brief)

Appellate Decision(30 daysfrom brief/arguments)

Total Elapsed Time

215 Days

Total Elapsed Time

150 Days

Appellate Decision(30 days from brief/arguments)



Part C. Research Findings

Section VII. Are prescribed time limits being met? What are the frequency and length of delays in child protection proceedings? To what extent do current calendaring practices contribute to the delays?

The Evidence: Evidence to address these questions comes from four sources: (1) Historical data on compliance obtained from the FACTS data system, (2) the on-line survey, (3) court observation, and (4) focus groups and interviews. The Quantitative Data Turning to the first source of evidence to address the first question, the AOC supplied the NCSC project team with aggregate statistics that identified the percentage of (1) active, pending FC cases that had not had a permanency hearing within 12 months of placement for each month between January 2002 and February 2005 (by vicinage) and (2) active, pending FN cases that had not had a fact finding hearing within goal (four months or 120 days of the complaint) for each month of the study period (by vicinage). Figure 3 shows statewide compliance of FC cases with the requirement that a CPRB permanency review be held for the case within 12 months of placement.

Figure 3. Percentage of New Jersey Active Pending FC Cases Not in Compliance, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f A

ctiv

e P

end

ing

FC

Cas

es N

ot

In C

om

plia

nce



It can be seen that statewide rates of FC noncompliance were initially in the 20 – 25 percent range, but declined quickly to less than five percent, and currently are close to zero percent. Rates of FC noncompliance can be found by vicinage in Appendix D. The pattern of results for each vicinage generally conforms to the statewide pattern, with a few exceptions. Non-compliance transiently “spiked” to close to 10 percent between January and May 2003 in Cape May County. Essex County took longer to come close to full compliance than most counties, finally achieving this result in March 2004. Initially very low rates of non-compliance in Hunterdon County gave way to two spikes of noncompliance, peaking above 20 percent in October 2002 and close to 30 percent in August 2003. Monmouth County displays a troubling recent rate of increase of noncompliance beginning in July 2004.

Figure 4 shows statewide compliance of FN cases with the requirement that a fact finding hearing be held within goal (four months or 120 days of the complaint for each month of the study period. It can be seen that statewide rates of FN noncompliance were initially in the 12 percent range, but quickly declined only to spike again above 12 percent in October 2002. Thereafter, the rate declined gradually to less than three percent beginning in April 2004 and remained close to that till present. The pattern of results for each vicinage (see Appendix D) generally conforms to the statewide pattern, with a few exceptions. Burlington County showed relatively high rates of noncompliance until very recently. Camden County shows relatively high rates of noncompliance throughout the study period. Hunterdon County showed a very sharp spike in noncompliance (above 30 percent) occurring in September 2003. Middlesex County started with rates of noncompliance close to 50 percent in 2002 but these declined to less than 10 percent during 2004. Sussex County started with rates of non-compliance above 30 percent and the most recent data shows rates of noncompliance remain close to 25 percent.



The responses to several survey questions are also relevant to the first question. About 41 percent of the survey respondents felt that their caseloads (size and complexity) “often” or “usually” impacts their ability to meet timeliness standards (about 58 percent for responding DYFS workers). Table 19 shows the size of the caseload and the percentage of that caseload that is accounted for by CIC cases by the type of CIC professional. CIC team members in particular face very large caseloads.

Figure 4. Percentage of New Jersey Active FN Cases Not in Compliance with Fact-Finding Goal, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

Jan02 Mar02 May02 Jul02 Sep02 Nov02 Jan03 Mar03 May03 Jul03 Sep03 Nov03 Jan04 Mar04 May04 Jul04 Sep04 Nov04 Jan05

Month/Year

Percentage of FN Cases Fact Finding Not Completed, Over

Goal



Table 19. Average Number of Cases and Percentage of Caseload that are CIC cases by Type of CIC Professional

Type of CIC Professional N Average Number of

Cases Percent of Caseload that are CIC Cases

CASA staff 5 47 100.0 CIC staff 10 652 99.6 CPRB volunteer 2 20 100.0 DAG 21 62 93.3 DYFS supervisor 13 60 52.7 DYFS worker 50 18 46.8 Judge 14 154 55.7 Law Guardian 17 91 100.0 Legal Services of New Jersey (Family Representation Project) 2 20 100.0 Public Defender (OPR Staff) 1 100 100.0 Total 135 101 70.8

Almost 81 percent of the respondents indicated that the court inquired about the timeliness of current case's events “often” or “usually” in FN cases, 57 percent in FG cases and 58 percent in FL cases. In addition, about 73 percent of the respondents felt that their jurisdiction meets ASFA and other statutory time frames for case processing “often” or “usually”, ranging from 100 percent of the CIC workers and 93 percent of the judges to only 47 percent of the DYFS workers.

Turning to the second question regarding the frequency and length of delays (i.e., “interruptions”), several responses to survey questions are relevant. About 52 percent of the respondents felt that court interruption was an issue in their jurisdiction, including 67 percent of the DAGs. The most typical sources of delay were “court scheduling backup” and “key party tardiness,” respectively.

A smaller percentage of respondents felt that “adjournments” were an issue (34 percent) than interruptions (52 percent). The most typical sources of interruption were “key party tardiness,” and “court scheduling backup,” respectively, similar to the results for interruptions.

Court observation results are also relevant here. Some delay (as measured by the time between when a hearing was schedule and when it was held) was associated with almost every case observed. The average delay was about two hours. To put this figure in perspective, the average duration of an observed hearing was about 23 minutes. Only about 6 percent of the observed hearings were adjourned.

Turning to the third question on calendaring, about 41 percent of the survey respondents felt that the court's calendaring practice “often” or “usually affects the timeliness of case processing. More than 50 percent of DYFS workers and supervisors shared this opinion.

Conclusions: Available evidence suggests that prescribed time limits are generally being met. Aggregate FC and FN compliance rates have improved over time and are currently high. Most



survey respondents felt that their jurisdiction was meeting prescribed time limits. Courts seem to be concerned about addressing these time limits and often inquire in court as to their status. The size and complexity of the respondents’ caseloads make meeting these time limits challenging, especially for DYFS workers. However, non-compliance of FN cases with the requirement that a Fact Finding Hearing be held within goal (four months or 120 days of the complaint) remains troubling high in some counties.

Delay (interruption) seems to be an issue. Most survey respondents felt that it was and court observation found delay in almost every case (on the average of two hours). Given the relatively short duration of most proceedings, such delay becomes even more unpalatable. Adjournment was not as big an issue as delays to most survey respondents. The most frequently mentioned sources of typical delay and adjournment were, in both cases, “key party tardiness” and “court scheduling backup.”

Focus Group Questions and Findings In the five vicinages visited, all groups interviewed were asked about the extent to which the court met time limits established by rule and law, the existence and sources of court delay (delays within the context of particular hearing days), and court calendaring practices. The specific questions included versions of the following (and all instruments by project staff when leading these discussions can be found in Appendix B). Time limits were addressed in terms of ASFA compliance. Questions asked of respondents included versions of the following: • How well do you think your jurisdiction is doing with respect to the meeting ASFA and statutory

time frames? • With respect to the timeliness of case processing, what strengths exist in your jurisdiction? • With respect to the timeliness of case processing, what challenges exist in your jurisdiction? Findings. There is a high level of awareness across all stakeholder groups and respondents who participated in project focus groups of the ASFA timelines and informal court timelines. Strengths identified included the wide awareness of specific important timelines under federal and state law across all stakeholder groups. Challenges identified in meeting timelines are covered primarily in the sources of delay and adjournments addressed in the next section. Delay and adjournments. Questions asked of respondents included versions of the following: • In your experience, what are the most typical sources of court delay in your jurisdiction? • Are there specific kinds of cases that result in delay? • Are there specific hearings that result in more adjournments? • What are the typical sources of adjournments? • Does the court have a stated adjournment (continuance) policy or practice? • Would you say court delay is a significant problem in your jurisdiction? Why or Why Not? Findings. The status of adjournments varied widely from vicinage to vicinage visited in the course of this study. Perceptions ranged from a judge rescheduling cases to ensure timelines are met, to a perception (related to the calendaring issues address below) that a courtroom chronically and



systematically schedules almost twice as many cases than it can hear in a single day, thus ensuring that a large number will be adjourned or continued every hearing day. All respondents noted that they knew of no written policy on adjournments. One respondent noted that “FG, FN, FC cases present different issues and reasons when each case type might be delayed. The FNs are under more pressure to be timely while the FG is more fluid timeline wise.” Another attorney respondent noted that the guardianship complaints not being filed on time (resulting in delays) and that the judge was not holding those cases to strict timetables. .. Respondents across jurisdictions noted that there are a variety of problems with the use of pool attorneys that affect a range of court processes, including delay in the course of a day’s calendar, and continuances of one case to a future date. Pool attorneys for the OPR were noted as creating a range of problems: late arrivals at court, the nature of their behavior and practice while in court (some respondents noted that this type of practice and case type was not the primary practice for some of the pool attorneys in different jurisdictions, creating legal cultural conflicts), and a perception of deference to the often late arrivals of these same private pool attorneys when the judge or sheriff’s officer or CIC staff managing the day’s calendar would allow that attorney’s case to jump ahead in the line of cases waiting to be heard. Calendaring. Questions asked of respondents included versions of the following: • Could you briefly describe how CIC cases are calendared in your jurisdiction? • In your opinion, are there substantial differences among court calendars regarding the timeliness

of hearings? • From your perspective, do you think the court’s calendaring system is effective? Findings. Most of the vicinages visited in the course of the study calendared by scheduled blocks of time in a single day (e.g. the 9 am and the 1:30 pm schedule block) and arranged for CIC case types covered by a particular DYFS District Office to be heard on a particular week day. This general calendaring plan is adjusted to accommodate emergency removals and other emergency concerns on a case by case basis or at certain times of day. This issue of how the day’s docket is handled was raised in several jurisdictions. In some, the judge calls the schedule and it is understood that the order of appearance is “first come first served”. Individual litigants and attorneys and others sign in with court staff or the sheriff’s deputies, and this list is handed off to the judge who calls the next case. In at least one vicinage visited, the perception was that the sheriff’s officer with whom people check in did not order the cases called in terms of when people were ready but rather had favorites and made cases wait that were ready to go while the courtroom waited for another case to assemble its parties.

Recommendation 7: Vicinages with relatively high rates of non-compliance with the requirement that a fact finding hearing for an FN case be held within goal (four months or 120 days of the complaint) need to take steps to reduce the rate of non-compliance. CIC staff should continue to actively monitor the reports generated by the AOC.



Recommendation 8: Efforts should be made to reduce delay (i.e., the time between when a hearing is scheduled and when it actually occurs) and adjournments. “Court scheduling backup” and “key party tardiness” were identified as the chief sources of both delay and adjournment. Recommendation 9: Efforts should be made to eliminate calendar block setting and develop a more “time-certain calendar; especially block sets for morning calendars that run through the day (e.g., 9am sets for the entire day.) At a minimum, each court should develop morning and afternoon calendar blocks. Recommendation 10: To the extent possible, calendar blocks should be established for the type of hearing and anticipated length of hearing. Examples could include “trial blocks”, “hearings lasting more than one hour”, “hearings lasting 20 minutes,” etc. Recommendation 11: Efforts must be made to ensure active judicial management of the daily calendar rather than reliance on CIC staff and court bailiffs. Examples could include a calendar call at the beginning of each morning and afternoon calendar session Recommendation 12: Initial removal hearings (Dodd) should be scheduled to reduce inconvenience to the regularly scheduled calendar. All vicinages should strictly adhere to Dodd timeframes. Recommendation 13: The CICIC should develop and publish a statewide adjournment policy for CIC cases.



Section VIII. Is the time available for hearings sufficient to permit presentation of evidence and arguments? If not, how much time is needed for each type of hearing and what are the implications for the court?

The Evidence: Evidence to address these questions comes from three sources: (1) focus groups and interviews, (2) the on-line survey, and (3) court observation. The Quantitative Data Most survey respondents (51 percent) thought that the time available for FN hearings was usually sufficient to permit presentation of evidence and arguments, and another 19 percent thought that there was often sufficient time. Responses were fairly uniform across the different types of child protection professionals.

Many survey respondents (43 percent) thought that the time available for FG hearings was usually sufficient to permit presentation of evidence and arguments, and another 15 percent thought that there was often sufficient time. The percentage of responses of often or usually varied across the different types of child protection professionals from 85 percent for judges, and 89 percent for law guardians to 38 percent of the DAGs.

Many survey respondents (34 percent) thought that the time available for FL hearings was

usually sufficient to permit presentation of evidence and arguments, and another 9 percent thought that there was often sufficient time. The percentage of responses of often or usually varied across the different types of child protection professionals from 79 percent for judges, and 67 percent for DAGs to only 12 percent of the DYFS workers. Many of the remaining DYFS workers had not participated in an FL hearing.

It is instructive to put these findings in the context of hearing duration. The duration of

hearings was examined to determine whether they are in compliance with Resource Guidelines recommendations. Table 20 gives both the observed and recommended hearing durations for FN hearings by type of hearing. It can be seen that the OTSC/Initial/DODD Removal, Disposition, and Compliance Review hearings observed were significantly shorter than recommended while the permanency review hearings observed were longer in duration than the recommendation. Data were also available for three FG trials that averaged 25 minutes in duration, slightly less than the 30 minute recommendation.

It was shown in the court observation results in Section VII that several hearing types had a

duration that was significantly less than the NCJFCJ Guidelines. Despite this observation, most respondents still felt that hearing duration was sufficient to permit presentation of evidence and arguments.



Table 20. Actual and Recommended Duration of FN Hearings

Type of Hearing N Average Observed Duration (minutes)

Recommended Duration (NCJFCJ) Difference

OTSC/Initial/DODD Removal 3 26.3 60 -33.7 Fact Finding 13 28.6 30 -1.4 Disposition 2 9 30 -21 Compliance Review 58 17 30 -13 Permanency Review 18 41 30 11

DYFS Reports: Survey respondents were asked whether DYFS reports are discussed and considered in FN hearings. Most survey respondents (56 percent) agreed that DYFS reports were usually discussed and considered and another 25 percent thought that this happened often. Responses were fairly uniform across the different types of child protection professionals.

When asked whether DYFS reports are discussed and considered in FG hearings, many survey respondents (38 percent) agreed that DYFS reports were usually discussed and considered and another 14 percent thought that this happened often. The percentage of responses of often or usually varied across the different types of child protection professionals from 86 percent for judges, and 61 percent of the law guardians to 45 percent of the DYFS workers. Many of the remaining DYFS workers had not participated in an FG hearing.

When asked whether DYFS reports are discussed and considered in FL hearings, many

survey respondents (31 percent) agreed that DYFS reports were usually discussed and considered and another 11 percent thought that this happened often. Almost half of the respondents had not participated in an FL hearing. The percentage of responses of often or usually varied across the different types of child protection professionals from 71 percent for judges, and 68 percent of the law guardians to 17 percent of the DYFS workers. Most of the remaining DYFS workers had not participated in an FL hearing.

Psychological Reports: Survey respondents were asked whether Psychological Reports are discussed and considered in FN hearings. Many survey respondents (56 percent) agreed that DYFS reports were usually discussed and considered and another 26 percent thought that this happened often. Responses were fairly uniform across the different types of child protection professionals.

When asked whether Psychological Reports are discussed and considered in FG hearings,

many survey respondents (44 percent) agreed that DYFS reports were usually discussed and considered and another 13 percent thought that this happened often. Almost a third of the respondents had not participated in an FG hearing. The percentage of responses of often or usually varied across the different types of child protection professionals from 93 percent for judges, and 78 percent of the law guardians to 44 percent of the DYFS workers. Many of the remaining DYFS workers had not participated in an FG hearing.

When asked whether Psychological Reports are discussed and considered in FL hearings,

many survey respondents (24 percent) agreed that DYFS reports were usually discussed and



considered and another 14 percent thought that this happened often. Almost half of the respondents had not participated in an FL hearing. The percentage of responses of often or usually varied across the different types of child protection professionals from 57 percent for judges, and 52 percent of the law guardians to 17 percent of the DYFS workers. Most of the remaining DYFS workers had not participated in an FL hearing. Psychiatric Reports: Survey respondents were asked whether Psychiatric Reports are discussed and considered in FN hearings. Many survey respondents (54 percent) agreed that DYFS reports were usually discussed and considered and another 26 percent thought that this happened often. Responses were fairly uniform across the different types of child protection professionals.

When asked whether Psychiatric Reports are discussed and considered in FG hearings, many survey respondents (43 percent) agreed that DYFS reports were usually discussed and considered and another 14 percent thought that this happened often. Around a third of the respondents had not participated in an FG hearing. The percentage of responses of often or usually varied across the different types of child protection professionals from 86 percent for judges, and 78 percent of the law guardians to 44 percent of the DYFS workers. Many of the remaining DYFS workers had not participated in an FG hearing.

When asked whether Psychiatric Reports are discussed and considered in FL hearings,

many survey respondents (23 percent) agreed that DYFS reports were usually discussed and considered and another 11 percent thought that this happened often. Almost half of the respondents had not participated in an FL hearing. The percentage of responses of often or usually varied across the different types of child protection professionals from 50 percent for judges, and 56 percent of the law guardians to 16 percent of the DYFS workers. Most of the remaining DYFS workers had not participated in an FL hearing.

Child Placement Review Board Reports: Survey respondents were asked whether CPRB Reports are discussed and considered in FN hearings. Table 21 shows the responses to this question. Few survey respondents agreed that CPRB reports were usually discussed (16 percent) or often discussed (22 percent). More survey respondents agreed that CPRB reports were occasionally discussed or rarely discussed (26 percent).



Table 21. Child Placement Review Board Reports are Discussed and Considered in FN Hearings

Response

Type of CIC Professional Rarely Occasionally Often Usually Don't Know Not Applicable Total

CASA staff Count 2 2 1 5

% within CASA staff 40.0 40.0 20.0 100.0

CIC staff Count 3 3 4 1 2 13

% within CIC staff 23.1 23.1 30.8 7.7 15.4 100.0

CPRB volunteer Count 2 2

% within CPRB volunteer 100.0 100.0

DAG Count 9 3 3 1 5 21 % within DAG 42.9 14.3 14.3 4.8 23.8 100.0 DYFS supervisor Count 3 7 4 2 2 18

% within DYFS supervisor 16.7 38.9 22.2 11.1 11.1 100.0

DYFS worker Count 10 12 14 13 1 8 58

% within DYFS worker 17.2 20.7 24.1 22.4 1.7 13.8 100.0

Judge Count 3 3 3 4 13 % within Judge 23.1 23.1 23.1 30.8 100.0 Law Guardian (LG) Count 9 2 4 2 2 19 % within LG 47.4 10.5 21.1 10.5 10.5 100.0 Legal Services of New Jersey (Family Representation Project) Count 1 1 2

% within Legal Services 50.0 50.0 100.0

Public Defender (OPR Staff) Count 1 1

% within Public Defender 100.0 100.0

Total Count 40 34 33 25 1 19 152 % within Total 26.3 22.4 21.7 16.4 0.7 12.5 100.0

Responses varied by the type of child protection professional. About 46 percent of the judges and CIC staff, 57 percent of the DAGs, 56 percent of the DYFS supervisors, and 58 percent of the law guardians responded that CPRB reports are rarely or occasionally discussed and considered in FN hearings. DYFS workers were more likely than most other professionals to believe that CPRB reports are usually discussed or often discussed in FN hearings (47 percent).

When asked whether CPRB Reports are discussed and considered in FG hearings, more

survey respondents agreed that CPRB reports were occasionally or rarely discussed (34 percent) than usually or often discussed (25 percent). About 36 percent of the respondents had not



participated in an FG hearing. The percentage of responses of occasionally or rarely varied across the different types of child protection professionals from 61 percent for judges and law guardians to 45 percent of the CIC staff.

When asked whether CPRB Reports are discussed and considered in FL hearings, more

survey respondents agreed that CPRB reports were occasionally or rarely discussed (23 percent) than usually or often discussed (21percent). More than half of the respondents had not participated in an FG hearing. The percentage of responses of occasionally or rarely varied across the different types of child protection professionals from 29 percent for judges to 37 percent for law guardians and 38 percent for the CIC staff.

CASA Reports: Survey respondents were asked whether CASA Reports are discussed and considered in FN hearings. This question was not applicable to about 25 percent of the respondents. Of the respondents that expressed an opinion, slightly more felt that CASA reports were usually or often discussed than felt they were occasionally discussed or rarely discussed (35 percent vs. 31 percent, respectively). This question was not applicable to 46 percent and 60 percent of the respondents with regards to FG and FL cases, respectively, making the results in these cases difficult to interpret. Conclusions: The evidence from the survey suggests that most professionals feel that there is sufficient time to permit presentation of evidence and arguments, especially for FN hearings. The majority of all professionals felt that there was often or usually sufficient time for FN cases, especially judges and law guardians. The results for FG and FL hearings are more difficult to interpret because so many professionals (excluding judges) had had little experience with these types of cases. However, for both FG and FL cases, it is clear that most professionals that had an opinion felt that there was sufficient time, especially judges.

When asked about specific pieces of evidence, it is clear that the majority of respondents felt that DYFS, Psychological, and Psychiatric reports are usually or often used in hearings. CPRB and CASA reports are much less likely to be used, especially the former.

Focus Group Questions and Findings In the five vicinages visited, all groups interviewed were asked about the extent to which time available for hearings was sufficient for the presentation of evidence and arguments. The actual question asked was some version of the following: • Is the time available for hearings sufficient to permit presentation of evidence and arguments? If

not, how much time is needed for each type of hearing and what are the implications for the court?

Findings. Not all respondent groups across all five visited vicinages were aware of the activities within the courtroom (e.g. in some jurisdictions the CIC staff did not spend any significant time in the courtroom at all, while in others CIC staff could act as teammates and courtroom clerks assisting in the input of information and generation of court orders). But all attorney groups and certainly the judges themselves could speak directly to this issue of the content and time allowed for hearings.



Even in those jurisdictions dealing with overscheduled calendars (and resulting unavoidable adjournments), most parties agreed that once a case was put before a judge, the judges were taking the time necessary to fully hear a case. There can be a synergy between the calendaring routines (covered in Section VII, above) and the issue of hearing time, however. In some jurisdictions, judicial time restraints demand that court end at a certain time every day, resulting in all unheard cases being adjourned and rescheduled. In other jurisdictions (and this can vary from courtroom to courtroom within jurisdictions), the judges and their staffs will stay until that day’s calendar is finished. While this addresses the concern about adjourning many cases, in one jurisdiction this dynamic was described as “a compression chamber” in which a party can feel as though “you’re going to sacrifice quality to get cases down the belt.”

Recommendation 14: Efforts should be made to make CPRB and CASA reports as meaningful as possible to the courts’ deliberations in FN, FG, and FL cases. For example, CASA reports may be particularly beneficial to address specific issues such as educational and housing needs. CPR Board reports may be extremely helpful for teenagers, children that will soon age out of the system or post termination cases pending adoption. The court could specify in its orders any areas of interest or concern for specific attention by the CPR Board or CASA. Recommendation 15: The CICIC should adopt minimum hearing duration times consistent with the NCJFCJ Resource Guidelines.



Section IX. To what extent do parties and counsel present witnesses, introduce evidence, and offer arguments in each type of hearing? To what extent do resource parents receive notice of hearings? The Evidence: Evidence to address these questions comes from three sources: (1) focus groups and interviews, (2) the on-line survey, and (3) court observation. The Quantitative Data When asked how frequently parties and counsel present witnesses, introduce evidence, and offer arguments in FN case hearings, the majority of survey respondents indicated that this occurs usually (29 percent) or often (36 percent), as can be seen in Table 22. This pattern of results was generally consistent across all professional types. A similar pattern of results was found for FG and FL case hearings, with the caveat that this question was not applicable to many respondents.

Table 22. How Frequently Do Parties and Counsel Present Witnesses, Introduce Evidence, and Offer Arguments in FN Cases?

Response

Type of CIC Professional Rarely Occasionally Often Usually

Don't Know

Not Applicable Total

Count 1 4 5

CASA staff % within CASA staff 20.0 80.0 100.0 Count 1 6 4 2 13

CIC staff % within CIC staff 7.7 46.2 30.8 15.4 100.0 Count 2 2

CPRB volunteer % within CPRB volunteer 100.0 100.0 Count 1 4 9 4 3 21

DAG % within DAG 4.8 19.0 42.9 19.0 14.3 100.0 Count 2 9 5 2 18

DYFS supervisor % within DYFS supervisor 11.1 50.0 27.8 11.1 100.0 Count 6 12 17 14 1 8 58

DYFS worker % within DYFS worker 10.3 20.7 29.3 24.1 1.7 13.8 100.0 Count 1 3 5 5 14

Judge % within Judge 7.1 21.4 35.7 35.7 100.0 Law Guardian (LG) Count 2 4 6 6 1 19



% within LG 10.5 21.1 31.6 31.6 5.3 100.0 Count 1 1 2 Legal Services of

New Jersey (Family Representation Project)

% within Legal Services 50.0 50.0 100.0 Count 1 1

Public Defender (OPR Staff)

% within Public Defender 100.0 100.0 Count 10 27 55 44 1 16 153

Total % within Total 6.5 17.6 35.9 28.8 0.7 10.5 100.0

Specifically, sworn testimony of DYFS worker and/or other witness(es) was presented in about a third of the FN and FG cases observed. An affidavit or written report of a DYFS case worker or other professional was presented in about 14 percent of the FN and 20 percent of the FG cases observed. Verbal statements of a DYFS case worker or other professional were presented in about 30 percent of the FN and 20 percent of the FG cases observed. Verbal statements from a parent were observed in about 36 percent of the FN and 20 percent of the FG cases observed.

Turning to the question of Notice, Table 23 shows that most survey respondents across the board believe that the court inquires about notice to parties and appointment of counsel usually (58 percent) or often (19 percent). Results for FG and FL cases were similar from the respondents that indicated the question was applicable to them.



Table 23. The Court Inquires about Notice to Parties and Appointment of Counsel in FN Cases Response


Don't Know


Count 5 5

CASA staff % within CASA staff 100.0 100.0 Count 1 10 2 13

CIC staff % within CIC staff 7.7 76.9 15.4 100.0 Count 1 1 2

CPRB volunteer % within CPRB volunteer 50.0 50.0 100.0 Count 1 3 13 3 20

DAG % within DAG 5.0 15.0 65.0 15.0 100.0 Count 3 4 8 2 17

DYFS supervisor % within DYFS supervisor 17.6 23.5 47.1 11.8 100.0 Count 2 4 14 25 3 9 57

DYFS worker % within DYFS worker 3.5 7.0 24.6 43.9 5.3 15.8 100.0 Count 1 4 9 14

Judge % within Judge 7.1 28.6 64.3 100.0 Count 1 2 1 14 1 19

Law Guardian (LG) % within LG 5.3 10.5 5.3 73.7 5.3 100.0 Count 1 1 2 Legal Services of








Court observations were also made of attempts to notice relevant parties. Observers noted discussion about DYFS/DAG attempts at service of process, i.e., providing notice of filing of the case on an absent parent(s) or other caretaker in 26 percent of the hearings observed. In the review, compliance review, and permanency hearings observed, observers noted discussion about the DYFS/DAG attempts to notify absent foster/resource parent or pre-adoptive parent(s) or caretaker(s) about the hearing in 13 percent of the hearings.

Conclusions: Most respondents to the survey felt that parties and counsel present witnesses, introduce evidence, and offer arguments often or usually in FN, FG, and FL hearings and this was confirmed in part by court observation. These results suggest that these FN, FG, and FL hearings are not merely perfunctory, but rather are active and contentious.

In addition, most survey respondents felt that the court made inquiries about service of notice to absent parties during most hearings. However, court observation data did not verify the survey results, since inquiries about service were observed in only about a quarter of the hearings observed and, in particular, in only a little more than 10 percent of the hearings observed was there any mention of attempts to notify absent foster/resource parent or pre-adoptive parent(s) or caretaker(s).

Focus Group Questions and Findings In the five vicinages visited, all groups interviewed were asked about the extent to which time available for hearings was sufficient for the presentation of evidence and arguments. The actual question asked was some version of the following: • To what extent do parties and counsel present witnesses, introduce evidence, and offer

arguments in each type of hearing? Findings. As with the findings about hearing time sufficiency in Section VIII, not all respondent groups across all five visited vicinages were aware of the activities within the courtroom. But judges, attorneys, social workers, and other consistently present in the courtroom addressed this issue. In some jurisdictions, judges were described as actively engaging the parties, using a list of question, reading all the evidence, inquiring on the record about the evidentiary basis for what is being said in court, and pausing the proceedings to bring in a witness when appropriate. There is a strong relationship between calendaring practices and hearing time (and report timeliness, to be addressed in a following section) articulated by one respondent. “If I was simply reading report on the day of a hearing I wouldn’t have time; we have a great deal of homework to get it all done and get substantive issues resolved. We get about 15 a day, and we don’t want to lose review days. We must have substantive qualitative discussions for each hearing. “ Another side of this issue is the question of which parties are asked and/or are allowed to present witnesses, introduce evidence, and offer arguments. In several jurisdictions, attorneys representing parents did not unanimously feel as though they or their clients’ interests were allowed fair air time. One used the language of being “glossed over by the judge”. Another observed that the pressure to get through cases has many effects, “we have sacrificed intellectual effort and everything to stats . and there is the rub”, this individual noted. If the court is interested in improving



statistical performance and getting through cases, there will be some effect on quality of the hearings from this parent attorney’s point of view, and “ then the judge is not going to be looking at us to ask ‘what are you’re concerns?’.” Another parent’s attorney noted that a request for an adjournment when the attorney had a competing appearance in another vicinage was met with “I’m waiving your appearance but not your client’s appearance”. The attorney’s concern was that this focus on getting through cases, leaving aside the question of whether this response would be the same for all attorneys or is reserved just for parent’s attorneys, goes to the question of due process for parents in these proceedings. As one parent’s attorney said, “here we have people losing their parental rights, and they are getting less than five minutes in a courtroom every few months.” In general, across the five vicinages and across all groups interviewed, the impression reported by most respondents is that once a case gets into the courtroom, a serious and substantive hearing is conducted in CIC cases.

Recommendation 16: The court should make active inquiry to ensure that service and notice is made to all hearing participants and to verify that service was provided if and when these participants fail to appear at a given hearing. Recommendation 17: The court should actively inquire about the notice to and participation of the resource parents in CIC hearings; especially permanency and review hearings.



Section X. What data are available for case tracking? Is it sufficient? Is it accurate? Do all the people who need it have access?

The Evidence: Evidence to address these questions comes from three sources: (1) the on-line survey, (2) onsite observation, and focus groups and interviews. The Quantitative Data As Table 24 shows, 93 percent of the survey respondents felt that case-tracking information was usually or often available and sufficient to meet their needs.

Table 24. Judge and CIC Staff Responses: Case Tracking Information is Available and Sufficient to

Meet Your Needs Response Frequency Percent Usually 22 81.5 Often 3 11.1 Occasionally 1 3.7 Don't Know 1 3.7 Total 27 100.0

Judges and CIC staff were also asked whether they received information about specific court

performance measures from their automated systems. Table 25 shows the responses for three specific measures and it can be seen that the respondents’ automated systems rarely supplied data on the performance measures.

Table 25. Percentage of Judges and CIC Staff Not Receiving

Information About Court Performance Measures from Automated Systems

Performance Measure Frequency Percent The number or proportion of children who are subject to additional allegations of abuse or neglect while under court jurisdiction. 23 85.2 Reunification rates of children before the court 23 85.2 Adoption disruption rates. 25 92.6

Conclusions: Although judges and CIC staff feel that case-tracking information was usually or often available and sufficient to meet their needs, it is clear that their automated systems are not supplying them with information on critical performance measures that could potentially improve court performance.



Focus Group Questions and Findings In the five vicinages visited, judges, CIC team members, and CPR Board members were asked about the extent to which case tracking data from FACTS was available, sufficient, accurate, and available to everyone who needed that information. (Access to other information, including reports from DYFS, court order service providers, CASAs and other sources, are covered in Section XIII, below.) The actual questions asked about FACTS and other case tracking data were versions of the following: • Do you have a sufficient automated system (FACTS) to support your caseload demands? • What data is available for case tracking? Is it sufficient? Is it accurate? • Do all the people who need the reports have access to them? • Do you receive information about the court performance measures from your automated system

such as children subject to additional allegations of abuse or neglect while under court jurisdiction, reunification rates of children before the court, and adoption disruption rates?

• What other information would you be interested in receiving from your automated court data system?

Findings. Among the respondents who addressed these questions, most discussed the tracking reports, if provided at all, as items that were provided to the judges. When prompted with types of data reports they might find useful (e.g. children subject to additional allegations of abuse or neglect while under court jurisdiction, reunification rates of children before the court, and adoption disruption rates), the most common response was: that would be great but we don’t receive that information at the current time. Alternatively, respondents expressed the belief that the judges received a set of case tracking information on a regular basis that went directly to them, generated out of FACTS. As is covered by the FACTS assessment section of this portion of the report, in some jurisdictions CIC staff have developed work around solutions for developing their own customized reports to meet their needs or their judges’ needs. For example, the CIC team in one jurisdiction provides the judge with (1) a list of cases that need a fact finding hearing and (2) a pending case list –pre court-report that is done in a word processing program and is not generated from FACTS. This jurisdiction’s CIC staff will use the court calendar to make notes about cases (like extending the permanency for the 90 days) and use “case comments” in FACTS to explain circumstances of a case. Other jurisdictions reported similar creative strategies to use the software they have in hand and the tools (e.g. a server-resident local court calendar on which notes can be added by CIC staff) to document and track cases served by the court. Some judges reported that while they received or could receive these reports generated out of FACTS, they used them in a limited manner. One judge expressed the opinion that the only time that mattered was time to permanency and that case tracking did not help judges actually move cases. Another judge noted that if FACTS information were needed, the CIC team leader would be the source, and that the judge would reach out to that person (i.e. that data were available on an “as needed basis”). Otherwise, this judge was “focused on the case and court report and was ready to do that case.” If someone noted that a permanency hearing or other type of court event was due, the judge would just use FACTS (or have the CIC team use FACTS) to check that detail. Otherwise, case tracking information did not inform this judge’s day to day activities.



It would be safe to say that the larger the jurisdiction visited during the course of this project, the more the judges reported use of FACTS-generated reports. On-Site Observation

Overview of the Family Automated Case Tracking System (FACTS) The New Jersey courts have a statewide information system known as Family Automated Case Tracking System (FACTS). FACTS is a comprehensive statewide family court automated information system. FACTS data reporting is a critical component for tracking the court record. Although the system generally does a very good job of serving the needs of the courts, FACTS has problems handling certain parts of abuse and neglect cases due to the fact that the users are not always able to access the needed information in the most usable form. Court users have generally positive comments about FACTS current capabilities as compared to where FACTS started. In family court matters the courts primarily work with the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS). DYFS is responsible for investigating allegations of abuse or neglect and determining whether or not the child is safe in the home. If it is determined that a child is not safe in the home, DYFS is responsible to remove the child to a safe location until such time that the child can safely be reunited with the family or other permanent arrangements can be made. If an allegation of abuse or neglect is substantiated DYFS will file a pleading with the Family Division of Superior Court to initiate court proceedings. Use of FACTS All Family Divisions of Superior Courts in New Jersey use FACTS for case tracking and case management. FACTS is used by the Superior Court to track all stages of a case. The clerk’s office staff are responsible for entering all information in FACTS from initiation, using information provided by DYFS, to final disposition. Clerks office staff record all case event results in FACTS. The court users reported that most case information is entered in FACTS soon after a case event is concluded. Some event results are recorded in the courtroom and some in the clerk’s office after the event is concluded. Most data entry for court events is done by courtroom clerks. Court staff reported that all case events are tracked in FACTS. Most case initiation begins when the clerk’s office staff receive show cause fillings from DYFS. All of the DYFS filings in the court are paper documents as currently no electronic data exchange capability exists. When clerk’s office staff enter the case initiation information, they only use the information from the DYFS show cause document. Data entry staff commented that they need more information on the show cause, in particular, party identifying information. Clerk staff will search FACTS for the parties listed in the DYFS show cause document to hopefully prevent creation of a duplicate identifier for a party already in FACTS. Once the information is entered in FACTS a hearing is scheduled. Prior to the scheduled court date, the court calendar is generated. FACTS provides no reminder to generate the calendar, a clerk’s office user must initiate the calendar generation. Court staff feel that on-demand printing of FACTS generated documents, particularly calendars, is needed for proactive case management. Following a case event, clerk’s staff will enter the result information in FACTS. When entering the case event information, users mentioned the limited space for comments and particularly orders. Generally, orders are not entered verbatim; however, some judges require the order be entered verbatim. Due to the limited space for case event results court staff use 'relief codes', however, court



staff reported that the relief codes need to be updated to better reflect the laws and court practices. Notice is prepared, generally hand written, and served in the courtroom, and it is signed by the respondent or defendant. Court staff mentioned that there is a need for better address information both from DYFS initially and continuing during case processing. Court staff in Essex mentioned that the court will be doing more noticing in the future. All authorized court users; including clerk’s office staff, judges, and court administration have access to the information in FACTS. Only limited staff are allowed to add, modify, or remove information on FACTS. The courts provide lookup access to FACTS for outside users including district attorneys office staff, public defenders office staff, and DYFS users. However, the staff turnover in DYFS is quite high and the courts are not always able to provide access and training to use FACTS for new DYFS staff. The use of FACTS for case management is somewhat limited due to reported limitations of the FACTS reminder system and management reports. Court users report that the AOC produces some very helpful management reports; e.g. cases out of compliance, using FACTS information. However, court users would like to have these reports more available. Many court users suggested it would be helpful to allow users to request or generate these reports when they need the report. This would help to make the reports more timely.

Recommendation 18: The AOC should explore making more CIC case management reports available on demand for court users.

User Issues Several information system issues were mentioned at most or all of the locations visited. The consistent issues include duplicate party identifiers, unavailable information, supplementary case tracking systems, and redundant data entry. In additional to the consistent issues court staff mentioned other issues such as training.

Duplicate Party Identifiers The major issue mentioned by all locations is that parties have duplicate, or more often multiple, identities in FACTS. Court staff mentioned that they need more complete and accurate information from DYFS to help avoid creating a duplicate identifier in FACTS. Another suggestion court staff made was that FACTS should have edit checks to flag missing information when establishing a case. Correcting the duplicate entries that currently exist in FACTS is a continuing chore. The AOC provides a report that the counties use to identify duplicate parties and some are discovered by court staff. Within a county court staff can consolidate parties into a single party, however, FACTS does not easily allow users to consolidate parties between counties. The court staff have found some ways to work around this issue but these solutions are time consuming.

Recommendation 19: The AOC should work with DYFS to improve party identification prior to the party information being added to either the DYFS information system of FACTS. This could include better training for data



entry staff and better party lookup capabilities in the respective information systems.

FACTS User Interface/Navigation

Court users raised several issues regarding FACTS user interface. Generally, court users want a better user interface with easier navigation. The most common issue raised regarded the navigation through many FACTS screens to access the information court users need. Many court users feel FACTS has too many screens and would like to see a more streamlined screen navigation where screen flow matches workflow. Currently, users must back out of or exit the current screen they are working in to move to another screen. Additionally, court users mentioned that FACTS should have more edit checks to flag missing information when entering information, particularly DYFS pleadings. Court users would like to be able to access Promis/Gavel with out exiting FACTS. Improved navigation, particularly streamlined navigation to match workflow can significantly improve employee efficiency. An additional user interface issue court users raised is that FACTS does not report all information in a single screen or report. This situation forces users to move between screens, a cumbersome and time consuming process as discussed above. Court users want to have all or most case information consolidated on a single screen or easily navigable group of screens. The AOC is currently using a SANCA grant to address some of the navigation issues related to information access. New Jersey’s SANCA plan allocates money to hire a programmer and to conduct systems testing making changes to FACTS to create multiple views into abuse and neglect cases.

Recommendation 20: The AOC should use the SANCA project as a starting point to revamp the navigation and user interface of FACTS.

FACTS Functional Issues

Court users reported several situations where FACTS does not provide the functional capabilities court users need to support their jobs. The following are some examples court users provided during the site visit interviews. When a child of minor is added this child receives the same family number as mother's family. In FACTS this situation appears like the mother and child are siblings.

Recommendation 21: The AOC should explore revising the party roles and relations in FACTS to address this issue.

When a child is added before being named, e.g. baby boy Smith, court users cannot change the party name once the baby is named, e.g. baby boy Smith is now John Smith. Court users must add an 'also known as' to the original party, baby boy Smith.

Recommendation 22: The AOC should explore allowing name changes in FACTS for these situations.



Court users reported that FACTS has limited tools to support scheduling. Some locations use a day timer to give hearing dates to DYFS workers. Court users reported that FACTS does not provide an automated scheduling capability and court users must manually count days to schedule review hearings. Additionally, the day timer allows court staff to track the number of cases for a particular day. When cases are transferred between counties, scheduling can be a significant issue. Currently, court users must calculate time lines when a case is transferred from another county. Court users reported that the timeliness for transferred cases is now manually tracked and they must reenter all proceedings from the other county. Court users would like FACTS to move all case information so that FACTS could calculate the timeliness.

Recommendation 23: The AOC should work with court users to evaluate user concerns about the scheduling capabilities of FACTS and identify how best to address these concerns.

Court users want a better reminder system, FACTS lacks capabilities and is cumbersome. An automated reminder system allows court users to engage in proactive case management rather than the reactive case management necessitated when cases are out of compliance.

Recommendation 24: The AOC and court users should review the FACTS reminder system and identify how this can be improved.

Needed Information

Court users reported that they use several resources to obtain the information they need to perform their jobs. The primary case information resource for court users is FACTS which stores and reports most of the information court users need. In addition, court users also use external and supplementary information systems to access and generate some information. Court users reported that FACTS contains most of the information they need to do their jobs. Additionally, court users consistently reported that the information stored in FACTS is accurate, particularly when compared to DYFS. The more significant issue faced by court users is the ability to access or extract the needed information from FACTS. Court users reported that accessing the information stored in FACTS can be burdensome and for some aggregate functions (e.g. court management reporting) virtually impossible. Court users mentioned only limited examples where FACTS does not store all the information they need, such as, the assigned DYFS case worker. The court users mentioned issues about the codes used in FACTS, the availability of FACTS information, and access to external information resources.

FACTS Codes An important issue court staff mentioned is the inconsistencies in the availability of codes to record case information. In some instances, new codes are needed to match changed court practices. Court staff provided several examples, including in the order codes, there is no age out code. Hearing codes are not available for particular case types. When the codes for the case types were originally set-up there were no hearings but court practices have changed since then. Additionally, court users reported that many of the codes are not shared between dockets even though many of the codes are the same. Examples of codes needing updates or expansion include:



• Expand order codes, e.g. currently no age out code. • Update codes to match court practice, e.g. hearing code is not available for particular case

types. • Expand case status codes. • Update relief codes. • Need to expand disposition reason codes for FN. The courts should look at other case types

as well.

Recommendation 25: The AOC should work with court users to identify needed additions and modifications to the codes used in FACTS.

Report Usability

Court users reported that the information stored in FACTS is generally accurate. However,

court staff expressed concerns about the ability to extract information from FACTS in a usable form. Court users reported some FACTS reports are not useful or could be more useful. The following examples highlight some reports court users mentioned. The orders list shows all of the orders associated with a case/child. Court users stated that this list should list only orders related to the current case type. Another area where FACTS reports lack the utility court users would like is with pending cases. Court users reported that FACTS does not show all pending case information across case types and court users must access each docket number individually to obtain all of the needed information. TPR cases are an important case type where court users reported a lack of needed reports. Court users explained that FACTS does not report all TPR information in a single screen or report. Further, court users reported that FACTS provides no report with a usable format for tracking TPR cases.

Recommendation 26: The AOC should work with court users to identify reports with usability issues and work to define what would make the reports more useful.

Timeliness

Court users mentioned several areas where FACTS reports suffer from timeliness issues, including case management reports and court calendars. Court users reported that the AOC provides several very useful case management reports. However, the AOC only provides these reports on a regular schedule, usually monthly. One of the most useful reports the AOC provides is the Out of Compliance report. Because of the delay between when the report is generated and received at the court, the status of many cases may have changed. Calendar generation allows much more court user control. If the calendar is generated the day of court, court users can print the calendar immediately. However, if a future date calendar is needed, the court staff must submit a request that will run during the night. While this is a minimal delay, court users reported the need to immediately generate future calendars exists. Court users would like to have more on demand report and calendar generation capabilities. On demand report and calendar generation would eliminate a large part of the timeliness concerns of court users by allowing the court users to produce needed reports when they need them with minimal delay.



Recommendation 27: The AOC should explore the feasibility of expanding on demand printing for reports and calendars.

Recommendation 28: The AOC should work with court users to identify the mot time sensitive and needed reports, including the monthly reports from the AOC, and make these available for court users to request.

External Information Systems

Court users mentioned that there are two external information systems that are regularly used to supplement the information in FACTS, the DYFS information system and Promis/Gavel.

DYFS Court users mentioned that they can access the DYFS information system. Court staff use the DYFS system to research parties. However, court staff regularly questioned the quality of the information stored in the DYFS information system. Court users reported that the DYFS information system is not updated regularly and that DYFS needs better field edits to improve the quality of their data entry. Although court users express concern about the quality of the DYFS data, they feel that an electronic data exchange is needed between FACTS and the DYFS information system. Court users feel that a data exchange would help the DYFS case workers by providing court information from FACTS. Court users reported that DYFS case workers need FACTS lookup capability. This is provided but has not been kept up for new DYFS employees due to the high turnover rate at DYFS.

Recommendation 29: The AOC should continue to explore the possibility of an electronic data exchange between FACTS and the DYFSIS.

Recommendation 30: The AOC should consider allowing DYFS case workers to attend the FACTS training for court staff as a way to provide training to DYFS case workers at a marginal cost.

Promis/Gavel

An important external system used in all locations is Promis/Gavel. Promis/Gavel provides a statewide search used to locate parents who are in custody. Currently, accessing Promis/Gavel requires switching between systems to do research which is burdensome because users must exit one system to enter the next system. Court users mentioned a desire for a link between Promis/Gavel and FACTS to flag parents in custody. Additionally, court users would like to access all municipal jails to locate parents in custody in the municipal jails.

Recommendation 31: The AOC should explore linking FACTS to Promis/Gavel to flag parties who are in custody.



Supplementary Case Tracking Systems When interviewing court staff, NCSC project staff asked about any supplementary case tracking systems used in addition to FACTS. These supplementary systems include both manual and electronic case tracking tools. Several locations use case tracking systems in addition to FACTS.

Manual or Word Processor Case Tracking Lists The manual systems, including simple lists in word processing files, used include many different types such as the sticker on the case jacket to track time requirements, card systems to prepare mailings, a day-timer for scheduling hearings, logs to verify all required information is submitted, and some simply as manual backups for FACTS. A table of the manual case tracking systems mentioned by court staff is provided in Table 26. Manual or Word Processor Case Tracking Lists.



Table 26. Manual or Word Processor CIC Case Tracking Lists

List Reasons

Day timer used to give hearing date to DYFS workers.

• Due to lack of staff. • FACTS does not provide an automated scheduling

capability. • Must manually count days to schedule review hearings. • Allows court staff to track the number of cases for a

particular day.

Log to track receipt of DYFS information not yet entered in FACTS.

• Due to lack of staff. • Tool to check that all information is provided prior to

motion/order being issued.

Log to track assessments. • Make sure assessments are completed.

Note card system, 1 card for each child. • Used for mailings. • Faster than extracting information from FACTS.

FN pending list. • Historical information. • Updated every 2 weeks. • FACTS does not show all information across case

types, must access each docket number individually.

FG pending list. • Information not easily accessible in FACTS.

Activity sheet in case file. • Provides list of case events.

Track TPR cases • FACTS does not report all information in a single screen or report.

• No FACTS report in usable format. • Includes CPRB recommendation date and consent

signed date.

Track FL and appeal cases. • Safety net to make sure cases are not missed.

Track permanency hearing. • Safety net to make sure cases are not missed. • Provide notice to judges and deputy attorney generals.

Track closed cases.

Excel Case Tracking Lists In addition to the manual case tracking tools, court staff reported using Excel spreadsheets as well. Court users use Excel to perform many case tracking tasks including tracking established cases, used to identify siblings and other family members, track case status, provide case counts, highlight 'late filing' (e.g. documents not filed within the prescribed period), used to identify the clerk working on case, and track appeals. The Excel case tracking systems are used not because FACTS does not have the information but that the information is so difficult to extract in a usable format. A table of the manual case tracking systems mentioned by court staff is provided in Table 27.



Table 27. Excel CIC Case Tracking Lists

List Reasons

Track case status, e.g. added and disposed cases.

• Court staff use this because FACTS cannot provide extract reports, e.g. for cases by status.

• Court staff feel FACTS needs a case status code to easily identify the case status.

Identify siblings and other family members.

• Helps court staff avoid creating duplicate records for individuals and helps link families.

Identify and highlight 'late filing'. • This identifies documents not filed within the prescribed period.

Identify the clerk working on a case.

Track appeals. • Allows court staff to link appeals cases with the originating case.

Track TPR matters, FL cases, perm hearing, and appealed cases.

• Court staff use FACTS comments to identify delay reasons.

Track and prepare monthly statistical reports.

• This includes information such as case counts.

Reminder system • Court staff include the projected age date calculate by FACTS when the case is established or has a change.

• Different flags for fact finding and permanency review

Attorney telephone list • Used to identify attorneys. This list is undergoing significant changes now that FACTS can use the attorney registration number to identify attorneys.

Identify and track cases in backlog.

Prepared using information from monthly AOC report. • Used to remind court staff to access case list then review to

identify cases out of compliance. • Court users must access each case individually to determine

applicable time line. • Court users need an out-of-compliance report available on-

demand using the current information in FACTS to use as a more proactive case management tool.

Redundant Data Entry

Several locations reported duplicate data entry is an issue. Some of the duplicate data entry occurs within FACTS, however, most of the duplicate data entry occurs when court users enter information received from DYFS into FACTS. Redundant data entry is a problem: every time data is entered is an opportunity for the introduction of errors which reduces the accuracy of the stored information. The most significant point of duplicate data entry is when court staff enter the information received from DYFS (including initial petitions, placement changes, etc.). A data entry difficulty court



users mentioned is the discrepancies between DYFS and FACTS codes. Some court users have developed their own translation table to be able to efficiently enter DFYS information, Court users expressed a need for a comprehensive translation table. Court users expressed a desire for an electronic link between FACTS and the DYFS information system. Currently, court staff can access DYFS information systems to view some information but they cannot electronically import any of the DYFS information to FACTS. However, most court staff expressed concern about the accuracy of the information stored in the DYFS information systems. Court users report that there is some duplicate data entry within FACTS. Court staff reported that much of the same information is recorded in the case comments and in the data fields. A further source of redundant data entry is the various supplementary case tracking tools used by court staff to supplement the information provided in FACTS.39 Using these lists requires staff enter case information in FACTS and again in the lists. Another area where court users must duplicate data from FACTS is when orders and other court documents are generated. Case information, particularly case closure information such as orders, is entered in FACTS and must be reentered in a word processing program to generate the necessary documents, e.g. recommendations and orders.

Recommendation 32: The AOC should work to identify where duplicate data entry is occurring in the courts and explore how to eliminate redundant data entry.

Other Issues

Court users reported that until recently attorneys were identified in FACTS using their telephone numbers. This situation often caused problems when attorneys changed firms. FACTS has been modified to use the attorney registration number to identify attorneys in FACTS. However, court users report that obtaining the attorney registration number from attorneys is difficult.

Recommendation 33: The AOC should explore obtaining attorney information to populate FACTS from the Office of Attorney Ethics.

Some court users stated that they felt that there is a lack of formal FACTS training for new employees, most of the training is received on the job, Due to small numbers of court staff .

Recommendation 34: The AOC should explore developing a new employee training program that will allow new court staff to begin working quickly and then attend a more in depth training once a sufficient number of new users have joined the courts to justify a full training session.

39 See Table 26 - Manual or Word Processor CIC Case Tracking Lists and Table 27 Excel CIC Case Tracking Lists.



Desired Additional Capabilities Court staff mentioned several additional capabilities they would like to see in FACTS. Some of the additional capabilities would require significant effort to implement while others would be much easier to provide. The AOC and court users should determine what capabilities are the most feasible and work to implement those capabilities.

Document Generation One capability users would like to see in FACTS is form or document generation. The form and document generation capabilities mentioned included orders, recommendations, permanency plans, stipulations, fact findings, notice, and even certified mailers. Currently, orders and recommendations are generated using word processing templates. Once the information is entered in FACTS, court staff prepare the order using the word processor for the judge to sign. Court users would like to have FACTS generate orders and other common court documents using the information stored in FACTS. Currently, FACTS can generate certified mailers for FJ cases. Users would like to have this capability for all case types. Court users would like to use FACTS to generate address labels for mailing court documents when needed, e.g. recommendations and orders. Using FACTS to generate court documents would eliminate redundant data entry and reduce the opportunities for the introduction of errors. Additionally, having FACTS generate documents will allow centralized control of changes to document format when changes are required due to changes in the law, thus eliminating, or greatly reducing, the potential for outdated form files to be used inadvertently

Recommendation 35: The AOC should work with court users to explore what documents are the best candidates for automated generation.

Report Generation

Court users want better report generation options, particularly on demand report generation to improve the timeliness of reports. Court users regularly mentioned the need for an on demand print capability of case management reports. In particular court users want more timely access to the AOC case management reports, e.g. out of compliance report, to allow the courts to be more proactive in managing the cases. In addition to on demand report generation, court users want on demand future date calendar generation. An additional capability court users mentioned is the ability to generate reports, calendars, or case comments to an electronic file to allow distribution using e-mail.

Recommendation 36: The AOC should explore expanding the on demand generation of reports and calendars.

Recommendation 37: The AOC should explore the possibility to allow court users to generate FACTS reports and other output to electronic files for easier distribution.



User Interface Court users mentioned many enhancements to the FACTS user interface they feel would improve FACTS support of court operations. • FACTS should report all case information in a single screen or report. An obvious issue with this

is that the size of the screen limits the amount of information that can be displayed in a single screen. Some solutions to the screen size issue are to have the active screen scroll or use tabs to quickly move between screens containing related information.

• FACTS should allow court users to move between screens without exiting the screen they are currently using.

• FACTS should have edit checks to flag missing information when entering information, particularly when entering information from DYFS pleadings.

• Many court users expressed a desire to have the FACTS screens streamlined so that the screen flow matches user workflow. This would create a better user interface which is easier to navigate.

• Court users would like to have fewer screens. Many users feel FACTS has too many screens. • Many court users feel FACTS needs phonetic name search capabilities. Court users feel this

would help to reduce the number of duplicate party entries. • Another capability court users feel would be helpful is a spell check, particularly for the comment

fields.

Data Exchanges with External Information Systems

DYFS Court users consistently mentioned that a data exchange between FACTS and DYFSIS would be helpful. A particular example of how court users see a data exchange helping is to provide electronic access to the DYFS complaint to print or review rather than pulling it from the file would help avoid delays.

Recommendation 38: The AOC should continue to work with DYFS to establish a data exchange between FACTS and the DYFS information system.

Promis/Gavel

Court users expressed a desire for an electronic data exchange between FACTS and Promis/Gavel. Court users would like an information link between FACTS and Promis/Gavel to flag parties who are in custody to help court users locate parties quicker. While exchanging information between FACTS and Promis/Gavel can be done, the more significant issue is establishing the positive identification of the FACTS party and the individuals in custody provided by Promis/Gavel. The positive identification issue is the major hurdle.



Reminder System The primary function of a case management system is to help court users manage the court's cases. An important tool to help courts effectively manage cases is to have the case management system automatically notify court staff when a case is nearing or has exceeded a time limit. Most court users mentioned that the reminder system in FACTS has limited capabilities. Many locations use supplementary case tracking systems to track case time limits. The AOC needs to examine where FACTS does not provide court users with the needed reminder system support and determine how FACTS can provide a better reminder system.

Other Functions The following is a list of additional functions court users mentioned would be helpful. Some of these functions would be incorporated in FACTS and others are potential new ways for the court to do business using technology. • Some court users mentioned that it would be helpful to be able to send CPRB volunteer packets

electronically. The volunteer packets include many documents. The major issue with sending volunteer packets electronically is confidentiality. There are many solutions to address the confidentiality issue such as sending encrypted documents. The AOC must carefully explore this issue.

• Some court users mentioned that an imaging system or electronic document management system for orders would be helpful. The AOC should consider this carefully particularly if document generation capabilities are added to FACTS. Providing court users with instant access to this information can improve efficiency by reducing time spent accessing case files to retrieve this information. However, the cost of such a system may not be justified by the potential gains in efficiency.

• Court users mentioned that they would like FACTS to update attorney information for all of an attorney’s cases when the attorney changes.

• As part of the FACTS scheduling capabilities, court users mentioned the need for automated resource scheduling. An example is establishing limits on the number of hearings that can be scheduled for a particular court session and when the limit is reached any subsequently scheduled hearings are automatically scheduled for the next available court session.

• Some court users feel that it would be helpful to track adoptions using FACTS.



Section XI. To what extent do the number of cases and the limited number of judges and personnel affect the ability of courts to meet safety, timeliness, due process, and permanency standards? The Evidence: Evidence to address these questions comes from three sources: (1) file review, (2) court observation, (3) the on-line survey, and (4) focus groups and interviews. The Quantitative Data Table 19 in Section VII gives the caseload sizes reported by survey respondents by professional groupings. It can be seen that many professionals must contend with large caseloads. Safety: Survey respondents were asked the extent to which their caseload impacts their ability to meet safety standards. Table 28 shows that about 50 percent of the respondents felt that their caseload only rarely or occasionally impacts their ability to meet safety standards although another third of the respondents felt that this happened often or usually.



Table 28. To What Extent Does Your Caseload Impact Your Ability to Meet Safety Standards? Response


Don't Know


Count 2 2 1 5

CASA staff % within CASA staff 40.0 40.0 20.0 100.0 Count 3 2 3 5 13

CIC staff % within CIC staff 23.1 15.4 23.1 38.5 100.0 Count 1 1 2


DAG % within DAG 47.6 33.3 9.5 9.5 100.0 Count 3 3 3 5 5 19

DYFS supervisor % within DYFS supervisor 15.8 15.8 15.8 26.3 26.3 100.0 Count 16 12 11 12 1 6 58

DYFS worker % within DYFS worker 27.6 20.7 19.0 20.7 1.7 10.3 100.0 Count 6 2 3 2 1 14

Judge % within Judge 42.9 14.3 21.4 14.3 7.1 100.0 Count 7 2 3 3 4 19









Another survey question asked if the court inquires about the safety of the children in the current FN case. Table 29 shows that about 79 percent of the respondents felt that the court inquired about the safety of the children in the current FN case often or usually while only 9 percent responded rarely or occasionally. Results for FG and FL cases were similar with 56 percent and 42 percent of the respondents, respectively, indicating that the court inquired about the safety of the children often or usually in the current case. In both cases, many respondents indicated that FG and FL cases were not applicable to them (34 percent and 50 percent, respectively).



Table 29. The Court Inquires about the Safety of the Children in the Current FN Case Response


Don't Know

Not applicable Total

Count 2 3 5

CASA staff % within CASA staff 40.0 60.0 100.0 Count 2 9 2 13



DAG % within DAG 5.0 25.0 55.0 15.0 100.0 Count 1 1 3 10 1 2 18

DYFS supervisor % within DYFS supervisor 5.6 5.6 16.7 55.6 5.6 11.1 100.0 Count 2 3 15 29 1 8 58

DYFS worker % within DYFS worker 3.4 5.2 25.9 50.0 1.7 13.8 100.0 Count 1 2 11 14

Judge % within Judge 7.1 14.3 78.6 100.0 Count 2 2 2 12 1 19

Law Guardian (LG) % within LG 10.5 10.5 10.5 63.2 5.3 100.0 Count 2 2 Legal Services of


% within Legal Services 100.0 100.0 Count 1 1






Timeliness: Survey respondents were asked the extent to which their caseload impacts their ability to meet timeliness standards. Table 30 shows that about 45 percent of the respondents felt that their caseload only rarely or occasionally impacts their ability to meet timeliness standards although another 41 percent of the respondents felt that this happened often or usually.



Table 30. To What Extent Does Your Caseload Impact Your Ability to Meet Timeliness Standards

Response


Don't Know


Count 2 1 2 5

CASA staff % within CASA staff 40.0 20.0 40.0 100.0 Count 4 3 2 2 2 13

CIC staff % within CIC staff 30.8 23.1 15.4 15.4 15.4 100.0 Count 1 1 2




DYFS worker % within DYFS worker 10.5 19.3 33.3 24.6 1.8 10.5 100.0 Count 3 8 2 1 14

Judge % within Judge 21.4 57.1 14.3 7.1 100.0 Count 4 6 4 2 3 19









Due Process: Survey respondents were asked the extent to which their caseload impacts their ability to meet due process standards. Table 31 shows that about 51 percent of the respondents felt that their caseload only rarely or occasionally impacts their ability to meet due process standards although another 31 percent of the respondents felt that this happened often or usually.



Table 31. To What Extent Does Your Caseload Impact Your Ability to Meet Due Process Standards

Response


Don't Know


Count 2 2 1 5

CASA staff % within CASA staff 40.0 40.0 20.0 100.0 Count 6 1 1 1 4 13

CIC staff % within CIC staff 46.2 7.7 7.7 7.7 30.8 100.0 Count 1 1 2














As another measure of due process, the file review examined the type and frequency of judge change because frequent judge change can interfere with due process as well as timeliness and permanency. Table 32 shows the results of this examination. Though judge change is not frequent it occurs in about a fourth of the cases between the initial and fact-finding, disposition, and permanency hearings.

Table 32. Type and Frequency of Judge Change Observed in File Review

Type of Judge Change File Review Result

Did judges change between the Initial and the Return Order to Show Cause hearing?

Of the 19 cases for which the judges at both the Initial and Return Order to Show Cause Hearings could be identified, all but one (5.2%) had the same judge for both hearings.

Did judges change between the Initial and the first Case Management Conference?

Data were available for 17 cases that had both an initial hearing and at least one case management conference. In 5 of these cases (29.4 %), the judicial officer changed.

Did judges change between the first and the second Case Management Conference?

Data were available on 7 cases that had identified judges at their first and second case management conferences. Of these, two had different judges at the second than the first hearing (28.6 %).

Did judges change between the second and the third Case Management Conference?

Data were available on 9 cases that had identified judges at their second and third case management conferences. Of these, one had a different judge at the third than the second hearing (11.1 %).

Did judges change between the Initial and the Fact-finding Evidentiary hearing?

Data were available for 14 cases that had both an initial hearing and a Fact-finding Evidentiary hearing. In 4 of these cases (28.6 %), the judicial officer changed.

Did judges change between the Initial and the first compliance review hearing?

Data were available for 20 cases that had both an initial hearing and at least one compliance review hearing. In 6 of these cases (13.6 %), the judicial officer changed.

Did judges change between the first and the second compliance review hearing?

Data were available on 16 cases that had identified judges at their first and second compliance review hearings. Of these, one had different judges at the second than the first hearing (6.3 %).

Did judges change between the second and the third compliance review hearing?

Data were available on 9 cases that had identified judges at their second and third compliance review hearings. None of these had a different judge at the third than the second hearing.

Did judges change between the Initial and the Disposition hearing?

Of the 13 cases for which the judges at both the Initial and Disposition Hearings could be identified, 9 (69.2%) had the same judge for both hearings.

Did judges change between the Initial and the permanency hearing?

Of the 16 cases for which the judges at both the Initial and the first permanency hearings could be identified, 12 (75%) had the same judge for both hearings.

Did judges change between the first and second permanency hearings?

Of the 12 cases for which the judges at both the first and second permanency hearings could be identified, 9 (75%) had the same judge for both hearings.

Did judges change between the Initial and the Summary hearing?

Data were available for 2 cases that had both an initial hearing and a Fact-finding Evidentiary hearing. In all of theses cases, the judicial officer remained the same.



Permanency: Survey respondents were asked the extent to which their caseload impacts their ability to meet permanency standards. Table 33 shows that about 50 percent of the respondents felt that their caseload only rarely or occasionally impacts their ability to meet permanency standards although another 36 percent of the respondents felt that this happened often or usually.



Table 33. To What Extent Does Your Caseload Impact Your Ability to Meet Permanency Standards?

Response


Don't Know


Count 2 2 1 5

CASA staff % within CASA staff 40.0 40.0 20.0 100.0 Count 5 3 2 3 13















Another survey question asked if the court inquires about the permanency goals of the children in the current FN case. Table 34 shows that 82 percent of the respondents felt that the court inquired about the permanency goals of the children in the current FN case often or usually while only 5 percent responded rarely or occasionally. Results for FG and FL cases were similar with 58 percent and 43 percent of the respondents, respectively, indicating that the court inquired about the permanency goals of the children often or usually in the current case. In both cases, many respondents indicated that FG and FL cases were not applicable to them (34 percent and 48 percent, respectively).



Table 34. The Court Inquires About the Permanency Goals of the Children in the Current FN Case Response


Don't Know


Count 1 4 5

CASA staff % within CASA staff 20.0 80.0 100.0 Count 1 1 9 2 13



DAG % within DAG 5.0 20.0 60.0 15.0 100.0 Count 3 11 1 2 17

DYFS supervisor % within DYFS supervisor 17.6 64.7 5.9 11.8 100.0 Count 3 16 30 1 8 58

DYFS worker % within DYFS worker 5.2 27.6 51.7 1.7 13.8 100.0 Count 3 10 13

Judge % within Judge 23.1 76.9 100.0 Count 3 4 11 1 19

Law Guardian (LG) % within LG 15.8 21.1 57.9 5.3 100.0 Count 1 1 2 Legal Services of




% within Public Defender 100.0 100.0 Count 8 33 90 2 17 150

Total % within Total 5.3 22.0 60.0 1.3 11.3 100.0



Court observers checked to see if there was discussion of the child(ren)’s permanency goal(s) (e.g., reunification, termination of parental rights, independent living, kinship legal guardianship). Table 35 below shows that permanency goals were discussed in almost three fourths of the FN cases observed and in more than half of the FG cases observed.

Table 35. Was There Discussion of the Child(ren)’s Permanency Goal(s)?

Type of Case No Yes Total Count 32 84 116

FN % within FN 27.6 72.4 100.0 Count 4 5 9

FG % within FG 44.4 55.6 100.0 Count 2 2

FL % within FL 100.0 100.0 Count 2 2

FC % within FC 100.0 100.0 Count 38 91 129

Total % within Total 29.5 70.5 100.0 Conclusions: Fairly consistently across all professional types, about a third of the survey respondents felt that their caseloads interfered with their ability to meet safety, timeliness, due process, or permanency standards. Respondents were more likely to indicate that timeliness standards in particular were impacted by caseloads. According to the survey, court inquiries about the safety of the children involved were the norm in FN cases in particular and also in FG and FL cases. Judge change was not frequent and in most cases does not appear to be a threat to due process, but it still occurred at critical junctures in about a fourth of the cases examined in the file review. Both the survey and court observation confirmed that the court very actively tracks permanency goals.

Focus Group Questions and Findings A section of the focus group interview instruments included a range of questions addressing caseload. In the five vicinages, all respondents were asked to reflect on the extent to which staffing and caseloads and resources affected their ability to meet safety, timeliness, due process, and permanency goals. Judges and CIC team members were asked a version of the following: • To what extent do the number of cases, the number of judges, and the number of CIC personnel

affect the ability of courts to meet safety, timeliness, due process, and permanency standards? Attorneys, CASAs, and DYFS workers and supervisors were asked a version of the following: • To what extent do your caseloads and staffing levels affect safety, timeliness, due process, and

permanency standards?



Findings. The size of the jurisdiction and the type of respondent affected impressions about whether or not caseloads were manageable and whether as a result safety, timeliness, due process, and permanency standards are being affected. The judges had range of responses. Some clearly said they have sufficient judicial resources and that their caseloads were manageable (and hence outcome goals listed were being achieved). Another noted that the caseload is manageable but only because that judge has good support, citing a full time law clerk and the performance if the CIC team. Other judges indicated that while “It’s a difficult case load, we’re all managing it, we all have to manage it” adding that its not “just the judges, it’s the staff -- everyone wants to make sure we do it properly because it is an important case type.” This same respondent indicated that because “voluntary” placements are no longer possible with DYFS, “a lot more cases are coming into the pipeline that wouldn’t before, more difficult cases which means hearings are more protracted”. The DYFS reorganization is having its own effects, according to this respondent. The single judge jurisdictions could feel these pressures a little differently than those with multiple judges. One judge indicated that the problem was “going long” with hearings that required close scrutiny and “the ability to finish things”. For example, “some permanencies take a little longer and it’s hard to schedule a follow up hearing”. CIC staff members in the various jurisdictions also reflect on the effects of resources and caseloads on permanency outcomes. Some reflected also on the capacity and behavior of the CPR Boards (addressed in Section XVII that follows) and timeliness of DYFS reports (addressed in Section XIV) in their responses to this question. With FC cases, they noted, “if we have the board members and have the meetings on the calendar and if we can get DYFS to get reports, then we can hear them regularly and they will have a better flow.” Another reflected that as CIC staff “ “we are prisoners to a system in trouble” in which we have judges who are giving bench time for FC summary hearings that boards could be doing if DYFS got their reports in time. “”We can’t go forward if we don’t have the reports” Staff in one jurisdiction reflected that while they had restricted judicial resources and increased numbers of more serious cases coming into care, the backlog in cases that used to come from permanency hearings not being completed in a timely manner is now coming from delayed and untimely fact finding hearings. Many attorney and DYFS respondents addressing this question addressed the added pressure of waiting time for court calendars to be heard. Time spent waiting for court cases to be called (especially if that perception is that cases are not called in an impartial order and that some individuals or groups of individuals are given preference in the order, even when they arrive at court later than other cases ready to be heard) causes frustration and pulls staff from serving other cases in the field. DYFS respondents in one jurisdiction address this question of court wait time by exploring the idea of using video or phone conferencing that could bring in DYFS workers from the field or their offices, where the wait time for the hearing start could be used productively in serving cases. Some jurisdictions reported recent and dramatic improvements in caseload manageability since the additions of new DAGs. With additional staff the office could be “active rather than reactive”. Law guardians report across jurisdictions that the caseload can be manageable, but that their problem is similar to that cited by DYFS workers: in court wait time for cases to be called.



In all jurisdictions, shortages or problems were cited in obtaining timely reports from DYFS, sometimes from CASA, and from evaluators (a limited pool of professionals). This point will be addressed further in Section XIV, which follows. In general, respondents reflected on the immediate effects of large caseloads and judicial and other staffing resources rather than on the ultimate case level outcomes of these system stressors. When pressed to focus on ultimate or process outcomes such as child safety while under the court’s jurisdiction or due process for child or parents in the legal proceedings, one respondent indicated: “its got to affect those things but how much it affects it is the question”. Upon reflection, this respondent indicated that when permanency hearings is not done on time, permanency for the child is affected; when there is turnover of caseworkers, there is a resultant lack of familiarity with cases and the system that delay the case and can also affect the quality of information presented to the court.

Recommendation 39: Caseloads are an issue that hinders about a fourth of the CIC professionals from meeting safety, timeliness, due process, or permanency standards. Further examination of caseload-related factors such as caseload size and complexity of caseload and workloads of child protection professionals by vicinage is warranted. Adjustments in resources available to these professionals should be made on the basis of the results of the proposed examination. Recommendation 40: The CICIC should develop a policy endorsing that a single judge should preside over a child and family (and the complement of CIC case types including FC, FN, FG, and FN) from removal through return and/or termination and adoption. Consistency in judgeship, though already high, should be increased.



Section XII. How often are parents and children represented by counsel? To what extent is representation adequate? The Evidence: Evidence to address these questions comes from four sources: (1) file review, (2) court observation, (3) the on-line survey, and (4) focus groups and interviews. The Quantitative Data Court observation provides the most reliable evidence on this issue. Tables 36 through 38 show how often law guardians, mother’s attorney, and father’s attorney were present at the hearings observed, by type of case. The data show that law guardians were present at almost every hearing observed. The mother’s attorney was present at 60 percent and the father’s attorney in a third of the hearings observed.

Table 36. Was Law Guardian Present at Hearing Observed? Type of Case No Yes Total

Count 8 117 125 FN % within FN 6.4 93.6 100.0

Count 10 10 FG % within FG 100.0 100.0

Count 2 2 FL % within FL 100.0 100.0

Count 1 1 2 FC % within FC 50.0 50.0 100.0

Count 11 128 139 Total % within Total 7.9 92.1 100.0

Table 37. Was Mother’s Attorney Present at Hearing Observed?


FN % within FN 39.2 60.8 100.0 Count 10 10

FG % within FG 100.0 100.0 Count 2 2



Total % within Total 45.3 54.7 100.0



Table 38. Was Father’s Attorney Present at Hearing

Observed?


FN % within FN 65.6 34.4 100.0 Count 7 3 10

FG % within FG 70.0 30.0 100.0 Count 2 2



Total % within Total 66.9 33.1 100.0 Attorney presence was also examined in the hearings of the file review cases but this data is not as reliable as the court observation data. Table 39 shows attorney presence at major hearings in file review cases. Attorneys are most likely to be at fact finding and compliance review hearings and attorneys for the children are more likely to be present at any given hearing than any other type of attorney.

Table 39. Attorney Presence at Hearings by Type of Hearing in File Review Cases

(Percent of hearings reviewed (Number of Hearings Reviewed))

Type of Attorney Initial Return Order to

Show Cause

(First) Case Management Conference

Fact-Finding Hearing

(First) Compliance

Review Disposition (First)

Permanency Summary Attorney-Mother 1.5% (1) 24% (12) 51% (19) 36.8% (7) 36.4% (16) 26.9% (7) 38.5% (15) 0% (0) Attorney-Father 0% (0) 26% (13) 24.3% (9) 36.8% (7) 43.2% (19) 19.2% (5) 25.6% (10) 0% (0) Attorney-Child 4.4% (3) 42.0% (21) 54% (20) 63.2% (12) 56.8% (25) 34.6% (9) 35.9% (14) 25% (1) Attorney-Other 0% (0) 6.0% (3) 0% (0) 5.3% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0)

Survey respondents were asked a series of questions about law guardians. When asked

how often law guardians were present at court proceedings, about 87 percent responded that children usually have law guardians for all proceedings and another 8 percent responded that this occurs often. When asked how often assigned law guardians change between initial assignment and end of the case, 63 percent responded rarely and another 17 percent responded occasionally. Respondents also overwhelming thought that law guardian representation was often (21 percent) or usually (63 percent) adequate.

Survey respondents were also asked a series of questions about legal counsel for the

parents. Survey respondents were asked how often legal counsel for the parents was present at court proceedings. About 52 percent responded that legal counsel for the parents is usually present for all proceedings and another 27 percent responded that this occurs often. When asked how often



assigned legal counsel for the parents change between initial assignment and end of the case, 48 percent responded rarely and another 28 percent responded occasionally. About 65 percent of the respondents thought that legal counsel for the parents was often or usually adequate but a little more than a fourth (28 percent) thought that it was only rarely or occasionally adequate.

The survey also inquired whether respondents had received training for their current CIC role

prior to assuming this role. About 57 percent of the law guardians responded that they had received such training, while one of the two Legal Services of New Jersey (Family Representation Project) respondents and the only Public Defender (OPR staff) that responded indicated that they had received training prior to assuming their CIC role. Almost 54percent of the law guardians responded that their training had prepared them very well for their work but another 46percent responded that the training had prepared them not at all or only a little. When asked whether respondents in their current role had attended any continuing education relevant to their participation in the CIC system, 95 percent of the law guardians responded in the affirmative. Finally, when respondents were asked whether they were aware of any “written statewide standards related to their role function in CIC case processing”, 47 percent responded in the negative, 26 percent in the affirmative, while almost 21 percent indicated that they did not know or that the question was not applicable to them. Conclusions: The best evidence suggest that law guardians are present at almost all child protection proceedings, while the mother’s attorney is present at little more than half of the proceedings and the father’s in about a third of the proceedings. Almost 79 percent of the survey respondents indicated that parents’ attorneys were usually or often present at proceedings. Evidence also suggests that law guardians rarely change between initial assignment and the end of the case. Most survey respondents (84 percent) feel that law guardian representation is often or usually adequate. A little more than half of the law guardians had received training on CIC cases prior to assuming their role but opinion was divided as to how well the training had prepared them for their role, with 54 percent responding very well but another 46 percent responded that the training had prepared them not at all or only a little. Continuing education on CIC cases seems to be the norm for law guardians but there still seems to be widespread lack of knowledge about statewide standards governing CIC cases among law guardians. Focus Group Questions and Findings In order to capture information surrounding this research question, the NCSC project team asked a series of question regarding the appointment process, the frequency of representation, and changes in representation involving counsel for children and counsel for parents. To assess the adequacy of representation, NCSC posed questions that addressed not only stakeholder perceptions of adequacy but also proxy questions including training and written standards and caseloads. Representation. Questions asked of respondents included versions of the following: • Please describe the court appointment process in your jurisdiction? How do you get your cases? • Please describe the assignment of cases in your office. [e.g. geographic or other?] • How often are parents and children represented by counsel? • In what percentage of cases is counsel for [parents/children] appointment in advance of the

temporary custody hearing • What percentage of [parents/children] have legal counsel for all proceedings



• What percentage of [parents/children] have one legal counsel for all proceedings • What percentage of [parents/children] have representation that changes between initial

assignment and the end of the case? Findings. Findings in the area are limited to responses from attorneys representing children and parents. The Office of the Public Defender is responsible for court-appointed counsel services to parents (Office of Parental Representation-OPR) and children (Law Guardians) in CIC cases; including the coordination of “pool attorneys” in the event of a conflict. While administered statewide, regional offices handle cases locally. The expansion of the Public Defender’s Office in these areas has been dramatic over the past year. Generally, all parents and children in CIC have court-appointed counsel. Appointment of a law guardian is mandatory pursuant to New Jersey statute as discussed in Section VI. Law guardians are usually appointed at the conclusion of the hearing (concurrent with the initial order for removal and DYFS custody) via a one-sentence designation in the order. Currently case load caps are in place of 75 for OPR attorneys but there are no such caps in place for law guardians at this time. One issue regarding the order appointing the law guardian is inconsistency. Currently, efforts are underway to develop a process for the notice and presence of law guardians for the preliminary hearing. The court appoints an attorney to the parent upon the completion of “5-A” form. For the most part, this occurs after the preliminary hearing due to the logistics of the process. OPR is willing to represent clients for the first hearing because “some removals could be stopped at this hearing.” The logistics of eligibility and notice to the OPR is the issue, however. Finally, it is rare that a parent is deemed ineligible for court-appointed counsel and there is a liberal interpretation based on economic need. The actual assignment of cases to attorneys for both parent and children varies depending upon the particular location. For example assignments can vary based upon the judge, alpha designation, DYFS district office, and DAG team pairing. There are also differences as to how appeals are handled. For example, in some vicinages, appeals are passed on to another attorney for the appeal. Ideally, the same attorney will represent the child or the parent all the way through the case and the concept of vertical representation is valued. As one law guardian put it, law guardians have a true “cradle to the grave” approach. Training, Standards, and Caseloads. Questions asked of participants included versions of the following: • Describe the training that is available to you in your role. • How frequently have you participated in these trainings? • What if any written standards exist regarding your role in CIC cases? • To what extent do your caseloads and staffing levels affect safety, timeliness, due process, and

permanency standards? Findings. Findings in this area are limited to the responses from attorneys representing children and parents. Currently, new law guardians participate in a three-day essential skills and substantive training specifically geared toward CIC cases. This is the first in-depth training curriculum developed



in this area. Additionally there is a manual for FN and FG cases. The ABA standards for attorneys representing children is also a resource and efforts are underway to develop a best practices manual incorporating the ABA standards. The training aspect for OPR and pool attorneys, however, appears less well defined. Like the OPR attorneys, pool attorneys participate in the OPR initial orientation and receive several binders of information prior to receiving cases. Adequacy of Representation. Questions asked of participants included the following: • To what extent is representation adequate? Findings. The responses of all CIC professionals are included for this area. At a minimum, representation is perceived as adequate. In most instances, representation is perceived as excellent. While most felt that CIC cases were not highly adversarial, counsel for parents and children were perceived as practical advocates. For some focus group participants, law guardians are perceived as strong advocates but not in a legal advocacy way. Defense attorneys noted problems with accessing DFYS files in several jurisdictions as a barrier to effective representation. As one participant stated “Defense attorneys in DYFS cases are considered the enemy and are told ‘you don’t need these court reports or these progress reports -- this is our file’.”

Recommendation 41: Legal representation for children involved in CIC cases is almost universal but parents representation is less frequent and should be increased at all stages of case processing. To the extent possible, representation should occur prior to the preliminary hearing. One possible solution could include noticing parents to the hearing 30 minutes prior to the start time so that the 5-A paperwork may be completed. Another possibility could include the availability of OPR counsel during preliminary hearings such as on a rotation schedule. Recommendation 42: All attorneys involved in CIC cases should receive extensive training prior to assignment to CIC cases. On-going training should be emphasized as well. Initial and on-going training should include components separate and apart from the legal aspects of CIC cases such as the dynamics of child abuse, mental health issues, drug and alcohol abuse, and state and local resources and services. Recommendation 43: Because almost half of the law guardians survey respondents indicated that the training that they received prior to assuming their CIC role did little to prepare them for their responsibilities, training efforts need to be re-examined. Exposing all law guardians to the recently developed statewide curriculum for this important group of professionals is warranted and this curriculum should include discussion of statewide standards. Recommendation 44: The order appointing the law guardian should be a standardized order and utilized statewide. Specific attention should be made to language authorizing access to the records of the child.



Recommendation 45: The CICIC should assist with the development of a policy, protocol, and or MOU surrounding OPR access to DYFS files and information. Recommendation 46: To the extent possible, the OPR should be expanded to include in-house conflict attorneys in order to minimize reliance on pool attorneys.



Section XIII. Are all participants in court proceedings treated with courtesy, respect, and understanding? The Evidence: Evidence to address these questions comes from three sources: (1) court observation, (2) the on-line survey, and (3) focus groups and interviews. The Quantitative Data Court observation provides the most reliable evidence on this issue. Survey respondents were asked if participants in court proceedings were treated with “courtesy, respect, and understanding.” Table 40 shows that 58 percent of the respondents felt that participants in FN court proceedings were usually treated with courtesy, respect, and understanding and another 19 percent reported that this was often the case. Responses were fairly uniform across professional groupings though DYFS Workers and Supervisors were the least likely to respond often or usually. Survey responses for FG and FL cases were similar, with the preponderance of respondents to whom the question was applicable responding that that participants in court proceedings were usually or often treated with courtesy, respect, and understanding.



Table 40. Are Participants in FN Court Proceedings Treated with Courtesy, Respect, and Understanding?

Response


Don't Know


Count 3 2 5

CASA staff % within CASA staff 60.0 40.0 100.0 Count 1 10 2 13


CPRB volunteer % within CPRB volunteer 50.0 50.0 100.0 Count 6 12 3 21

DAG % within DAG 28.6 57.1 14.3 100.0 Count 1 2 3 10 2 18


DYFS worker % within DYFS worker 6.9 13.8 19.0 43.1 3.4 13.8 100.0 Count 1 13 14

Judge % within Judge 7.1 92.9 100.0 Count 1 3 14 1 19

Law Guardian (LG) % within LG 5.3 15.8 73.7 5.3 100.0 Count 1 1 2 Legal Services of








Court observers checked specific indicators of “courtesy, respect, and understanding.” First, they checked to see whether the Court took the time to explain to the child(en), parent(s), other caretaker(s), and relative(s) the reason for the hearing under observation. When at least one of these parties was present at the hearing, such an explanation was provided in 57 percent of the FN cases (N=88), one third of the FG cases (N=6), and all of the FL cases (N=2) observed.

Secondly, they checked to see whether the court made an effort to ensure that the child(ren), parent(s), other caretaker(s), and relative(s) understood the proceedings. When at least one of these parties was present at the hearing, such an effort was made in two-thirds of the FN cases (N=88), one third of the FG cases (N=6), and all of the FL cases (N=2) observed.

Thirdly, observers checked to see whether the Court provided the child(ren), parent(s), other caretaker(s), and relative(s) with an opportunity to speak or ask questions. When at least one of these parties was present at the hearing, such an opportunity was provided in 83 percent of the FN cases (N=82), two thirds of the FG cases (N=6), and all of the FL cases (N=2) observed.

Conclusions: Survey results show that a large majority of CIC professionals feel that participants in FN, FG, and FL cases are treated with “courtesy, respect, and understanding.” Court observation revealed that courts take the time to explain to the child(ren), parent(s), other caretaker(s), and relative(s) the reason for the hearing in the majority but not all of the cases. Likewise, courts were observed making an effort to ensure that the child(ren), parent(s), other caretaker(s), and relative(s) understood the proceedings in almost two-thirds of the cases but not all. Clearly, most courts afford parents and children the opportunity to speak or ask questions.

Focus Group Questions and Findings The NCSC project staff-led focus groups addressed a wide range of questions about court hearing activities with judges, CIC team staff, DYFS workers and supervisors, law guardians, parent attorneys, and Deputy Attorneys General. Child Placement Review Board members were asked questions only about their own meeting activities. As one question in the set addressing court hearing activities, all the focus group participants addressed a version of the following: • Are all participants in court proceedings treated with courtesy, respect, and understanding? Findings. The overall impression across the five vicinages is that courtrooms hearing CIC matters are run with decorum and respect for parties and participants. Different respondent groups present a range of dimensions of the concept of respect. Judges said “unequivocally yes”. One noted: “It’s our responsibility to ensure that’s happening and if it’s not happening it’s our responsibility to stop it.” DYFS workers in several jurisdictions noted that the court can “lean toward” private attorneys and the law guardians, and do not always believe that what the DYFS workers present in their reports and in court is accurate. The workers noted that the attorney representatives have had little contact with clients before court and yet focus their critical energies on the DYFS report rather than on individual casework for their client. DYFS workers have the feeling that “the balance is not always equal and just” in terms of the standard to which everyone is held in providing appropriate information to the courts. While some of the feelings expressed by social workers are historical and chronic in these types of cases across the country (“if you’re an attorney, you’re the professional; if you’re a



social worker, you’re a subprofessional”), yet pragmatic goals and standards were expressed. “What has to happen in these court proceedings is that we respect that each individual brings in expertise from their field (e.g. services, realistic time frames, etc). At the same time we want to be acknowledged for our expertise.” DYFS workers commented on their relations with some attorneys in the courtroom. “If they feel that the social worker or supervisor is not doing the right thing, they are punitive to us, and we don’t have the parallel opportunity to criticize the quality of representation they provide to their clients.” Law guardians in one jurisdiction expressed concern about some judges’ willingness to proceed with cases when counsel for the parents and children are not present. While this is of course a due process issue, these respondents also couched this observation as a sign of lack of respect for the attorneys and for the parties to the case. Law guardians in one jurisdiction also noted as a sign of lack of respect for them the failure of the court to notify them ahead of time of a cancelled hearing when it knows at least a day ahead of the scheduled hearing date. CASA workers in several jurisdictions expressed a range of opinions on this score. In one vicinage with a recently established program, volunteers were received in a range of ways by different court participants. They felt they were not treated well by DYFS; ““they don’t want my involvement” and “they are far from receptive” were phrases used. The court received the volunteers well, while DAGs “learned to respect me”. This program is just beginning to establish relationships with all the key stakeholders and these observations could be a reflection of that fact alone. In another jurisdiction with a long established CASA program, the program representatives report a “wonderful” relationship with key stakeholders and no problems in working collaboratively in or out of the courtroom. For some in large and small jurisdictions, the question of “respect” raised the issue of court calendar management, i.e. the now familiar “wait time” issue. Late starts, or perceive irregularities (or perceptions of preferences given for different types of parties in calling them and their cases into the courtroom) were noted as signaling a lack of respect for some professionals and their clients involved in those cases kept waiting even when ready to be heard. For some, “respect’ could be related to “realistic expectations” in court orders, taking into consideration the extent to which DYFS has (or more to point, does not have) control over whether another agency provides court ordered services. One respondent noted that a judges anger frequently expressed at DYFS workers individually was really an expression of general frustration with the Division (and this respondent further noted that this judge is one who usually handles delinquency matters and is therefore less familiar with the challenges DYFS workers face) .. On the whole, however, demeanor in the courtroom is respectful and appropriate, and parties are heard.

Recommendation 47: The court should make every effort to explain to the child(ren), parent(s), other caretaker(s), and relative(s) the reason for the hearing. The purpose of the hearing should be a routine part of the judge’s opening statement to the parties and the hearing participants at the beginning of each hearing.



Recommendation 48: The court should make every effort to explain the results of the hearing to the participants and ensure that the child(ren), parent(s), other caretaker(s), and relative(s) understand the proceedings. At the conclusion of every hearing, the judge should make a concluding statement that includes the results and outcomes of the hearing, the date and time for the next hearing, and an acknowledgement that the hearing is concluded.



Section XIV. To what extent is the information available to courts sufficient, timely, and accurate? The Evidence: Evidence to address this question comes from the focus groups and interviews. Focus Group Questions and Findings All focus groups conducted in all five vicinages addressed questions about the timeliness of information brought before the court, including DYFS reports, CASA reports in those vicinages where there are CASA programs, and other pertinent reports the court needs to review a case’s progress. Reports generated from FACTS data (and the FACTS system itself) are addressed in report Section X. Judge and CIC team focus group participants addressed a version of the following: • To what extent is the information available to courts and CIC team sufficient, timely, and

accurate? CASA, DYFS workers and supervisors, parent attorneys, law guardians, and DAGs were asked a version of the following: • To what extent is the information available to you sufficient, timely, and accurate? Findings. The types of information addressed in responses to these questions generally focused on DYFS court reports, CASA reports, CPRB reports, and court-ordered evaluations. Occasionally respondents would address other types of information including discovery. And responses to this question would sometimes include ideas for alternative methods of delivery of the reports to the court to facilitate meeting the report deadlines (for example, faxing reports). One jurisdiction’s DYFS representatives reported that timeliness of their reports has improved following some disciplinary action and resulting DYFS policy on reports in FN cases. This policy outlines a specific timeline: a report is due to litigation unit within 10 calendar days and to the court by 7 days before hearing. The respondents reported that reports have been very timely in the past month as a result. The local DYFS office has established a report racking system and has provided oversight by the supervisor. For quality assurance, the workers are given models of reports and frameworks, and are now making specific rather than general recommendations. Another jurisdiction’s DYFS workers reported that fines have been imposed, but no parallel sense of the report products been of better quality or support from supervisors to ensure that report deadlines are being met. The practice of fining workers for late reports, in summary, was discussed in at least two vicinages visited. One worker commented about this practice: “Instead of fining workers, why not ask them what the problem was” in completing the report on time? And while the workers discussed that they are informed at the conclusion of one hearing when the return date is, so they are informed of the next due dates, their desire for up-to-date information on their cases provide tension. “If you do a court report a week before its due, the information it includes is several weeks old by the time of the court hearing”, one worker commented. “Its not meeting the due date that is a problem, its writing a report that is meaningful.” A CIC team member in one vicinage discussed the delays in receiving notices of placement change from DYFS, or not receiving these notices at all. “The information we have for notices for



CPRB is often out of date, so we have to do some fact finding to figure out where the child is and who to notice. We should have a “notice of change” when a child is moved.” CASA court report submission timeliness was not noted as an issue in the jurisdictions visited. The issue of CPRB reports will be addressed in Section XVII. The timeliness of reports of services provided by contracted providers was addressed in one vicinage at length. The DYFS in one jurisdiction noted that “the court holds the agency to a high standard and don’t hold themselves to the same standard. They require us to do things and get information from other sources. We are just one entity trying to provide a total picture of a total family in developing a court report in a timely fashion.” The concern is that the DYFS worker generating a report is just one piece of a larger story, and can only be responsible for a portion it. This is “a continuous problem in providing “concrete information in timely manner””. In summary, there is or has been a problem with timely reports to the court from DYFS workers. A range of responses were reported, including imposing fines and providing supervisory oversight and providing model report style and format to workers. The comments of the DYFS worker on the issue of timeliness of information should been heeded and incorporated into any recommendations on the issue of timelines for report submission, however. The currency of report information should be noted in the enforced court deadlines for report submission, and verbal case updates should perhaps be allowed to allay this professional tensions, and allow the worker to provide the most timely information to the court in court, while meeting the requirements for submission of paper updates a week or so prior to the court hearing date.

Recommendation 49: The currency of DYFS report information should be noted in the enforced court deadlines for report submission. Verbal case updates should be allowed to allay this professional tension, and allow the worker to provide the most timely information to the court during the hearing, while meeting the requirements for submission of paper updates a week or so prior to the court hearing date. Recommendation 50: Training for DYFS social workers should include a module addressing the drafting of court reports. Ideally, this training would be in the context of a larger training addressing the court process, court demeanor, oral presentations, and court expectations.



Section XV. How effectively do the state and tribal courts coordinate in ICWA cases? The Evidence: Evidence to address these questions comes from four sources: (1) the on-line survey, (2) court observation, (3) file review, and (4) focus groups and interviews. The Quantitative Data Survey respondents were asked if they had ever encountered an ICWA case and about 9 percent indicated that they had, as shown in Table 41. Neither court observation nor file review encountered any mention of ICWA cases.

Table 41. Have You Ever Encountered an ICWA Case? Response CASA staff Count 5 5

Count 3 8 2 13

CIC staff % within CIC staff 23.1 61.5 15.4 100.0 Count 1 1

CPRB volunteer % within CPRB volunteer 100.0 100.0 Count 3 15 1 1 20

DAG % within DAG 15.0 75.0 5.0 5.0 100.0 DYFS supervisor Count 1 13 2 2 18

Count 2 28 12 15 57

DYFS worker % within DYFS worker 3.5 49.1 21.1 26.3 100.0 Count 3 9 1 1 14

Judge % within Judge 21.4 64.3 7.1 7.1 100.0 Count 1 18 19

Law Guardian (LG) % within LG 5.3 94.7 100.0 Count 1 1 2

Legal Services of New Jersey (Family Representation Project)


Public Defender (OPR Staff) % within Public Defender 100.0 100.0 Count 14 99 18 19 150

Total % within Total 9.3 66.0 12.0 12.7 100.0



Focus Group Questions and Findings In order to gain feedback regarding the levels of ICWA compliance in New Jersey and the degree of collaboration between state courts, Indian tribes, and tribal courts, focus groups were asked to respond the following series of questions: • How frequently do you encounter ICWA cases? • How does your office identify ICWA cases? • Does the court make active inquiry regarding the applicability of ICWA? • How effectively do the state and tribal courts coordinate in ICWA cases? Findings. The information resulting from focus groups suggests that cases involving Indian children are infrequent at best. For many CIC professionals of all types, ICWA is a foreign concept and something with which they have no familiarity. In fact, focus group questions addressing this issue were often met with “what’s ICWA?” For other more veteran CIC professionals, experiences are peppered with an occasional case involving ICWA. Most focus group comments indicate that cases involving Indian children are “rare.” The follow up to the “rare” response often was that there are no federally recognized tribes in New Jersey. Some DYFS workers did indicate that ICWA identification is part of centralized screening and placed in the face sheet. Plans call for there to be a drop down menu or other change made to the DYFS information system to track it. There was consensus, however, that there are no current fail safe mechanisms in place for the identification of a child as an Indian child, which would then trigger the application of ICWA. Many of the CIC professionals with whom the NCSC spoke indicated that ICWA cases are rare in New Jersey because there are no federally recognized tribes (and thus tribal courts) within the state’s borders. Clearly, however, due to the transient and mobile nature of American society the potential for an ICWA case or a case involving an Indian child is probable. Moreover, many of the CIC professionals are unaware of the existence or meaning of ICWA. It appears to the NCSC project team that there is a culture of presumption that ICWA is so infrequent or not applicable that there are no safety nets in place (1) to identify a child as Indian and (2) to determine whether or not ICWA is triggered. The minimum issue, however, is to ensure that ICWA is on the radar screen so that Indian children are identified. This is likely the area of greatest deficiency identified in the CIP Reassessment.

Recommendation 51: All agencies involved in CIC case processing must include an ICWA component in initial and on-going training. Recommendation 52: All agencies involved in CIC case processing must develop processes to ensure that Indian children are identified when a child enters the child welfare system and a determination made whether ICWA is or is not triggered. For example: • As part of the initial screening and demographic information process,

DYFS should make active inquiry regarding the ethnicity of the child.



The identification of a child as Indian should be actively determined and ruled out.

• The DAG should make a statement in the initial pleading removing the

child that ICWA is or is not applicable. • At each stage of the proceeding, judges should make an active inquiry

about the applicability of ICWA and the status of the determination that the child is or is not an Indian child. This information should be included for the record of the case and the court order.

Recommendation 53: The court should adopt the standards and practices set out by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges- Indian Child Welfare Act Checklists for Juvenile and Family Court Judges, June 2003.40 These checklists articulate best practice standards for the state court processing of ICWA cases.

40 See National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Indian Child Welfare Act Checklists for Juvenile and Family Court Judges (Reno, NV, 2003.)



Section XVI. Are prescribed appellate time limits being met? To what extent do appellate practices contribute to or deter safety, permanency, due process, and timeliness considerations for children? The Evidence: Evidence to address these questions comes from focus groups and interviews. Focus Group Questions and Findings Project staff inquired about the appeals process for dependency cases in focus groups with judges, CIC team members, law guardians, parent attorneys, and DAGs. Individuals in these focus groups asked versions of the following questions: • What are the prescribed appellate time limits? • Are prescribed appellate time limits being met? • To what extent do appellate practices contribute to or deter safety, permanency, due process,

and timeliness considerations for children? Findings. Most participants felt that the appellate time limits are clear for FG and FN cases (and there are very few FN appeals). Regular appeals from final judgments are done with the court, and the cases are set aside, earmarked, and expedited as discussed in Section VI. There is an expedited briefing schedule. The speed comes “not in filing the briefs but when the briefs are done, they are priority to be heard and go to the appellate panel quicker”. There are expedited transcription orders also. In spite of these expedited processes, most feel that the expedited timelines are not being met. The delay in the filing of the notice of appeal with the appellate division was identified as the most significant problem. For the most part CIC appeals move expeditiously once the appellate court obtains control of the case. In an internal review of Motions for Leave to File Notice of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc (from October 2003 to October 2004), the appellate court found that average length of the delay (beyond the 45 day filing deadline) exceeded three months.41 Because most of these cases involve court-appointed counsel, much of the delay is attributed to administrative barriers within the OPR of the Public Defender’s Office. These barriers include internal resource issues, the transfer of the case from the trial attorney to the appellate attorney and the issue of 5-A indigency “re-qualification” by the parent for continued Public Defender services. The delay in the time from the final judgment and the filing of the notice of appeal was referred to one participant as the “giant black hole” and the greatest impediment to achieving permanency for the child at the appellate level. Trial court judges in one jurisdiction noted that there is a current initiative to address this issue, but the effects are “a work in progress”. The ultimate goal is a “six month time frame”, and one particular appellate judge has been identified to review motions for leave to file notice of appeals nunc pro tunc and late filings of the notices of appeal. Finally, practices vary across vicinages as to the designation of CIC staff to monitor and track CIC appeals.

41 See Motions for Leave to File Notice of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc, October 2003 to October 2004.



As reported, the current status of CIC appeals, is that the filing of appeals has been untimely and the appellate division has allowed appeals to be filed up to two years later. The issue “transcends family court”, including the fact that the appellate division is reluctant to deny any request to appeal, even when months after the deadline, so not to penalize the appealing parent. While several would like to see the time to filing reduced from 45 days, that only solves part of the problem in achieving permanency. The other answer, according to many, is to continue to hold OPR’s feet to the fire on this issue.

Recommendation 54: The CICIC should consider enhanced and expedited CIC appellate timelines and processes in order to reduce delay and increase time to permanency. The CICIC should reflect on the timelines outlined in NCJFJC’s Adoption and Permanency Guidelines.42 For alternative expedited dependency appeals process models, the CICIC may wish to review the NCSC publication titled Expediting Dependency Appeals: Strategies to Reduce Delay.43 The publication contains expedited appeals models promulgated in other states. Additionally, relevant statutes and court rules are included. Finally in the publication, the NCSC identifies a process that New Jersey could utilize in developing an expedited dependency appeals process. Recommendation 55: The CICIC should routinely track time on appeal, appellate outcomes, and barriers to achieving the expedited appellate timelines and, thus, permanency for children. Additionally, a CIC staff person should be designated to monitor and track appeals originating from the local jurisdiction. Calculations of timelines should be aggregated and then separated as follows: (1) final judgment to notice of appeal and (2) notice of appeal to decisions. Separating out the calculations will likely assist with the identification of barriers. Recommendation 56: The OPR must make significant efforts to reduce or eliminate the internal administrative processes resulting in the delay in filing notices of appeal after the date of the TPR final judgment. This includes the transfer of cases from trial attorneys to appellate attorneys and the issue of 5-A” re-qualification” by the parent for continued Public Defender services.

42 See National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Adoption and Permanency Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases (Reno, NV, 2000.) 43 Ann L. Keith and Carol R. Flango, Expediting Dependency Appeals: Strategies to Reduce Delay (Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2002; 2nd ed., 2003). The entire report may be accessed at http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/KIS_ExpDepAppealsPub.pdf.



Section XVII. The Child Placement Review Boards The discussion in this section addresses the following research questions: • To what extent does the performance of the Child Placement Review Board affect permanency,

safety and well-being for children? • To what extent do statutory, regulatory, and procedural requirements impose significant

administrative burdens on the courts? The Evidence: Evidence to address these questions comes from three sources: (1) the on-line survey, (2) CPR board observation, and (3) focus groups and interviews. The Quantitative Data In Section VIII, results were presented that showed that many survey respondents, including almost half of the responding judges, thought that CPRB Reports are only rarely or occasionally considered in most FN, FG, and FL hearings. Further, CPRB reports were not discussed in any of the hearings observed. The CPRB observations revealed that in cases where a parent or relative was present, the CPR Boards always explained the review to the parties, made an effort to ensure understanding of the review, and gave the parties an opportunity to speak. However, there was never discussion of reunification deadlines. As the CPRB reviews were very informal there was never any sworn testimony from DYFS or other witnesses or affidavits. However, DYFS workers made verbal statements in 59 percent of the cases. The CPRB often relied on the CPR report (69 percent) or the DYFS plan or court report (87 percent). Among the issues discussed during the CPRB case reviews were placement, services, permanency goals, visitation, parental compliance, DYFS compliance, and ICWA compliance. Table 42 reveals that placement was discussed in almost all cases reviewed (98 percent). Services were not as commonly discussed, however. Services to the child were discussed in 65 percent of the cases, while services to the parent(s) were discussed in 47 percent of the cases. CPR Board members discussed parent visitation in 26 percent of the cases. Permanency goals were the second most important concern to the CPR Board members. Permanency goals were discussed in 81 percent of the cases. DYFS compliance was also discussed (8 percent) but not as frequently as parental compliance (45 percent). This is mostly likely a result of the fact that in most cases the parent is not present and so the CPR review must rely solely on the information provided by DYFS.



Table 42. Issues Discussed During CPR Board Reviews

Issues Discussed Frequency Percent Total Placement 119 98 122 Services to Child 77 65 118 Services to Parent 55 47 116 Parent-Child Visitation 30 26 114 Permanency Goals 96 81 119 Parental Compliance 53 45 118 DYFS Compliance 9 8 114 ICWA 1 0.9 117 Reasonable efforts were not commonly discussed when reviewing the cases. The observations revealed that reasonable efforts were only discussed in three, or 2.5 percent, of the cases. Recommendations were also discussed by the CPR Board members and are listed in Table 43). The CPRB members felt that they needed more information from DYFS in 27 percent of the cases reviewed. The CPRB members recommended that a CASA Volunteer be assigned to four, or 3 percent, of the cases. This number is small because not all vicinages in New Jersey have CASA programs. Additionally, Middlesex CPRB members requested information on how to encourage CASA involvement in their vicinage. In 11 percent of the cases reviewed it was recommended that DYFS or another party take custody of the child, while reunification was recommended in 10 percent of the cases. Adoption or Kinship Legal Guardianship (KLG) was the most common recommendation, 37 percent, even though reasonable efforts were discussed in less that three percent of the cases. Overall, CPRB members agreed with the DYFS plan in a majority of the cases, 85 percent.

Table 43. CPR Board Recommendations Recommendations Frequency Percent Total Additional DYFS Information 31 27 117 CASA Volunteer 4 3 117 DYFS or Other Custody 13 11 117 Reunification 12 10 117 Adoption/KLG 43 37 117 In a further analysis of CPRB recommendations, NCSC examined various relationships. The types of reviews resulting in the CPR Board agreement with the DYFS plan are seen in Table 44. While the CPR Board members tended to agree with the DYFS plan in a majority of the cases, they were more likely to disagree with the plan when completing a 45-day review (43percent) and when completing a Permanency Review (57 percent).



Table 44. Agreement with DYFS Plan by Type of Review

Board Agreed with DYFS Plan Type of Review No Yes Total Cases 45-Day 43% 24% 27 Six Month Review -- 3% 3 Status Review -- 21% 21 Permanency Review 57% 41% 44 Other -- 10% 10 Total 100% 100% 105 NCSC also examined the relationship between agreement with the DYFS plan and the CPR Boards’ recommendations for DYFS or other custody. Table 45 reveals that the CPR Board members were most likely to recommend DYFS or other custody when they disagreed with the DYFS plan (28 percent) than when they did agree with the plan (11 percent). Custody was not recommended in 89 percent of the cases where the CPR Board agreed with the DYFS plan. They were also less likely to recommend custody when DYFS did not recommend custody, 71 percent.

Table 45. CPR Board Recommended DYFS or Other Custody

Agreed with DYFS Plan Board Recommended DYFS or Other Custody of Child

No

Yes

Total Cases

No 71% 89% 92 Yes 28% 11% 13 Total Cases 100% 100% 105 Examining the CPRBs’ agreement with the DYFS plan in relation to their recommendations for reunification, NCSC found that the CPRB members were more likely to recommend reunification when they disagreed with the DYFS plan (43 percent) than when they agreed with the plan (nine percent), as indicated in Table 46. We also found that when Boards did agreed with the plan they were more likely not to recommend reunification, 91 percent, than when they disagreed with the DYFS plan, 57 percent.

Table 46. CPR Board Recommended Reunification Agreed with DYFS Plan Board Recommended Reunification

No Yes Total Cases

No 57% 91% 93 Yes 43% 9% 12 Total Cases 100% 100% 105 Finally, the NCSC project team found that there was a strong relationship between agreement with the DYFS plan and recommendation of adoption/KLG. Table 47 reveals that CPRBs were willing to recommend the adoption or kinship legal guardianship only when they agreed with the



DYFS plan. In these cases, the Board recommended adoption/KLG in 43 percent of the cases but never recommended adoption/KLG when they disagreed with the plan.

Table 47. CPR Board Recommended Adoption/KLG Agreed with DYFS Plan Board Recommended Adoption/KLG

No Yes Total Cases

No 100% 57% 63 Yes -- 43% 42 Total Cases 100% 100% 105

The analysis of the CPR Board review revealed that while the CPR Board was designed as an oversight body they tended to rubber stamp permanency decisions that required the extreme of termination of parental rights. Most reviews involved discussing the cases and expressing concerns of parental compliance but not of DYFS compliance. Furthermore, while adoption/KLG was recommended in 42 cases and these were in complete agreement with DYFS recommendations, there was almost no discussion of reasonable efforts being found for permanency goals. Overall, the CPRB’s decisions were consistent and in compliance with DYFS decisions. When the Board’s decisions conflicted with DYFS decisions they were usually not drastic decisions. Focus Group Questions and Findings NCSC project staff inquired about the CPR board process in focus groups with judges, CIC team members, law guardians, parent attorneys, and DAGs. All focus groups in all visited vicinages were asked to reflect on the role of the CPR boards. They were asked a version of the following: • Describe the role of the CPR Board in achieving permanency and safety and well-being for

children. Findings. Many judge respondents graciously acknowledge the work of the boards but stop short of saying the actively consider the reports of the boards in their ongoing litigated caseloads. On the role of the board, one judge reflected on the CPRB review as “additional level of review that most states don’t have” and went on to acknowledge the “great deal of thought to that review.” While acknowledging that the court activities run parallel to the board activities for litigated cases, this judge wanted to acknowledge that “the role of volunteers is still important in terms of effort.” The recent effect to increase CPR boards in recent years was noted, as well as the current state-level active assessment of the Boards across the state. Ultimately, “the court controls the outcome if there’s a difference, but court litigates court hearing. “ This judge noted that while CPR reviews generally happen prior to the scheduled court hearings, their county’s caseload “is like trying to turn around the big ocean liner in the ocean.” Another judge noted that the CPRB represents citizen involvement in the court (“Citizen participation is very important”) and that the reports of the CPRB are actively reviewed. This court schedules a summary hearing when there are conflicting recommendations from the CPRB and from DYFS on reunification, and on other problems such as delaying securing of waivers from the state that are necessary for adoption.



CIC team members who organize and staff these boards spend a great deal of their energy and staff time preparing materials for, attending, and overseeing the generation of reports from the boards. There are masterful volunteer managers among the CIC teams members met and observed during the site visits. And understandably the CIC staff feel a great deal of ownership in these boards. But a logical question arises: why do these Boards review anything about litigated cases that are otherwise reviewed by the court? As one CIC team member noted quite succinctly: “What’s going on in the CPR board does not affect what is happening in court.” On the other hand, when asked what role the board do and can play other than performing this redundant review of litigated cases, a range of responses and observations emerged: the review offered by these panels can catch cases of children not attending school or other behaviors (i.e. doing the monitoring that some noted could be done by the law guardians but often is not as, some CPRB members contended, the law guardians are monitoring the parents); and appearance at the CPR Board meetings, regardless of type of case, provides an opportunity for the foster parents and other parties to express their concerns and to discuss problems or successes with the child in their care that they do not as free to express during court reviews. But everyone, including the CIC team members interviewed, noted that the CPRB reports are not actively reviewed by the court. “It’s the report to the court part that doesn’t work”, one CIC team member noted. “I have never seen the judge act on a CPR Board report.” CPR board members’ observations about their relations with other system stakeholders are pertinent. One respondent noted that their “Judges are very open and supportive as is the AOC, but DYFS sees them as a necessary evil. They run into more problems with DYFS than with any court/judge—all judges have been supportive. DYFS is not sure about the authority that the Boards have and will sometimes say that cannot give them certain information.” Another CPR board member noted that “It is their mission to try to achieve permanency for children and make sure the home is safe. They look into complaints about the foster parent, ensure there is visitation, especially sibling visitation, and, in general, ask as many questions as they can. They make a valid recommendation to the judge based on the best interest of the child.“ This respondent noted that CPRBs have a “broader-based view than DYFS , which has its own mandate and its own resource issues, such as an inadequate number of workers, inadequate services, and delay in getting clients into services. The Boards see a lot of new workers. Sometimes, they have a better idea of what services are available and even needed, than the workers. So, they are also coaching the workers. They are also able to by-pass some of the bureaucracy at times; for instance, make a call and get a placement. Their main charge is to make sure nothing falls through the cracks.” Other CPR volunteers have their own concerns about how their efforts are targeted in these cases, and how their efforts are valued. One noted that the CIC staff “is fine and always cooperative” but that they don’t see attorneys in their board meetings. It can feel like “we are spinning our wheels, doing it for nothing.” Some volunteers noted that getting more feedback from the judges would help them to gauge what is useful and what is not to the court. A number of volunteers in different vicinages noted that they knew they were helping when they could hear fro foster parents or DYFS and get some real conversations going about services to the children. ”The most valuable time for me is when the foster mom and the DYFS liaison person and we can get some action going on between the two. We always ask if there is anything they need from DYFS that they aren’t getting and we can do a little one on one.”



Attorney respondents (DAGs, law guardians, and parent attorneys) all noted that they rarely if ever saw a report of the CPRB review of their cases. DAGs in one jurisdiction noted that “they don’t function well here; its hard to recruit good volunteers.” In addition this attorney noted that “there is clearly duplication when court is reviewing the same cases that are reviewed by citizen civilian.” One DAG in this same jurisdiction offered that “it always made more sense to have them do all the post-termination cases.” Another DAG noted that in the smaller jurisdictions where parties are noticed and people attend, “there is a give and take” that can be useful. Many noted that a special and important role that the Boards could play is in monitoring the post termination cases (the same type of cases being monitored by Judge Floria’s special project/calendar in Essex County). As illustrated by the special nature of Judge Floria’s review, these cases post termination yet pre finalization are not actively monitored by the court as a rule, so the CPRBs across the state could provide a unique and valuable services if their attentions and resources were focused on this population.

Recommendation 57: The CICIC should engage in discussions to address the most optimal usage of the CPR Boards given the courts parallel review of litigated cases. Models could include CPR Board emphasis on: teenagers in foster care, children who will age out of the system, children who are in independent living, and post-termination/pre-adoption cases.



Section XVIII. Reasonable Efforts, Contrary to the Welfare, and Time to Permanency Findings The discussion in this section is intended to answer the following research question: • To what extent do particular practices or procedures facilitate compliance or contribute to non-

compliance with the applicable legal requirements? To provide a context for the analyses in this section, the NCSC project team analyzed key court-related data elements associated with applicable legal requirements and the 2004 CFSR including: Legal Requirements: • Reasonable Efforts Findings • Contrary to the Welfare Findings • ICWA Findings44 • ASFA Hearing Compliance

• Review Hearings every 6 months • 12-month time limit for permanency hearing • 22-month time limit for termination hearing

2004 CFSR-Case Review System Indicators: • Provides a process for the periodic review of the status of each child, no less frequently than

once every 6 months, either by a court or by administrative review • Provides a process that ensures that each child in foster care under the supervision of the State

has a hearing in a qualified court or administrative body no later than 12 months from the date the child entered foster care and no less frequently than every 12 months thereafter

• Provides a process for termination of parental rights proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Adoption and Safe Families Act

ASFA and IV-E Compliance-Contrary to the Welfare and Reasonable Efforts Findings The Evidence: Evidence to address these questions comes from two sources: (1) court observation, and (2) file review. Court observers found that the Court made a verbal finding that it is “contrary to the welfare of the child” to remain in the home in 17 percent of the cases. Likewise, they found that the court make a verbal finding regarding “reasonable efforts” in about 17 percent of the cases, split evenly between reasonable efforts to prevent removal from or reunify the family and efforts to finalize the permanency goal and/or plan. File review results show that Contrary to Welfare and Reasonable Efforts Findings were made in the majority of Initial and Permanency hearings, though the latter were more commonplace than the former. Table 48 shows these results.

44 The discussion of ICWA compliance is located in Section XV. It appears that the prior CIP Assessment and the CFSR do not address ICWA issues. Therefore, no comparison is provided.



Table 48. File Review: Contrary to Welfare and Reasonable Efforts

Findings

Contrary to the Welfare

Findings Reasonable

Efforts Findings Type of Hearing N % N % Initial hearing/Order to Show Cause 51 75.0 35 51.5 Return Order to Show Cause 19 38.0 6 12.0 Disposition Hearing 4 15.4 1 3.8 (First) Permanency Hearing 21 53.8 19 48.7 (Second) Permanency Hearing 11 50.0 6 27.3

Contrary to the welfare findings and reasonable efforts findings are not required at every hearing. Contrary to the welfare and reasonable efforts findings are required upon removal and on-going reasonable efforts determinations are required at disposition and permanency hearings. However, as a matter of the current practice of collapsing and appending hearings and the use of the broad category “compliance review” to address a wide range of hearings and issues, the lack of due diligence in making and recording these judicial findings could have a profound effect on IV-E funding. Moreover, a discussion of contrary to the welfare and reasonable efforts findings during all hearings indicate a level of detailed discussion regarding the child and the case at hand. As a matter of best practice, these findings should be made at every stage of the CIC process and should be documented in the court order and in the court file.

Recommendation 58: As a matter of best practice, reasonable efforts and contrary to the welfare findings should be made at every stage of the CIC process and should be documented in the court order and in the court file.

ASFA Hearing Compliance The Evidence: Evidence to address this issue comes from the file review. Because the files were rarely complete, these data are very tentative and must be treated with caution. This information will be verified later using data extracted from the FACTS automated system as discussed in Section V. Court Review Hearings: The time between the initial hearing and the first compliance review was calculated for 41 of the 104 case examined in the file review (39 percent), as shown in Table 49. The average time was 12.1 months and the median was 11.3 months. These time spans are considerably longer than the six month standard.45

45 The results as provided do not factor in the CPRB review process. General perceptions however, indicate that CIC FN cases are cycling through Compliance Reviews every three to four months.



Table 49. Time between Initial Hearing and First Compliance Review

Time (Months) between Initial Hearing and First Compliance Review Frequency Percent

Cumulative Percent

1.6 1 2.4 2.4 3.5 1 2.4 4.9 3.8 1 2.4 7.3 4.0 1 2.4 9.8 4.1 1 2.4 12.2 4.4 1 2.4 14.6 4.9 1 2.4 17.1 5.1 1 2.4 19.5 5.8 1 2.4 22.0 6.3 1 2.4 24.4 6.9 1 2.4 26.8 7.5 1 2.4 29.3 7.7 1 2.4 31.7 8.2 1 2.4 34.1 8.7 1 2.4 36.6 8.7 1 2.4 39.0 9.2 1 2.4 41.5 9.5 1 2.4 43.9 9.5 1 2.4 46.3

10.3 1 2.4 48.8 11.3 1 2.4 51.2 11.9 1 2.4 53.7 12.9 1 2.4 56.1 13.0 1 2.4 58.5 13.0 1 2.4 61.0 13.1 1 2.4 63.4 13.2 1 2.4 65.9 14.0 2 4.9 70.7 14.0 1 2.4 73.2 15.2 1 2.4 75.6 16.0 1 2.4 78.0 17.4 1 2.4 80.5 18.0 1 2.4 82.9 19.1 1 2.4 85.4 19.1 1 2.4 87.8 20.2 1 2.4 90.2 21.3 1 2.4 92.7 25.4 1 2.4 95.1 31.5 1 2.4 97.6 34.3 1 2.4 100.0 Total 41 100.0



The time between the first and second compliance reviews was also calculated for the 31 cases for which this data was available (30 percent of the file review sample), as shown in Table 50. The average time was 3.8 months and the median was 3 months. The average time between the second and third Compliance Reviews was 2.8 months with a median of 2.3 months, between the third and fourth was 3.3 months with a median of 3 months, and between the fourth and fifth was 3.1 months with a median of 2.3 months These time spans are well within the six month standard.

Table 50. Time between First and Second Compliance Reviews

Time (Months) between First and Second

Compliance Reviews Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent 0.5 1 3.0 3.0 0.9 1 3.0 6.1 0.9 1 3.0 9.1 0.9 1 3.0 12.1 1.4 1 3.0 15.2 1.6 1 3.0 18.2 1.8 2 6.1 24.2 1.9 1 3.0 27.3 2.1 2 6.1 33.3 2.1 1 3.0 36.4 2.3 1 3.0 39.4 2.3 1 3.0 42.4 2.7 1 3.0 45.5 2.8 1 3.0 48.5 3.0 3 9.1 57.6 3.2 1 3.0 60.6 3.2 1 3.0 63.6 3.3 1 3.0 66.7 3.4 1 3.0 69.7 3.5 1 3.0 72.7 3.9 1 3.0 75.8 3.9 1 3.0 78.8 4.3 1 3.0 81.8 5.1 1 3.0 84.8 6.1 2 6.1 90.9 6.6 1 3.0 93.9

11.1 1 3.0 97.0 23.9 1 3.0 100.0 Total 33 100.0



Permanency Hearings: The time between the initial hearing and the first Permanency Hearing was calculated for 38 of the 104 case examined in the file review (37 percent), as shown in Table 51. The average time was 21.1 months and the median was 13.5 months. These time spans are considerably longer than the 12 month standard.

Table 51. Time between Initial and First Permanency Hearings Time (Months) between First

and Second Compliance Reviews Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

1.9 1 2.6 2.6 3.1 1 2.6 5.3 8.5 1 2.6 7.9 9.1 1 2.6 10.5 9.2 1 2.6 13.2 9.6 1 2.6 15.8

10.8 1 2.6 18.4 11.1 2 5.3 23.7 11.3 1 2.6 26.3 11.3 1 2.6 28.9 11.4 1 2.6 31.6 11.7 1 2.6 34.2 12.0 1 2.6 36.8 12.1 1 2.6 39.5 12.2 1 2.6 42.1 12.3 1 2.6 44.7 12.6 1 2.6 47.4 12.9 1 2.6 50.0 14.0 1 2.6 52.6 15.9 1 2.6 55.3 16.9 1 2.6 57.9 17.0 1 2.6 60.5 17.4 1 2.6 63.2 19.5 1 2.6 65.8 21.0 1 2.6 68.4 22.8 2 5.3 73.7 23.4 1 2.6 76.3 25.4 1 2.6 78.9 26.8 1 2.6 81.6 46.3 1 2.6 84.2 46.6 1 2.6 86.8 47.9 1 2.6 89.5 50.1 1 2.6 92.1 55.1 1 2.6 94.7 58.1 1 2.6 97.4 60.2 1 2.6 100.0 Total 38 100.0



Termination: The time between the initial hearing and termination was calculated for 8 of the 12 cases where parental rights were terminated and for whom data were available as shown in Table 52. The average time was 20 months and the median was 19.1 months. These time spans are generally in line with the 22-month standard.

Table 52. Time between Initial Hearing and Termination Time (Months) between

Initial Hearing and Termination Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

8.5 1 12.5 12.5 12.6 1 12.5 25.0 16.0 1 12.5 37.5 17.1 1 12.5 50.0 21.1 1 12.5 62.5 22.4 2 25.0 87.5 40.4 1 12.5 100.0 Total 8 100.0

Time to Permanency Outcomes: Table 53 shows the time between the initial hearing and permanency outcomes. As expected, time spans are shortest for a return to the parents and longest for adoption.

Table 53. Time to Permanency Outcome for File Review Cases

Permanency Outcome N Mean Time to Permanency (Months) Maximum Value Minimum Value Child ordered returned to parents 46 10.6 39.3 0.1 Adoption Finalized 22 36 70.4 8.8 Termination Finalized 8 20 40.4 8.5 Custody Finalized 0 Kinship Legal Guardianship 14 21.2 57 11.3 Child Reached Age of Majority 6 16.9 51.4 3.7

Recommendation 59: Time to permanency, permanency outcomes, and barriers to permanency should be routinely tracked and monitored. Time to legal permanency is a critical performance measure that indicates court performance in CIC cases.

Current Practice Generally, the practices surrounding the processing of CIC cases do not detract or interfere with the applicable legal requirement and safety, permanency, timeliness and due process considerations. Through the course of the Reassessment, the NCSC project team encountered a series of practices and innovations which appeared to promote compliance with the applicable legal requirements. There are also de facto practices which detract from compliance. Examples of positive practices include:



• The practice of setting next hearing dates at the conclusion of each hearing • The generation of court orders simultaneous with the court hearing or immediately thereafter • The enhanced quality and depth of hearings, which includes judicial inquiry into safety,

timeliness, due process, and permanency issues • The early appointment of counsel for children and parents • The “teaming” of CIC professional (DAGS, law guardians, OPR attorneys) to reduce delay

and adjournments of court hearings • The use of mediation in Essex County in FG cases to facilitate open adoptions and reduced

time to permanency • The development of a Post TPR Judicial Review in Essex County to facilitate adoptions and

permanent placement and reduced time to permanency

Example of practices or conditions that interfere with the applicable legal requirements and safety, permanency, timeliness and due process considerations include:

• Inconsistency in adjournment policies across the state and the lack of a stated and written adjournment policies for CIC cases

• The lack of available and timely DYFS contractor services • The “menuing” of services by the courts in some jurisdictions46 • The limited number of mental health professionals to perform evaluations • Inconsistent court case file management practices

46 Essentially this term refers to the perception that judges are not judicious in the services that are ordered in the case. This also may be reflective of the lack of a proper disposition hearings. Additionally, it is often appeared as punitive to DYFS for the lack of current services. An example of this is the dual ordering of a psychological evaluation and a psychiatric evaluation without evidence of pathology and/or without a clause in the order indicating that a psychiatric evaluation is ordered “in the event that it is deemed necessary in the psychological evaluation.”



Section XIX: To what extent is (1) the performance of New Jersey’s courts and the degree of collaboration with the Division of Youth and Family Services and (2) the sufficiency of judicial determination in court orders (i.e. reasonable efforts, contrary to the welfare, best interest) consistent with the findings, recommendations, and requirements of previous assessments? Based upon the findings contained in this Reassessment Report, the NCSC project team is pleased to report that there appears to have been overall and marked improvements in CIC case processing since the time of ACNJ’s Court Assessment Project in 1996. While there is also much opportunity for improvement in many of the areas discussed herein, there has been at least marginal improvement in most of the areas identified in the 1996 Assessment. Table 54 provides a general “report card” that covers the current performance in CIC cases and the sections in which these issues are discussed within the Reassessment Report.

Table 54. New Jersey CIP Reassessment Report Card Improvement Report

Section(s) Yes No

Key Findings-ACNJ Initial CIP Assessment The court does not always have sufficient information to make appropriate decisions.

ü XIV

The quality of the court review is questionable. ü VII, VIII, IX, XI Lack of compliance with court orders is a critical problem and was identified as the major barrier to timely decision-making.

ü XVIII


ü VII, VIII


ü VII, XI


ü VI, VII, XVI, XVIII


ü XVII, XVIII


ü VII, X

Legal representation of parents is especially weak. ü XII Representation for the child needs to be strengthened. ü XII The Deputy Attorney General needs support. ü VII, XI There are continued problems in the CPR system which limit its quality and impact

ü XVII

Even if the quality of review is improved, there are inherent limitations which limit the effectiveness of CPR.

ü VIII, XVII

The lack of DYF’S resources have a negative impact on the court ü XI, XIV, XVIII



Part D. Concluding Remarks and Recommendations As indicated in Section XIX, the NCSC project teams found that there have been significant and system-wide improvements since the 1996 ACNJ Assessment. The implementation of ASFA is likely the greatest change to CIC case processing since the 1996 Court Assessment and what may be directly attributable to the implementation of ASFA in New Jersey is likely enhanced by other court improvement efforts and the activities of the CICIC. There are one or two areas that require immediate attention for compliance with federal mandates such as developing the processes for the identification of a child as Indian and ICWA compliance. For the most part, the mechanisms in place for CIC case processing are consistent with federal mandates and do not impede safety, timeliness, permanency, and due process considerations. Opportunities for refinement and improvement, however, exist at every level and within every agency associated with CIC case processing. Additionally, strengthening the infrastructure for optimal CIC case processing should be emphasized. Moreover, CIC case processing should continue to be actively monitored and changes should be documented and noted for subsequent Court Improvement Program Reassessments. Finally, the time is ripe for the CICIC to take CIC case processing to the next level by adapting and incorporating the best practice standards of the Resource Guidelines and the ABA, NCSC, and NCJFCJ Performance Measures in child abuse and neglect cases. Section XX. To what extent can the information generated from this Reassessment prepare the New Jersey Judicial Branch for the next federal audit? During the initial meeting of the CIP Reassessment Sub Committee in November 2004, the NCSC was asked to assist with the development of information and recommendations that would assist the New Jersey child welfare system with the next federal audit. As a result of the findings contained herein, the NCSC project team makes the following recommendations:

Recommendation 1: The CICIC should consider expanding the adoption and incorporation of the Resource Guidelines to all vicinages across the state. Specific attention should be paid to incorporating Resource Guidelines’ recommendations in the areas of hearing duration and key judicial decisions for each hearing type.

Recommendation 2: The CICIC should develop a comprehensive performance measurement system for CIC court case processing. As a resource, the CICIC may wish to consider adapting the performance measures developed by the ABA, NCSC, and NCJFCJ and identified in Building a Better Court. For the short term, the CICIC should develop one measure in each of the performance areas: safety, timeliness, permanency, and due process. Additionally, the CICIC should identify where the data to address the measures are located, how they will be collected, the frequency of data collection, and who will be responsible for data analysis and compilation. These performance measures will serve as an excellent indicator of court performance and will assist in achieving the goal of optimal CIC case processing.



Recommendation 3: The CICIC should develop a statewide protocol governing the content of CIC court files with the ultimate objective of being able to track what happened in a case from filing to closure from documents in the file.

Recommendation 4: As outlined in the Resource Guidelines, the New Jersey Judicial Branch should establish actual and written 60-day timelines for the completion of the fact finding (adjudication) hearing. Recommendation 5: As indicated by Resource Guidelines, a disposition hearing should be a separate and comprehensive hearing addressing the dispositional issues in the case.

Recommendation 6: As indicated by the NCJFCJ Adoption and Permanency Guidelines, the New Jersey Judicial Branch should reduce the time from final judgment to notice of appeal from 45 days to 30 days. Recommendation 7: Vicinages with relatively high rates of non-compliance with the requirement that a fact finding hearing for an FN case be held within goal (four months or 120 days of the complaint) need to take steps to reduce the rate of non-compliance. CIC staff should continue to actively monitor the reports generated by the AOC. Recommendation 8: Efforts should be made to reduce delay (i.e., the time between when a hearing is scheduled and when it actually occurs) and adjournments. “Court scheduling backup” and “key party tardiness” were identified as the chief sources of both delay and adjournment. Recommendation 9: Efforts should be made to eliminate calendar block setting and develop a more “time-certain calendar; especially block sets for morning calendars that run through the day (e.g., 9am sets for the entire day.) At a minimum, each court should develop morning and afternoon calendar blocks. Recommendation 10: To the extent possible, calendar blocks should be established for the type of hearing and anticipated length of hearing. Examples could include “trial blocks”, “hearings lasting more than one hour”, “hearings lasting 20 minutes,” etc. Recommendation 11: Efforts must be made to ensure active judicial management of the daily calendar rather than reliance on CIC staff and court bailiffs. Examples could include a calendar call at the beginning of each morning and afternoon calendar session.



Recommendation 12: Initial removal hearings (Dodd) should be scheduled to reduce inconvenience to the regularly scheduled calendar. All vicinages should strictly adhere to Dodd timeframes. Recommendation 13: The CICIC should develop and publish a statewide adjournment policy for CIC cases. Recommendation 14: Efforts should be made to make CPRB and CASA reports as meaningful as possible to the courts’ deliberations in FN, FG, and FL cases. For example, CASA reports may be particularly beneficial to address specific issues such as educational and housing needs. CPR Board reports may be extremely helpful for teenagers, children that will soon age out of the system or post termination cases pending adoption. The court could specify in its orders any areas of interest or concern for specific attention by the CPR Board or CASA. Recommendation 15: The CICIC should adopt minimum hearing duration times consistent with the NCJFCJ Resource Guidelines.

Recommendation 16: The court should make active inquiry to ensure that service and notice is made to all hearing participants and to verify that service was provided if and when these participants fail to appear at a given hearing. Recommendation 17: The court should actively inquire about the notice to and participation of the resource parents in CIC hearings; especially permanency and review hearings. Recommendation 18: The AOC should explore making more CIC case management reports available on demand for court users. Recommendation 19: The AOC should work with DYFS to improve party identification prior to the party information being added to either the DYFS information system of FACTS. This could include better training for data entry staff and better party lookup capabilities in the respective information systems. Recommendation 20: The AOC should use the SANCA project as a starting point to revamp the navigation and user interface of FACTS.

Recommendation 21: The AOC should explore revising the party roles and relations in FACTS to address this issue. Recommendation 22: The AOC should explore allowing name changes in FACTS for these situations.



Recommendation 23: The AOC should work with court users to evaluate user concerns about the scheduling capabilities of FACTS and identify how best to address these concerns. Recommendation 24: The AOC and court users should review the FACTS reminder system and identify how this can be improved.

Recommendation 25: The AOC should work with court users to identify needed additions and modifications to the codes used in FACTS.

Recommendation 26: The AOC should work with court users to identify reports with usability issues and work to define what would make the reports more useful.

Recommendation 27: The AOC should explore the feasibility of expanding on demand printing for reports and calendars.

Recommendation 28: The AOC should work with court users to identify the mot time sensitive and needed reports, including the monthly reports from the AOC, and make these available for court users to request. Recommendation 29: The AOC should continue to explore the possibility of an electronic data exchange between FACTS and the DYFSIS.

Recommendation 30: The AOC should consider allowing DYFS case workers to attend the FACTS training for court staff as a way to provide training to DYFS case workers at a marginal cost. Recommendation 31: The AOC should explore linking FACTS to Promis/Gavel to flag parties who are in custody.

Recommendation 32: The AOC should work to identify where duplicate data entry is occurring in the courts and explore how to eliminate redundant data entry.

Recommendation 33: The AOC should explore obtaining attorney information to populate FACTS from the Office of Attorney Ethics.

Recommendation 34: The AOC should explore developing a new employee training program that will allow new court staff to begin working quickly and then attend a more in depth training once a sufficient number of new users have joined the courts to justify a full training session. Recommendation 35: The AOC should work with court users to explore what documents are the best candidates for automated generation.



Recommendation 36: The AOC should explore expanding the on demand generation of reports and calendars.

Recommendation 37: The AOC should explore the possibility to allow court users to generate FACTS reports and other output to electronic files for easier distribution.

Recommendation 38: The AOC should continue to work with DYFS to establish a data exchange between FACTS and the DYFS information system.

Recommendation 39: Caseloads are an issue that hinders about a fourth of the CIC professionals from meeting safety, timeliness, due process, or permanency standards. Further examination of caseload-related factors such as caseload size and complexity of caseload and workloads of child protection professionals by vicinage is warranted. Adjustments in resources available to these professionals should be made on the basis of the results of the proposed examination. Recommendation 40: The CICIC should develop a policy endorsing that a single judge should preside over a child and family (and the complement of CIC case types including FC, FN, FG, and FN) from removal through return and/or termination and adoption. Consistency in judgeship, though already high, should be increased.

Recommendation 41: Legal representation for children involved in CIC cases is almost universal but parents representation is less frequent and should be increased at all stages of case processing. To the extent possible, representation should occur prior to the preliminary hearing. One possible solution could include noticing parents to the hearing 30 minutes prior to the start time so that the 5-A paperwork may be completed. Another possibility could include the availability of OPR counsel during preliminary hearings such as on a rotation schedule. Recommendation 42: All attorneys involved in CIC cases should receive extensive training prior to assignment to CIC cases. On-going training should be emphasized as well. Initial and on-going training should include components separate and apart from the legal aspects of CIC cases such as the dynamics of child abuse, mental health issues, drug and alcohol abuse, and state and local resources and services. Recommendation 43: Because almost half of the law guardians survey respondents indicated that the training that they received prior to assuming their CIC role did little to prepare them for their responsibilities, training efforts need to be re-examined. Exposing all law guardians to the recently developed statewide curriculum for this important group of professionals is



warranted and this curriculum should include discussion of statewide standards. Recommendation 44: The order appointing the law guardian should be a standardized order and utilized statewide. Specific attention should be made to language authorizing access to the records of the child. Recommendation 45: The CICIC should assist with the development of a policy, protocol, and or MOU surrounding OPR access to DYFS files and information. Recommendation 46: To the extent possible, the OPR should be expanded to include in-house conflict attorneys in order to minimize reliance on pool attorneys.

Recommendation 47: The court should make every effort to explain to the child(ren), parent(s), other caretaker(s), and relative(s) the reason for the hearing. The purpose of the hearing should be a routine part of the judge’s opening statement to the parties and the hearing participants at the beginning of each hearing. Recommendation 48: The court should make every effort to explain the results of the hearing to the participants and ensure that the child(ren), parent(s), other caretaker(s), and relative(s) understand the proceedings. At the conclusion of every hearing, the judge should make a concluding statement that includes the results and outcomes of the hearing, the date and time for the next hearing, and an acknowledgement that the hearing is concluded.

Recommendation 49: The currency of DYFS report information should be noted in the enforced court deadlines for report submission. Verbal case updates should be allowed to allay this professional tension, and allow the worker to provide the most timely information to the court during the hearing, while meeting the requirements for submission of paper updates a week or so prior to the court hearing date. Recommendation 50: Training for DYFS social workers should include a module addressing the drafting of court reports. Ideally, this training would be in the context of a larger training addressing the court process, court demeanor, oral presentations, and court expectations. Recommendation 51: All agencies involved in CIC case processing must include an ICWA component in initial and on-going training. Recommendation 52: All agencies involved in CIC case processing must develop processes to ensure that Indian children are identified when a child



enters the child welfare system and a determination made whether ICWA is or is not triggered. For example: • As part of the initial screening and demographic information process,

DYFS should make active inquiry regarding the ethnicity of the child. The identification of a child as Indian should be actively determined and ruled out.

• The DAG should make a statement in the initial pleading removing the

child that ICWA is or is not applicable. • At each stage of the proceeding, judges should make an active inquiry

about the applicability of ICWA and the status of the determination that the child is or is not an Indian child. This information should be included for the record of the case and the court order.

Recommendation 53: The court should adopt the standards and practices set out by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges- Indian Child Welfare Act Checklists for Juvenile and Family Court Judges, June 2003. These checklists articulate best practice standards for the state court processing of ICWA cases.

Recommendation 54: The CICIC should consider enhanced and expedited CIC appellate timelines and processes in order to reduce delay and increase time to permanency. The CICIC should reflect on the timelines outlined in NCJFCJ’s Adoption and Permanency Guidelines. For alternative expedited dependency appeals process models, the CICIC may wish to review the NCSC publication titled Expediting Dependency Appeals: Strategies to Reduce Delay. The publication contains expedited appeals models promulgated in other states. Additionally, relevant statutes and court rules are included. Finally in the publication, the NCSC identifies a process that New Jersey could utilize in developing an expedited dependency appeals process. Recommendation 55: The CICIC should routinely track time on appeal, appellate outcomes, and barriers to achieving the expedited appellate timelines and, thus, permanency for children. Additionally, a CIC staff person should be designated to monitor and track appeals originating from the local jurisdiction. Calculations of timelines should be aggregated and then separated as follows: (1) final judgment to notice of appeal and (2) notice of appeal to decisions. Separating out the calculations will likely assist with the identification of barriers. Recommendation 56: The OPR must make significant efforts to reduce or eliminate the internal administrative processes resulting in the delay in filing



notices of appeal after the date of the TPR final judgment. This includes the transfer of cases from trial attorneys to appellate attorneys and the issue of 5-A” re-qualification” by the parent for continued Public Defender services.

Recommendation 57: The CICIC should engage in on-going discussions to address the most optimal usage of the CPR Boards given the courts parallel review of litigated cases. Models could include CPR Board emphasis on: teenagers in foster care, children who will age out of the system, children who are in independent living, and post-termination/pre-adoption cases.

Recommendation 58: As a matter of best practice, reasonable efforts and contrary to the welfare findings should be made at every stage of the CIC process and should be documented in the court order and in the court file.

Recommendation 59: Time to permanency, permanency outcomes, and barriers to permanency should be routinely tracked and monitored. Time to legal permanency is a critical performance measure that indicates court performance in CIC cases.

APPENDIX A

Court Performance Measures in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases

Appendix A – Dependency Performance Measures

ABA, NCSC, and NCJFCJ Court Performance Measures in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases

Performance Area

Goal Outcome What Courts Need to Measure

Safety Children should be safe from abuse and neglect while under court jurisdiction.

• Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect.

• No child should be subject to maltreatment while in placement.

• Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate.

1. Percentage of children who do NOT have a subsequent petition of maltreatment filed in court after the initial petition is filed.

2. Percentage of children who are the subject of additional allegations of maltreatment within 12 months after the original petition was closed.

Permanency Children should have permanency and stability in their living situations.

• Children have permanency and stability in their living situations.

• The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children

1. Percentage of children who reach legal permanency within 6, 12, 18, and 24 months from removal.

2. Percentage of children who do not achieve permanency in the foster care system. 3. Percentage of children who reenter foster care pursuant to court order within 12 and 24

months of being returned to their families. 4. Percentage of children who return to foster care pursuant to court order within 12 and 24

months of being adopted or placed with an individual or couple who are permanent guardians.

5. Percentage of children who are transferred among one, two, three, or more placements while under court jurisdiction. Where possible, this measure should distinguish placements in and out of a child’s own home from multiple placements in a variety of environments.

Due Process

To deal with cases impartially and thoroughly based on evidence brought before the court.

• Enhancement of due process by deciding cases impartially and thoroughly, based on evidence brought before the court.

1. Percentage of cases in which both parents receive written service of process within the required time standards or where notice of hearing has been waived by parties.

2. Percentage of cases in which there is documentation that notice is given to parties in advance of the next hearing.

3. Percentage of cases in which the court reviews case plans within established time guidelines.

4. Percentage of children receiving legal counsel, guardians ad litem or CASA volunteers in advance of the preliminary protective hearing or equivalent.

5. Percentage of cases where counsel for parents are appointed in advance of the preliminary protective hearing or equivalent.

6. Percentage of cases in which legal counsel for children changes. 7. Percentage of cases in which legal counsel for parents changes. 8. Percentage of cases where legal counsel for parents, children, and agencies are present

at each hearing. 9. Percentage of children for whom all hearings are heard by one judicial officer.

Appendix A – Dependency Performance Measures

Timeliness To enhance expedition to

permanency by minimizing the time from the filing of the petition or protective custody order to permanency.

• Expedition of permanency by minimizing the time from the filing of the petition or protective custody order to permanency.

1. Average or median time from filing of the original petition to adjudication. 2. Average or median time from filing of the original petition to disposition. 3. Percentage of cases that are adjudicated within 30, 60, 90 days after the filing of the

dependency petition. 4. Percentage of cases that receive a disposition within 10, 30, 60 days after the

dependency adjudication. 5. Average or median time from filing of the original petition to permanent placement. 6. Average or median time from filing of the original petition to finalized termination of

parental rights. 7. Percentage of cases for which the termination petition is filed within 3, 6, 12, 18 months

after the dependency disposition. 8. Percentage of cases that receive a termination order within 30, 90, 120, 180 days after

the filing of the termination petition. 9. Percentage of cases for which an adoption petition is filed within 1, 3, 6 months after the

termination order. 10.Percentage of cases for which the adoption is finalized within 1, 3, 6, 12 months after

the adoption petition. 11.Percentage of hearings (by hearing type) not completed within time frames set forth in

stature or court rules. Where possible, the reason(s) for noncompletion should be captured (e.g., party requesting postponement).

Well-Being Although courts do not provide care for children directly, they do have a role in inquiring about the health, medical care, school attendance, and other indicators that children are being properly cared for.

Child well-being refers to the child’s educational achievement and mental and physical health.

APPENDIX B

Data Collection Instruments

Appendix B – Data Collection Instruments – FACTS Request

FACTS Data Elements Requested for Closed Cases

Party ID Docket No. Minor's Last Name Minor's First Name Gender Race Birth Date Filing Date Date of First Placement Placement Type of First Placement Placement Reason 1 for first placement Placement Reason 2 for first placement Placement Reason 3 for first placement Date of Last Placement Placement Type of last Placement Placement Reason 1 for last placement Placement Reason 2 for last placement Placement Reason 3 for last placement Total number of placements during the life of the case Date of first Initial hearing/order to show cause Proceeding Judge at first Initial hearing/order to show cause Date of last Initial hearing/order to show cause Proceeding Judge at last Initial hearing/order to show cause Total Number of Initial hearing/order to show cause (during life of case) Total Number of Initial hearing/order to show cause (during life of case) that were adjourned Date of first Return order to show cause Proceeding Judge at first Return order to show cause Date of last Return order to show cause Proceeding Judge at last Return order to show cause Total Number of Return order to show cause Total Number of Return order to show cause (during life of case) that were adjourned Date of first Case management conference Proceeding Judge at first Case management conference Date of last Case management conference Proceeding Judge at last Case management conference Total Number of Case management conference Total Number of Case management conferences (during life of case) that were adjourned Date of first Fact finding evidentiary hearing (Trial in the case of FG and FL) Proceeding Judge at first Fact finding evidentiary hearing (Trial in the case of FG and FL) Date of last Fact finding evidentiary hearing (Trial in the case of FG and FL) Proceeding Judge at last Fact finding evidentiary hearing (Trial in the case of FG and FL) Total Number of Fact finding evidentiary hearing (Trial in the case of FG and FL) Total Number of Fact finding evidentiary hearing (Trial in the case of FG and FL) (during life of case) that were adjourned Date of first Compliance review hearing

Appendix B – Data Collection Instruments – FACTS Request

Proceeding Judge at first Compliance review hearing Date of last Compliance review hearing Proceeding Judge at last Compliance review hearing Total Number of Compliance review hearing Total Number of Compliance review hearing (during life of case) that were adjourned Date of first Disposition hearing Proceeding Judge at first Disposition hearing Date of last Disposition hearing Proceeding Judge at last Disposition hearing Total Number of Disposition hearing Total Number of Disposition hearing (during life of case) that were adjourned Date of first Permanency hearing Proceeding Judge at first Permanency hearing Date of last Permanency hearing Proceeding Judge at last Permanency hearing Total Number of Permanency hearing Total Number of Permanency hearing (during life of case) that were adjourned Date of first Summary hearing Proceeding Judge at first Summary hearing Date of last Summary hearing Proceeding Judge at last Summary hearing Total Number of Summary hearing Total Number of Summary hearing (during life of case) that were adjourned Date Case was closed Reason for closing

NCSC NJ CIP Reassessment Project 2005 Court Observation Form

Observation ID# ________________ Page 1 of 7

Instrument adapted from Court Observation Forms, Packard Dependency Court Performance Project Toolkit ©2004 ABA, NCJFCJ, NCSC Appendix B – Data Collection Instruments – Court Observation Form

Section 1 – BASIC CASE INFORMATION 1.1 Jurisdiction: _________________________ 1.2 Coders: ______________________________ 1.3 Judge: ______________ 1.4 Date of Hearing: ____/____/____ 1.5 Docket #: _________________________ 1.6 Scheduled Start Time______ am/pm 1.7 Actual Start Time ______ am/pm 1.8 End Time ______ am/pm [Note: If delay(s) of hearing, record all start and stop times]

Section 2 - TYPE OF HEARING 2.1 Identify the type of hearing(s) (more than 1 hearing type may apply):

FN-Abuse and Neglect FG-Termination of Parental Rights FL-Kinship Legal Guardianship oOTSC/Initial/Dodd Removal oOTSC/Initial oTrial/Evidentiary Hearing oReturn OTSC oReturn OTSC oCompliance Review oCase Management Conference oCase Management Conference oSummary Hearing oFact Finding oTrial oDisposition oCompliance Review oCompliance Review o Summary Hearing oPermanency Review oSummary Hearing oOther Specify______________ oOther Specify______________ oOther Specify______________

2.2 Is there more than one child involved in this case?

1. o Yes 2 o No (skip to Section 3)

3. o Unclear (skip to Section 3) Section 3 – PERSONS PRESENT 3.1 Indicate all persons attending hearing (If more than 1 of any type is in attendance, indicate how many): 1. o DYFS worker

2. o DAG (attorney for DYFS) 3. o Law Guardian (attorney for child)

4. o Child 5. o Mother 6. o Attorney for Mother (PD or Pool or Private) 7. o Father 8. o Attorney for Father (PD or pool or private)

9. o Resource/Foster Parent 10. o Other Caretaker 11. o CASA assigned to child 12. o CIC Team Member 13. o Sheriff’s Officer 14. o Other:________________________________ 15. o Attendee(s) not clearly observable or identified




Section 4 – INTERRUPTION & ADJOURNMENT

4.1 Were the proceedings interrupted or adjourned? 1. o Yes, interrupted 2. o Yes, adjourned to future time or date 3. o Part of hearing was adjourned

4. o No (skip to Section 5) 5. o Unclear (skip to Section 5)

4.2 What are the reasons for the interruption or adjournment (continuance)? (check all that apply) 1. o Parent Attorney a. o absence b. o tardiness c. o lack of preparation 2. o Deputy Attorney General (DAG -- DYFS Attorney) a. o absence b. o tardiness c. o lack of preparation 3. o Law Guardian (child’s attorney) a. o absence b. o tardiness c. o lack of preparation 4. o DYFS Case worker a. o absence b. o tardiness c. o lack of preparation 5. o Court a. o not ready or otherwise unable to proceed b. o delay in locating case file c. o hearing took longer than time allotted d. o judge arrived late; no explanation

6. o Party(ies) a. o absence b. o tardiness

7. o Witness a. o absence b. o tardiness 8. o Scheduling back-up 9. o No service of process on parents, i.e., notice of filing of the case 10. o No notice of the hearing/untimely notice 11. o Case Plan or Report a. o Not Available b. o Not delivered timely c. o Not complete 12. o Need for services (delay to obtain services or report) 13. o Agreement of the parties 14. o Other (specify: _________________________________________________) 15. o Unclear




Section 5 – SERVICE AND NOTICE TO PARTIES

5.1 Was there discussion about DYFS/DAG attempts at service of process, i.e., providing notice of

filing of the case on an absent parent(s) or other caretaker? 1. o Yes 2. o No 5.2 REVIEW, COMPLIANCE REVIEW, AND PERMANENCY HEARINGS ONLY (if not a review

or permanency hearing, skip to Section 6): Was there discussion about the DYFS/DAG attempts to notify absent foster/resource parent or pre-adoptive parent(s) or caretaker(s) about the hearing?

1. o Yes 2. o No 3. o The foster or pre-adoptive parent(s) or caretaker was present Section 6 - REPRESENTATION 6.1 Did the Court discuss with anyone the right to counsel? 1. o Yes 2. o No 3. o Unclear 4. oAlready Assigned 6.2 Did the Court assign or appoint counsel to anyone? 1. o Yes 2. o No (skip to Section 7) 3 o Unclear (skip to Section 7) 4. oAlready Assigned

6.3 If you answered "yes," for whom was counsel appointed? _________________________________ Section 7 - ENGAGEMENT OF PARTIES and CONDUCT OF HEARING 7.1 Did the Court explain to the child(en), parent(s), other caretaker(s), and relative(s) the reason for today’s

hearing? 1. o Yes 5. o No 3. o Unclear 4. o These persons were not present 7.2 Did the Court make an effort to ensure that the child(ren), parent(s), other caretaker(s), and relative(s)

understood the proceedings? 1.o Yes 5.o No 3. o These persons were not present 7.3 Did the Court provide the child(ren), parent(s), other caretaker(s), and relative(s) with an opportunity to

speak or ask questions? 1.o Yes 5.o No 3. o These persons were not present 7.4 Was there discussion with the parent(s), other caretaker(s), and relative(s) about the importance of

achieving reunification and or permanency within deadlines established by law? 1.o Yes 5.o No 3. o These persons were not present 7.5 What type of information was presented in court? (check all that apply)

1. o Sworn testimony of DYFS worker and/or other witness(es)

2. o Affidavit or written report of a DYFS case worker or other professional

3. o Verbal statements of a DYFS case worker or other professional

4. o Verbal statement child 5. o Verbal statement parent

6 . o Verbal statement foster parent/resource parent 7. oVerbal statement of caretaker. 8. o Verbal statements of DAG 9. o Verbal statement of parent’s attorney 10. o CPR Board report 11. o Other: _______________________________ 13. o Unable to determine




Section 8 – WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN COURT 8.1 Was there discussion of the existence of a DYFS case plan or court report?

1. o Yes 5. o No 3. o Unclear 8.2 Did the Court review and discuss the child(ren)’s placement (living arrangement)?

1. o Yes 5. o No 3. o Unclear 8.3 Was there discussion of services to children (e.g., medical, dental, mental health, counseling,

education) ? 1. o Yes 5. o No 3. o Unclear

If yes, specify services: ______________________________________________________________ 8.4 Was there discussion of the child(ren)’s permanency goal(s) (e.g., reunification, termination of

parental rights, independent living, kinship legal guardianship?) 1. o Yes 5. o No 3. o Unclear

8.5 If the child(ren) are in out-of-home care, was there discussion about parent-child visitation? 1. o Yes 5. o No 3. o Unclear 8.6 If the sibling child(ren) are in different homes, was there discussion about sibling visitation? 1. o Yes 5. o No 3. o Unclear 8.7 Was there discussion of services to parents (e.g., medical, mental health, counseling, vocational,

education)? 1. o Yes 5. o No 3. o Unclear

If yes, specify services: ______________________________________________________________ 8.8 Was there discussion of parents’ compliance with DYFS case plan and services?

1. o Yes 5. o No 3. o Unclear 8.9 Was there discussion of DYFS compliance with DYFS case plan and services?

1. o Yes 5. o No 3. o Unclear 8.10 Did the Court review and discuss ICWA compliance?

1. o Yes 5. o No 3. o Unclear




Section 9 - CONTRARY TO THE WELFARE AND REASONABLE EFFORTS FINDINGS 9.1 Did the Court make a verbal finding that it is “contrary to the welfare of the child” to remain in

the home? 1. o Yes 5. o No 3. o Unclear 4. o Child not removed at this hearing 9.2 If you answered “yes” to questions 9.1, were reasons given for the “contrary to the welfare” finding? 1. o Yes 5. o No 3. o Unclear If yes, specify reasons: ______________________________________________________________ 9.3 Did the court make a verbal finding regarding “reasonable efforts”? 1. o Yes 5. o No (skip to Section 10) 3. o Unclear (skip to Section 10) 9.4 If you answered “yes” to question 9.3, what was the finding regarding “reasonable efforts”?

1. o Reasonable Efforts were made to prevent removal from or reunify the family

4. o Court finds No Reasonable Efforts were necessary

2. o Reasonable Efforts were made to finalize the permanency goal and/or plan

5. o Reasonable Efforts NOT FOUND (Court specifically finds that reasonable efforts not made)

3. o Reasonable Efforts found but type not specified

6. o Unclear

9.5 Were reasons given for the “reasonable efforts” finding?

1. o Yes 5. o No 3. o Unclear If yes, specify reasons: ______________________________________________________________




Section 10 - SCHEDULING AND TIMELINES 10.1 Did the Court set a date for Mediation? [Will apply only in Essex County] 1. o Yes 5. o No 3. o Unable to determine 10.2 Did the Court set a date for filing the DYFS Case Plan? 1. o Yes 5. o No 3. o Unable to determine 4. o Case plan filed 10.3 Did the Court set a date for filing the Permanency Plan? 1. o Yes 5. o No 3. o Unable to determine 4. o Permanency plan filed 10.4 Was the Court's order available at the end of the hearing for distribution or mailing? 1. o Yes 5. o No 3. o Unclear 10.5 If “No” to 10.4, did the Court indicate when the order would be available? 1. o Yes 5. o No 3. o Unclear 10.6 Did the Court set a date (and time) for the next hearing? 1. o Yes 5. o No 3. o Unable to determine Section 11 – HEARING OUTCOME 11.1 Did the Court close the child(ren)’s case(s)?

1. o Yes 2. o No (skip to comments section) 3. o Unclear (skip to comments section ) 4. o Case kept open for supervision, Not Closed 11.2 If case is closed, what reason does the Court give? (check all that apply) 1. o Compliant with case plan and services – Case

dismissed 2. o Prosecution decides not to proceed 3. o Allegation(s) Not Sustained, i.e., not proven 4. o Permanency Goal Achieved: Reunification 5. o Permanency Goal Achieved: Adoption 6. o Permanency Goal Achieved: Guardianship/TPR

7. o Permanency Goal Achieved: Kinship Legal Guardianship

8. o Child Reached Age of Majority 9. o Emancipation 10.o Unable to determine 11. o Other ___________________________

11.3 If Case not Closed, What is Next Court Case Event?

FN-Abuse and Neglect FG-Termination of Parental Rights FL-Kinship Legal Guardianship oOTSC/Initial/Dodd Removal oOTSC/Initial oTrial/Evidentiary Hearing oReturn OTSC oReturn OTSC oCompliance Review oCase Management Conference oCase Management Conference oSummary Hearing oFact Finding oTrial oDisposition oCompliance Review oCompliance Review o Summary Hearing oPermanency Review oSummary Hearing oOther Specify______________ oOther Specify______________ oOther Specify______________




Observer Comments:

NCSC New Jersey Court Improvement Program Reassessment 2005 CASA Interview Questions

Page 1 of 2

Instrument adapted from Court Observation Forms, Packard Dependency Court Performance Project Toolkit ©2004 ABA, NCJFCJ, NCSC Appendix B – Data Collection Instruments – CASA Interview

Opening Questions:

O.1. Tell us your name, how many years as a CASA? O.2 What do you do when you are not doing CASA casework? Transition Questions: T.1. Describe the training that is available to you in your role. Initial and ongoing? Frequency? Mandatory or voluntary?

Continuing Education? T.2. How frequently have you participated in these trainings? T.3. What if any written standards exist regarding your role in CIC cases? T.4 Describe any training that is available to you describing the court process, testifying in court, and developing court

reports. Key Questions: Caseload K.1. How many CIC cases do you carry at any given time? K.2 Please describe the assignment of cases in your office. [e.g. geographic or other] K.3 To what extent do your volunteer staffing levels affect safety, timeliness, due process, and permanency standards? Calendaring Practice K.4. In your opinion, are there substantial differences among court calendars regarding the timeliness of hearings? K.5. From your perspective, do you think the court’s calendaring system is effective? K.6. In your opinion, are there ways in which the scheduling or calendaring of cases can be changed to facilitate the

timely completion of cases? K.7. Please list for me the general types of hearings in this jurisdiction. [Interviewer: you will use these hearing types in

the next question] Hearing Activities For each type of hearing listed in Question K.7 above, have respondent address K.8 and K.9 K.8. To what extent are you able to raise key facts and issues in the case during each type of hearing? K.9. Is the time available for hearings sufficient to permit you to raise these key facts and issues? If not, how much time

is needed for each type of hearing and what are the implications for the court? K.10. To what extent (and in what ways) does the judge’s performance on the bench contribute to timely court decision

making and safety, well-being, and permanency of the child? K.11. Describe the court’s practice in setting next hearing dates? For example, is the date and time of the next hearing

set at the end of each hearing? K.12. Are all participants in court proceedings treated with courtesy, respect, and understanding?

NCSC New Jersey Court Improvement Program Reassessment 2005 CASA Interview Questions

Page 2 of 2

Instrument adapted from Court Observation Forms, Packard Dependency Court Performance Project Toolkit ©2004 ABA, NCJFCJ, NCSC Appendix B – Data Collection Instruments – CASA Interview

CASA Representation K.13. Please describe the court appointment process of CASAs in your jurisdiction? How do you get your cases? K.14. How often are children represented or assisted by CASAs? K.15. To what extent is the CASA representation adequate? Case Tracking Information and Other Reports K.16. To what extent is the information available to CASAs sufficient, timely, and accurate? [CASA report, DYFS reports,

psychological reports, etc.] ASFA Compliance K.17. How well do you think your jurisdiction is doing with respect to the meeting ASFA and statutory time frames? K.18. With respect to the timeliness of case processing, what strengths exist in your jurisdiction? [Interviewer: What

procedures? Policies?] K.19. With respect to the timeliness of case processing, what challenges exist in your jurisdiction? CIC Stakeholder Relationships K.20. Describe your relationship with other CIC stakeholders (people and organizations) [e.g. DAG, PD, LG, DYFS,

CASA, CIC Team, and Bench] K.21. Describe the role of the CPR Board in achieving permanency and safety and well-being for children.

Closing Questions C.1. In closing, we would like to know a little bit more about your experience on the job. What were your “most glorious

moments” on the job? Your “most frustrating moments”? Your “most defeated moments”? C.2. What would you do more of (spend more time doing) if you had additional staff or resources? C.3. Have we missed anything? Is there anything that we should have talked about but did not?

NCSC New Jersey Court Improvement Program Reassessment 2005 CPR BOARD MEMBER Interview Questions

Page 1 of 2

Instrument adapted from “Judicial Interview”, Packard Dependency Court Performance Project Toolkit ©2004 ABA, NCJFCJ, NCSC

Appendix B – Data Collection Instruments – CPR Board Interview

Opening Questions:

O.1. Tell us your name, your title, how many years on the CPR Board? O.2. What do you do when you are not at CPR meetings? Transition Questions: T.1. Describe the training that is available to you in your role as a member of the CPR Board. Initial

and ongoing? Frequency? Mandatory or voluntary? Continuing education? T.2. How frequently have you participated in these trainings? T.3. What if any written standards exist regarding your role on the CPR Board? Key Questions: Cases Assigned to the Board K.1 Please describe the assignment of cases to your board. What types of cases do you read and

review? K.2. On average, how many cases are assigned to this board at any given time? CPR Scheduling Practices K.3. Could you briefly describe how cases are placed on the schedule for review? K.4. Are all cases put on the schedule heard that day? If not, why? K.5. Please list for me the general types of reviews. [Interviewer: you will use these review types in the

next question] Meeting Activities For each type of review listed in Question K.5 above, have respondents address K.6 and K.7 K.6. Please describe your preparation for each meeting. K.7. Please describe the specific tasks you perform during this meeting.

Prompts: • Describe the CPR meeting process. • Describe the frequency of reviews • The duration of the review • The documents reviewed • The conduct of the review • Developing consensus • Developing recommendations

K.8. Given the purpose of this meeting, do you think the time you are able to spend in the meeting is

adequate? K.9. What are the biggest challenges to the successful completion of these tasks? K.10. To what extent do interested parties participate in the CPR board process [e.g., frequency, type of

participants, reason for their attendance, what types of reports produced]?

NCSC New Jersey Court Improvement Program Reassessment 2005 CPR BOARD MEMBER Interview Questions

Page 2 of 2

Instrument adapted from “Judicial Interview”, Packard Dependency Court Performance Project Toolkit ©2004 ABA, NCJFCJ, NCSC

Appendix B – Data Collection Instruments – CPR Board Interview

Case Tracking Information and Other Reports K.11. Do you have a sufficient automated (computer) system to support your work? K.12. What data are available for case tracking? Is it sufficient? Is it accurate? K.13. To what extent is the information available to the CPR Board sufficient, timely, and accurate?

[CASA report, DYFS reports, psychological reports] ASFA Compliance K.14. How well do you think your jurisdiction is doing with respect to the meeting ASFA and statutory

time frames? K.15. With respect to the timeliness of case processing, what strengths exist in your jurisdiction?

[Interviewer: What procedures? Policies?] K.16. With respect to the timeliness of case processing, what challenges exist in your jurisdiction? CIC Stakeholder Relationships K.17. Do you feel that your role and work is valued by the CIC stakeholders? K.18. Describe your relationship with other CIC stakeholders (people and organizations) [e.g. DAG, PD,

LG, CPR Board, DYFS, CASA, CIC Team, and Bench] K.19. Describe the role of the CPR Board in achieving permanency and safety and well-being for

children. Closing Questions C.1. In closing, we would like to know a little bit more about your experience on the job. What were

your “most glorious moments” on the job? Your “most frustrating moments”? Your “most defeated moments”?

C.2. What would you do more of (spend more time doing) if you had additional time or resources? C.3. Have we missed anything? Is there anything that we should have talked about but did not?

NCSC New Jersey Court Improvement Program Reassessment 2005 DYFS WORKER Interview Questions

Page 1 of 3

Instrument adapted from “Caseworker Interview”, Packard Dependency Court Performance Project Toolkit ©2004 ABA, NCJFCJ, NCSC

Appendix B – Data Collection Instruments – DYFS Interview

Opening Questions:

O.1. Tell us your name, your title, how many years in your current position, and how many years total with DYFS?

Transition Questions: T.1. Describe the training that is available to you in your role. Initial and ongoing? Frequency?

Mandatory or voluntary? Continuing education? T.2. How frequently have you participated in these trainings? T.3 Describe any training that is available to you describing the court process, testifying in court, and

developing court reports. T.4. What if any written standards exist regarding your role as a social worker or supervisor? What

written standards exist regarding your role in court and the submission of court reports? Key Questions: Caseload K.1. On average, how many cases do you carry on your caseload? Are these families or children? K.2. Do you feel this is a manageable caseload? Why or why not? K.3. Please describe the assignment of cases in your office. [e.g. geographic or other?] K.4. To what extent do your caseloads and staffing levels affect safety, timeliness, due process, and

permanency standards? Calendaring Practice K.5. Could you briefly describe how CIC are calendared in your jurisdiction? For example, do you have

a one judge/one family system, or are CIC cases heard only on certain days of the week or only in the mornings?

K.6. In your opinion, are there substantial differences among court calendars regarding the timeliness of hearings?

K.7. From your perspective, do you think the court’s calendaring system is effective? K.8. In your opinion, are there ways in which the scheduling or calendaring of cases can be changed to

facilitate the timely completion of cases? K.9. Please list for me the general types of hearings in this jurisdiction. [Interviewer: you will use these

hearing types in the next question] Hearing Activities For each type of hearing listed in Question K.9 above, have respondent address K.10 and K.11

K.10. To what extent are you able to raise key facts and issues in the case during each type of hearing? K.11. Is the time available for hearings sufficient to permit you to raise these key facts and issues? If not,

how much time is needed for each type of hearing and what are the implications for the court?


Page 2 of 3



K.12. To what extent (and in what ways) does the judge’s performance on the bench contribute to timely court decision making and safety, well-being, and permanency of the child?

K.13. Describe the court’s practice in setting next hearing dates? For example, is the date and time of the next hearing set at the end of each hearing?

K.14. Are all participants in court proceedings treated with courtesy, respect, and understanding? Representation K.15. How often are parents and children represented by counsel? K.16. To what extent is representation adequate? K.17. How often are children represented or assisted by CASAs? Case Tracking Information and Other Reports K.18. To what extent is the information available to courts sufficient, timely, and accurate? [CASA report,

DYFS, psychological reports, etc.] ASFA Compliance K.19. How well do you think your jurisdiction is doing with respect to the meeting ASFA and statutory


[Interviewer: What procedures? Policies?] K.21. With respect to the timeliness of case processing, what challenges exist in your jurisdiction? CIC Stakeholder Relationships K.22. Describe your relationship with other CIC stakeholders (people and organizations) [e.g. DAG, PD,

LG, DYFS, CASA, CIC Team, and Bench] K.23. Describe the role of the CPR Board in achieving permanency and safety and well-being for

children. ICWA K.24. How frequently do you encounter ICWA cases? K.25. How does your office identify ICWA cases? K.26. Does the court make active inquiry regarding the applicability of ICWA? K.27. How effectively do the state and tribal courts coordinate in ICWA cases? Delay and Adjournments K.28. In your experience, what are the most typical sources of court delay in your jurisdiction? K.29. Are there specific kinds of cases that result in delay? K.30. Approximately what percent of court hearings on a given day result in an adjournment? K.31. Are there specific hearings that result in more adjournments? K.32. What are the typical sources of adjournments? (e.g., for what reasons would an adjournment be

granted?). K.33. Does the court have a stated adjournment policy or practice? K.34. Would you say delay is a significant problem in your jurisdiction? Why or Why Not?


Page 3 of 3



Closing Questions C.1. In closing, we would like to know a little bit more about your experience on the job. What were


C.2. What would you do more of (spend more time doing) if you had additional staff or resources? C.3. Have we missed anything? Is there anything that we should have talked about but did not?

NCSC New Jersey Court Improvement Program Reassessment 2005 CHILD ATTORNEY, PARENT ATTORNEY Interview Questions

Page 1 of 3

Appendix B – Data Collection Instruments – Child Attorney, Parent Attorney Interview

Opening Questions:

O.1. Tell us your name, your title, how many years practicing in this area, and how many years you have covered CIC cases?

O.2 What did you do before you became an attorney? Transition Questions: T.1. Describe the training that is available to you in your role. Initial and ongoing? Frequency?

Mandatory or voluntary? Continuing education? T.2. How frequently have you participated in these trainings? T.3. What if any written standards exist regarding your role in CIC cases? Key Questions: Caseload K.1. On average, how many CIC cases do you carry on your caseload? K.2. What proportion of your overall caseload is accounted for by CIC cases? K.3. Do you feel this is a manageable caseload? Why or why not? K.4. Please describe the assignment of cases in your office. [e.g. geographic or other?] K.5. To what extent do your caseloads and staffing levels affect safety, timeliness, due process, and

permanency standards? Calendaring Practice K.6. Could you briefly describe how CIC cases are calendared in your jurisdiction? For example, do

you have a one judge/one family system, or are CIC cases heard only on certain days of the week or only in the mornings?


K.8. From your perspective, do you think the court’s calendaring system is effective? K.9. In your opinion, are there ways in which the scheduling or calendaring of cases can be changed to

facilitate the timely completion of cases? K.10. Please list for me the general types of hearings in this jurisdiction. [Interviewer: you will use these

hearing types in the next question] Hearing Activities For each type of hearing listed in Question K.10 above, have respondent address K.11 and K.12 K.11. To what extent do parties and counsel present witnesses, introduce evidence, and offer arguments

in each type of hearing? K.12. Is the time available for hearings sufficient to permit presentation of evidence and arguments? If

not, how much time is needed for each type of hearing and what are the implications for the court?


Page 2 of 3


K.13. To what extent (and in what ways) does the judge’s performance on the bench contribute to timely court decision making and safety, well-being, and permanency of the child?

K.14. Describe the court’s practice in setting next hearing dates? For example, is the date and time of the next hearing set at the end of each hearing?

K.15. Are all participants in court proceedings treated with courtesy, respect, and understanding? Representation K.16. Please describe the court appointment process in your jurisdiction? How do you get your cases? K.17. How often are parents and children represented by counsel? K.18. In what percentage of cases is counsel for [parents/children] appointment in advance of the

temporary custody hearing? K.19. What percentage of [parents/children] have legal counsel for all proceedings? K.20. What percentage of [parents/children] have one legal counsel for all proceedings? K.21. What percentage of [parents/children] have representation that changes between initial assignment

and the end of the case? K.22. To what extent is representation adequate? K.23. How often are children represented or assisted by CASAs? Case Tracking Information and Other Reports K.24. To what extent is the information available to courts sufficient, timely, and accurate? [CASA report,

DYFS, psychological reports, etc.] ASFA Compliance K.25. How well do you think your jurisdiction is doing with respect to the meeting ASFA and statutory


[Interviewer: What procedures? Policies?] K.27. With respect to the timeliness of case processing, what challenges exist in your jurisdiction? CIC Stakeholder Relationships K.28. Describe your relationship with other CIC stakeholders (people and organizations) [e.g. DAG, PD,

LG, DYFS, CASA, CIC Team, and Bench] K.29. Describe the role of the CPR Board in achieving permanency and safety and well-being for

children. ICWA K.30. How frequently do you encounter ICWA cases? K.31. How does your office identify ICWA cases? K.32. Does the court make active inquiry regarding the applicability of ICWA? K.33. How effectively do the state and tribal courts coordinate in ICWA cases?


Page 3 of 3


Appeals K.34. What are the prescribed appellate time limits? K.35. Are prescribed appellate time limits being met? K.36. To what extent do appellate practices contribute to or deter safety, permanency, due process, and

timeliness considerations for children? Delay and Adjournments K.37. In your experience, what are the most typical sources of court delay in your jurisdiction? K.38. Are there specific kinds of cases that result in delay? K.39. Approximately what percent of court hearings on a given day result in an adjournment? K.40. Are there specific hearings that result in more adjournments? K.41. What are the typical sources of adjournments? (e.g., for what reasons would an adjournment be




C.2. What would you do more of (spend more time doing) if you had additional staff or resources? C.3. Have we missed anything? Is there anything that we should have talked about but did not?

NCSC New Jersey Court Improvement Program Reassessment 2005 CIC TEAM Interview Questions

Page 1 of 3

Appendix B – Data Collection Instruments – CIC Team Interview

Opening Questions: O.1. Tell us your name, your title, how many years in your current position, and how many years total

with the CIC team? Transition Questions: T.1. Describe the training that is available to you in your role as a CIC team member. Initial and

ongoing? Frequency? Mandatory or voluntary? Continuing education? T.2. How frequently have you participated in these trainings? T.3. What if any written standards exist regarding your role on the CIC team? Key Questions: CIC Team Role K.1. Describe in detail your specific job functions as part of the CIC Team. K.2. How would you best describe your work assignment? [Prompts: are you assigned to a court or

judicial officer? To a specific courtroom? Is it a general assignment?] Workload K.3. What proportion of your overall workload is accounted for by CIC cases? K.4. Do you feel this is a manageable workload? Why or why not? K.5 To what extent do the number of judges and CIC personnel affect the ability of courts to meet

safety, timeliness, due process, and permanency standards? Calendaring Practice K.6. Could you briefly describe how dependency cases or child abuse and neglect cases are

calendared in your jurisdiction? For example, do you have a one judge/one family system, or are CIC heard only on certain days of the week or only in the mornings?


K.8. From your perspective, do you think the court’s calendaring system is effective? K.9. Please list for me the general types of hearings in this jurisdiction. [Interviewer: you will use these

hearing types in the next question]


Page 2 of 3


Hearing Activities K.10. To what extent do parties and counsel present witnesses, introduce evidence, and offer arguments

in each type of hearing? K.11. Is the time available for hearings sufficient to permit presentation of evidence and arguments? If

not, how much time is needed for each type of hearing and what are the implications for the court? K.12. To what extent (and in what ways) does the judge’s performance on the bench contribute to timely

court decision making and safety, well-being, and permanency of the child? K.13. Describe the court’s practice in setting next hearing dates? For example, is the date and time of

the next hearing set at the end of each hearing? K.14. Are all participants in court proceedings treated with courtesy, respect, and understanding? Representation K.15. Please describe the court appointment process in your jurisdiction? How do court-appointed

attorneys get their cases? K.16. How often are parents and children represented by counsel? K.17. To what extent is representation adequate? K.18. How often are children represented or assisted by CASAs? Case Tracking Information and Other Reports K.19. Do you have a sufficient automated (computer) system to support your caseload demands? K.20. What data are available for case tracking? Is it sufficient? Is it accurate? K.21. Do all the people who need the reports have access to them? K.22. We are interested in knowing if you receive information about the following court performance

measures from your automated system: • The number or proportion of children who are subject to additional allegations of abuse or

neglect while under court jurisdiction • Reunification rates of children before the court • Adoption disruption rates

K.23. Other than the information mentioned above, what other information would you be interested in receiving from your automated court data system?

K.24. To what extent is the information available to courts and CIC Team sufficient, timely, and accurate? [CASA report, DYFS report, psychological reports]

ASFA Compliance K.25. How well do you think your jurisdiction is doing with respect to the meeting ASFA and statutory


[Interviewer: What procedures? Policies?] K.27. With respect to the timeliness of case processing, what challenges exist in your jurisdiction?


Page 3 of 3


CIC Stakeholder Relationships K.28. Describe your relationship with other CIC stakeholders (people and organizations) [e.g. DAG, PD,

LG, CPR Board, DYFS, CASA, CIC Team, and Bench] K.29. Describe the role of the CPR Board in achieving permanency and safety and well-being for

children. ICWA K.30. How frequently do you encounter ICWA cases? K.31. Do you make active inquiry regarding the applicability of ICWA? K.32. How effectively do the state and tribal courts coordinate in ICWA cases? Appeals K.33. What are the prescribed appellate time limits? K.34. Are prescribed appellate time limits being met? K.35. To what extent do appellate practices contribute to or deter safety, permanency, due process, and

timeliness considerations for children? Delay and Adjournments K.36. In your experience, what are the most typical sources of court delay in your jurisdiction? K.37. Are there specific kinds of cases that result in delay? K.38. Approximately what percent of court hearings on a given day result in an adjournment? K.39. Are there specific hearings that result in more adjournments? K.40. What are the typical sources of adjournments? (e.g., For what reasons would an adjournment be




C.2. What would you do more of (spend more time doing) if you had additional CIC team members or resources?

C.3. Have we missed anything? Is there anything that we should have talked about but did not?

NCSC New Jersey Court Improvement Program Reassessment 2005 DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL Interview Questions

Page 1 of 3

Instrument adapted from “Attorney Interview”, Packard Dependency Court Performance Project Toolkit ©2004 ABA, NCJFCJ, NCSC

Appendix B – Data Collection Instruments – Deputy Attorney General Interview

Opening Questions:

O.1. Tell us your name, your title, how many years practicing in this area, and how many years you have covered CIC cases?

O.2. What did you do before you became an attorney? Transition Questions: T.1. Describe the training that is available to you in your role. Initial and ongoing? Frequency? Mandatory or voluntary?

Continuing education? T.2. How frequently have you participated in these trainings? T.3. What if any written standards exist regarding your role in CIC cases? Key Questions: Caseload K.1. On average, how many CIC cases do you carry on your caseload? K.2. What proportion of your overall caseload is accounted for by CIC cases? K.3. Do you feel this is a manageable caseload? Why or why not? K.4. Please describe the assignment of cases in your office. [e.g. geographic or other] K.5. To what extent do your caseloads and staffing levels affect safety, timeliness, due process, and permanency

standards? Calendaring Practice K.6. Could you briefly describe how CIC cases are calendared in your jurisdiction? For example, do you have a one

judge/one family system, or are CIC heard only on certain days of the week or only in the mornings? K.7. In your opinion, are there substantial differences among court calendars regarding the timeliness of hearings? K.8. From your perspective, do you think the court’s calendaring system is effective? K.9. In your opinion, are there ways in which the scheduling or calendaring of cases can be changed to facilitate the

timely completion of cases? K.10. Please list for me the general types of hearings in this jurisdiction. [Interviewer: you will use these hearing types in

the next question] Hearing Activities For each type of hearing listed in Question K.10 above, have respondent address K.11 and K.12 K.11. To what extent do parties and counsel present witnesses, introduce evidence, and offer arguments in each type of

hearing? K.12. Is the time available for hearings sufficient to permit presentation of evidence and arguments? If not, how much

time is needed for each type of hearing and what are the implications for the court?


Page 2 of 3



K.13. To what extent (and in what ways) does the judge’s performance on the bench contribute to timely court decision

making and safety, well-being, and permanency of the child? K.14. Describe the court’s practice in setting next hearing dates? For example, is the date and time of the next hearing

set at the end of each hearing? K.15. Are all participants in court proceedings treated with courtesy, respect, and understanding? Representation K.16. How often are parents and children represented by counsel? K.17. In what percentage of cases is counsel for [parent/children] appointed in advance of the temporary custody

hearing? K.18. What percentage of [parents/children] have legal counsel for all proceedings? K.19. What percentage of [parents/children] have one legal counsel for all proceedings? K.20. What percentage of [parents/children] have representation that changes between initial assignment and the end of

the case? K.21. To what extent is representation adequate? K.22. How often are children represented or assisted by CASAs? Case Tracking Information and Other Reports K.23. To what extent is the information available to courts sufficient, timely, and accurate? [CASA report, DYFS,

psychological reports, etc.] ASFA Compliance K.24. How well do you think your jurisdiction is doing with respect to the meeting ASFA and statutory time frames? K.25. With respect to the timeliness of case processing, what strengths exist in your jurisdiction? [Interviewer: What

procedures? Policies?] K.26. With respect to the timeliness of case processing, what challenges exist in your jurisdiction? CIC Stakeholder Relationships K.27. Describe your relationship with other CIC stakeholders (people and organizations) [e.g. DAG, PD, LG, DYFS,

CASA, CIC Team, and Bench] K.28. Describe the role of the CPR Board in achieving permanency and safety and well-being for children. ICWA K.29. How frequently do you encounter ICWA cases? K.30. How does your office identify ICWA cases? K.31. Does the court make active inquiry regarding the applicability of ICWA? K.32. How effectively do the state and tribal courts coordinate in ICWA cases? Appeals K.33. What are the prescribed appellate time limits? K.34. Are prescribed appellate time limits being met? K.35. To what extent do appellate practices contribute to or deter safety, permanency, due process, and timeliness

considerations for children?


Page 3 of 3



Delay and Adjournments K.36. In your experience, what are the most typical sources of court delay in your jurisdiction? K.37. Are there specific kinds of cases that result in delay? K.38. Approximately what percent of court hearings on a given day result in an adjournment? K.39. Are there specific hearings that result in more adjournments? K.40. What are the typical sources of adjournments? (e.g., for what reasons would ad adjournment be granted?). K.41. Does the court have a stated adjournment policy or practice? K.42. Would you say delay is a significant problem in your jurisdiction? Why or Why Not?


moments” on the job? Your “most frustrating moments”? Your “most defeated moments”? C.2. What would you do more of (spend more time doing) if you had additional staff or resources? C.3. Have we missed anything? Is there anything that we should have talked about but did not?

NCSC New Jersey Court Improvement Program Reassessment 2005 JUDICIAL Interview Questions

Page 1 of 3

Instrument adapted from “Judicial Interview”, Packard Dependency Court Performance Project Toolkit ©2004 ABA, NCJFCJ, NCSC Appendix B – Data Collection Instruments – Judicial Interview

Opening Questions:

O.1. Tell us your name, your title, how many years on the bench, and how many years you have covered CIC cases? O.2. What did you do before you became a judge? Transition Questions: T.1. Describe the training that is available to you in your role as a CIC Judge. Initial and ongoing? Frequency?

Mandatory or voluntary? Continuing education? T.2. How frequently have you participated in these trainings? T.3. What if any written standards exist regarding your role in CIC cases? Key Questions: Caseload K.1. On average, how many CIC cases do you carry on your caseload? K.2. What proportion of your overall caseload is accounted for by CIC cases? K.3. Do you feel this is a manageable caseload? Why or why not? K.4. Please describe the assignment of cases in your jurisdiction? [e.g. geographic or other?] K.5. To what extent do the number of cases and the number of judges and CIC personnel affect the ability of the court to

meet safety, timeliness, due process, and permanency standards? Calendaring Practice K.6. Could you briefly describe how CIC cases are calendared in your jurisdiction? For example, do you have a one

judge/one family system, or do you hear dependency cases only on certain days of the week or only in the mornings?

K.7. In your opinion, are there substantial differences among court calendars regarding the timeliness of hearings? K.8. From your perspective, do you think the court’s calendaring system is effective? K.9. Typically, how many hearings would you have per day? K.10. Approximately what percentage of time per day do you spend on-the-bench hearing CIC cases? K.11. Please list for me the general types of hearings in this jurisdiction. [Interviewer: you will use these hearing types in

the next question] Hearing Activities For each type of hearing listed in Question K.11 above, have respondent address K.12 and K.13 K.12. Please describe the specific tasks you perform on the bench during this hearing. K.13. Given the purpose of this hearing, do you think the time you are able to spend in the hearing is adequate? K.14. Thinking about the various on-the-bench activities you have just discussed, what do you think the biggest

challenges are to successful completion of those tasks?


Page 2 of 3


K.15. To what extent do parties and counsel present witnesses, introduce evidence, and offer arguments in each type of hearing?

K.16. Is the time available for hearings sufficient to permit presentation of evidence and arguments? If not, how much time is needed for each type of hearing and what are the implications for the court?

K.17. Are all participants in court proceedings treated with courtesy, respect, and understanding? Off the Bench Current Practice K.18. Thinking of your CIC case practice, please describe the various tasks you perform off-the-bench. K.19. Thinking about the various off-the-bench activities you have just discussed, what do you think the biggest

challenges are to successful completion of those tasks? Representation K.20. Please describe the court appointment process in your jurisdiction. How do court-appointed attorneys get their

cases? K.21. How often are parents and children represented by counsel? K.22. To what extent is representation adequate? K.23. How often are children represented or assisted by CASAs? Case Tracking Information and Other Reports K.24. Do you have a sufficient automated (computer) system to support your caseload demands? K.25. What data are available for case tracking? Is it sufficient? Is it accurate? K.26. Do all the people who need the reports have access to them? K.27. We are interested in knowing if you receive information about the following court performance measures from your

automated system: • The number or proportion of children who are subject to additional allegations of abuse or neglect while under

court jurisdiction • Reunification rates of children before the court • Adoption disruption rates

K.28. Other than the information mentioned above, what other information would you be interested in receiving from your automated court data system?

K.29. To what extent is the information available to courts sufficient, timely, and accurate? [CASA report, DYFS reports, psychological reports]

ASFA Compliance K.30. How well do you think your jurisdiction is doing with respect to the meeting ASFA and statutory time frames?

[Interviewer: Ask for the judge’s best estimate.] K.31. With respect to the timeliness of case processing, what strengths exist in your jurisdiction? [Interviewer: What

procedures? Policies?] K.32. With respect to the timeliness of case processing, what challenges exist in your jurisdiction? CIC Stakeholder Relationships K.33. Describe your relationship with other CIC stakeholders (people and organizations) [e.g. DAG, PD, LG, CPR Board,

DYFS, CASA, CIC Team, and Bench]


Page 3 of 3


K.34. Describe the role of the CPR Board in achieving permanency and safety and well-being for children. ICWA K.35. How frequently do you encounter ICWA cases? K.36. Do you make active inquiry regarding the applicability of ICWA? K.37. How effectively do the state and tribal courts coordinate in ICWA cases? Appeals K.38. What are the prescribed appellate time limits? K.39. Are prescribed appellate time limits being met? K.40. To what extent do appellate practices contribute to or deter safety, permanency, due process, and timeliness

considerations for children? Delay and Adjournments K.41. In your experience, what are the most typical sources of court delay in your jurisdiction? K.42. Are there specific kinds of cases that result in delay? K.43. Approximately what percent of court hearings on a given day result in an adjournment? K.44. Are there specific hearings that result in more adjournment? K.45. What are the typical sources of adjournments? (e.g., for what reasons would a continuance be granted?). K.46. Does the court have a stated adjournment policy or practice? K.47. Would you say delay is a significant problem in your jurisdiction? Why or Why Not?


moments” on the job? Your “most frustrating moments”? Your “most defeated moments”? C.2. What would you do more of (spend more time doing) if you had additional judicial officers or resources? C.3. Have we missed anything? Is there anything that we should have talked about but did not?

NCSC New Jersey Court Improvement Program Reassessment 2005 CASE TRACKING SYSTEM Interview Questions

Page 1 of 1

Appendix B – Data Collection Instruments – Case Tracking System Interview

Key Questions: K.1. How does your department/court use FACTS? K.2. Does FACTS provide all needed information for you to perform your job? K.3. What additional information do you need from FACTS screens and reports? K.4. Do you have any supplementary systems (automated or manual)? K.5. What information is provided by these supplementary systems? K.6. Is information shared electronically between supplementary system and FACTS? K.7. What information is entered multiple times? K.8. Additional capabilities you would like to see incorporated in FACTS?

Closing Questions C.1. Have we missed anything? Is there anything that we should have talked about but did not?

NCSC New Jersey Court Improvement Program Reassessment 2005 STATEWIDE SURVEY Items

Page 1 of 9

Appendix B – Data Collection Instruments – Statewide Survey

The Administrative Office of the New Jersey Courts has contracted with the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), a non-profit court services organization, to perform the reassessment of the Court Improvement Program. The New Jersey Court Improvement Program (CIP) is funded by the Children’s Bureau, a division of the U.S Department of Health and Human Services. As a condition of this federal funding, the CIP must go through periodic review and assessment. The initial 1997 New Jersey CIP assessment was conducted by the Association for Children of New Jersey. The 2005 reassessment is focused on overall measures of children in court (CIC) performance. NCSC has developed several methods to collect information regarding the CIP Program and to assess the quality and timeliness of children in court case processing. One way that NCSC is assessing the CIP Program is through this statewide survey of children in court professionals. Individual survey responses and comments will be kept confidential and anonymous. Thank you in advance for participating in this survey. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Dr. Fred Cheesman at the National Center for State Courts. [email protected] Survey Participant Contact Information: Required Field This information will be used by the personnel from the National Center for State Courts only if they need to contact you regarding questions they may have about your responses or problems in survey transmission. Name: __________________________________________________________________ Email address: __________________________________________________________________ Phone number: __________________________________________________________________ Q.1. Please identify yourself:

oJudge o CIC staff o CPRB volunteer

o DYFS worker o DYFS supervisor o CASA staff o CASA volunteer o DAG

o Law Guardian o Public Defender (OPR Staff) o Public Defender (pool attorney) o Legal Services of NJ

Q.2. How long have you been at this job (or performed this role in CIC cases)? Year(s): ______ Q.3. Please specify the county in which you work. If you are involved in the family court and CIC cases in more than one county, please answer these questions about the county with which you are most familiar and mark only that county below. o Atlantic o Bergen o Burlington o Camden o Cape May o Cumberland o Essex

o Gloucester o Hudson o Hunterdon o Mercer o Middlesex o Monmouth o Morris

o Ocean o Passaic o Salem o Somerset o Sussex o Union o Warren


Page 2 of 9


Training and Standards Q.4. Did you receive training prior to taking on your current CIC role? [yes/no/don’t know/not applicable] Q.5. Reflecting on your current CIC role, how well did this initial training prepare you for your work?]

[Not at all .. a little .. somewhat more than a little … very well] Q.6. While serving in your current role, have you attended any continuing education relevant to your role as

participant in the CIC system? [yes/no/don’t know/not applicable] Q.7. Are you aware of any written statewide standards related to your role function in CIC case processing?

[yes/no/don’t know/not applicable] Caseload Q.8. On average, how many CIC cases do you carry on your caseload? [specify]: _____ Q.9. What percentage of your overall caseload is accounted for by CIC cases? [specify]: _____% Certain questions below ask that you respond by indicating a response on a scale corresponding with your estimate of how frequently events occur. Mark the answer that best represents your experience in the family court system with CIC cases. Roughly speaking, “rarely” means in less than 5% of the hearings or events in question, “occasionally” means more than 5% but less than 35% (or about 1/3 of the time); “often” means more than 35% but less than 75% (3/4 of the time); and “usually” means over 75% of the time.

Key concepts: Safety – to ensure that children are safe from abuse while under court jurisdiction Permanency – to ensure children have permanency and stability in their living situations Due process – to ensure cases are decided impartially and thoroughly, based on evidence brought before the court Timeliness – to expedite permanency by minimizing the time from the filing of the petition or shelter care order to the achievement of permanency Source: ABA Center on Children and the Law, National Center for State Courts, and National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Permanency Planning Department (Spring 2004). Building a Better Court: Measuring and Improving Court Performance and Judicial Workload in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases. (page 8) http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Res_CtPerS_TCPS_PackGde4-04Pub.pdf


Page 3 of 9


Calendaring Practice Q.14. Please describe your calendaring system. In your jurisdiction are cases

a. block set (e.g., a.m calendar and p.m. calendar)? [ yes/no/don’t know/not applicable] b. time certain [yes./no/don’t know/not applicable] c. other system [please specify: _________________

Q.15. Do you think the court’s calendaring practice affects …

Rarely Occa- sionally

Often Usually Don’t Know

Not Applicable

Q.10. To what extent does your caseload impact your ability to meet safety standards?

Q.11. To what extent does your caseload impact your ability to meet permanency standards?

Q.12. To what extent does your caseload impact your ability to meet due process standards?

Q.13. To what extent does your caseload impact your ability to meet timeliness standards?

Rarely Occa-sionally


Not Applicable

Q.15.a Quality of each hearing Q.15.b Safety standards Q.15.c Permanency standards Q.15.d Due process standards Q.15.e Timeliness standards


Page 4 of 9


Interruptions and Adjournments Key concepts: Interruption – delay in the day’s court proceedings Adjournment – case on daily court calendar never started and rescheduled for another day Key party– DYFS worker, DAG, LG, PD, pool attorney, parent, CASA volunteer

Q.16. Is court interruption an issue in your jurisdiction? [yes./no/don’t know/not applicable] Q.17. If yes to Q.16, what are most typical sources of court delay in your jurisdiction? [rank responses] q Key party absence q Key party tardiness q Key party lack of preparation q Witness absence q Witness tardiness q Court Scheduling back up q Lack of service (initial notice) on key parties q No notice or untimely notice to key parties q Reports not available / not delivered timely / not complete q Other _________________________________________ Q.18. Are court adjournments an issue in your jurisdiction? [yes./no/don’t know/not applicable] Q.19. If yes to Q.18, what are the most typical sources of adjournments? [rank responses] q Key party absence q Key party tardiness q Key party lack of preparation q Witness absence q Witness tardiness q Court Scheduling back up q Lack of service (initial notice) on key parties q No notice or untimely notice to key parties q Reports not available / not delivered timely / not complete q Other _________________________________________


Page 5 of 9


Hearing Activities Think about only the FN cases in which you are involved for questions 20-34. If you

are not involved in FN cases, indicate “not applicable”. Rarely Occa-

sionally Often Usually Don’t

Know Not

Applicable Q.20. Is the time available for hearings

sufficient to permit presentation of evidence and arguments?

Q.21. How frequently do you leave each hearing with a scheduled next hearing date?

Q.22. How frequently do you leave each hearing with the court order emanating from that hearing?

Q.23. How frequently do parties and counsel present witnesses, introduce evidence, and offer arguments?

Q.24. Is the time available for hearings sufficient to permit presentation of evidence and arguments?

Q.25. Are participants in court proceedings treated with courtesy, respect, and understanding?

Q.26. DYFS reports are discussed and considered.

Q.2.7 Psychological reports are discussed and considered.

Q.28. Psychiatric reports are discussed and considered.

Q.29. Child Placement Review Board reports are discussed and considered.

Q.30. CASA reports are discussed and considered.

Q.31. The court inquires about the safety of the children in the current case.

Q.32. The court inquires about the timeliness of current case’s events.

Q.33. The court inquires about the permanency goals of child or children in the current case.

Q.34. The court inquires about notice to parties and appointment of counsel.


Page 6 of 9


Think about the only the FG cases in which you are involved for questions 35-49. If you are not involved in FG cases, indicate “not applicable”.



Not Applicable








Q.42. Psychological reports are discussed and considered.


Q.44. Child Protection Review Board reports are discussed and considered.







Page 7 of 9


Think about the only the FL cases (DYFS initiated or DYFS involved) in which you are involved for

questions 50-64. If you are not involved in FL cases, indicate “not applicable”.



Not Applicable








Q.57. Psychological reports are discussed and considered.


Q.59. Child Protection Review Board reports are discussed and considered.







Page 8 of 9


Representation Consider the range of all CIC cases (FN, FG, and FL case types) and please respond to the following questions about representation.

Case Tracking Information Questions 71 and 72 for CIC judges and CIC team members only

Q.72. Do you receive information about the following court performance measures from your automated

system? • The number or proportion of children who are subject to additional allegations of abuse or

neglect while under court jurisdiction [yes/no] • Reunification rates of children before the court [yes/no] • Adoption disruption rates [yes/no]



Not Applicable

Q.65. Children have a Law Guardian for all proceedings.

Q.66. How often do assigned Law Guardians change between initial assignment and end of the case?

Q.67. Law Guardian representation is adequate.

Q.68. Parents have legal counsel for all proceedings.

Q.69. How often do assigned parent’s counsel change between initial assignment and end of the case?

Q.70. Parental representation is adequate.



Not Applicable

Q.71. Case tracking information is available and sufficient to meet your needs.


Page 9 of 9


ASFA

Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) Q.74. Have you ever encountered an ICWA case? [yes/ no/ don’t’ know]

Thank you for participating in this survey.



Not Applicable

Q.73. My jurisdiction meets ASFA and other statutory time frames.

NCSC NJ CIP Reassessment Project 2005 Case File Review Form

Project Case ID# ________________ Page 1 of 13

Adapted from Case File Review Instrument, Packard Dependency Court Performance Project Toolkit ©2004 ABA, NCJFCJ, NCSC Appendix B – Data Collection Instruments – Case File Review

Section I: Case Identifying Information Source(s) 1.1 Coder 1.2 Date Coded ___/___/___

1.3 Minor Identifier FACTS List

1.4 Docket # FC -

1.5 Notice placement ___/___/___

1.6 Docket # FN -

1.7 Petition Date ___/___/___

1.8 Docket # FG -


1.10 Docket # FL -


Section II: Data on Child

Source(s)

2.1 Date of Birth ___/___/___ o Not found in file

2.2 Gender o

o

o

Male Female Unclear in file

2.3 Race o White 2.4 Ethnicity (Hispanic)

o Black o No

o Amer. Indian o Yes

o Asian o Not found in file

o Pac. Islander

o Other

o Not found in file




Section III: Placements

Event

[a] Date

[b] Persons

Attending (check all that

apply)

[c] Judicial ASFA/ICWA

Findings Made

[d] Judicial Officer

Source(s)

3.1 Initial Court Ordered Removal From Home NOTE: This event may occur at any stage of the case and also tracked in Section IV (Court Events). If removal occurs at initial hearing, check box in column b, and skip to § 4.1. If removal at other stage, enter all data requested here.

o check and enter date below if initial court ordered removal occurs at initial hearing (enter additional data in § 4.1)

___/___/___

o check and enter date if initial court ordered removal at date other than initial hearing.

___/___/___

o check if child returned home and date:

___/___/___

o Mother o Father o Child o Other

Attorney for: o Mother o Father o Child (LG) o Other

Others Present: o DYFS o DAG o Foster Parent/ Caretaker o Other o Attendees not

found in file

[1] Contrary to the Welfare Finding

o No o Yes o Not found

[2] RE to Prevent

Removal Finding o No o Yes o Not found

o RE NOT Required o Egregious parental

conduct o Child not removed

from home __________________ o ICWA Inquiry o No o Yes If yes, ICWA applies o No o Yes

o Judge o Other o Not found in file

3.2 Subsequent Removals and Returns Home During Life of Case (add additional removals on Comments page)

Removal Date Return Date Source(s) ___/___/___ ___/___/___ *Jacket

*Social File ___/___/___ ___/___/___

___/___/___ ___/___/___




Section IV: Court Events

Event [a]

Date [b]

Persons Attending (check all that apply)

[c] Judicial ASFA / ICWA

Findings

[d] Permanency Goals

[e] Judicial Officer

Source(s)

4.1 Initial Hearing / Order to Show Cause

___/___/___


Attorney for: o Mother o Father o Child (LG) o Other Others Present: o DYFS o DAG o Foster Parent/ Caretaker o Other

o Attendees not

found in file



[2] RE to Prevent Removal

Finding o No o Yes o Not found



from home __________________ o ICWA Inquiry o No o Yes If yes, ICWA applies o No

o Yes





Section IV: Court Events (continued)

Event

[a] Date

[b] Persons Attending

(check all that apply)


Findings



Source(s)

4.2 Return Order to Show Cause

___/___/___



Others Present: o DYFS o DAG o Foster Parent/ Caretaker o Other

o Attendees not

found in file








o Yes






Event

[a] Date




Findings



Source(s)

4.3 Case Manage- ment Conference

___/___/___




o Attendees not

found in file








o Yes






Event

[a] Date




Findings



Source(s)

4.4 Fact- Finding Evidentiary Hearing

1st scheduled date to begin ___/___/___ trial begins ___/___/___




o Attendees not found in file






Event

[a] Date




Findings



Source(s)

4.5 ComplianceReview Hearing NOTE: Record any additional hearings on extra form

___/___/___




o Attendees not found in file








o Yes

Permanency Goals Identified (check all that apply) o Reunification o TPR/Guardianship o Adoption o Kinship Legal

Guardianship o Independent Living o Other o Not found in file






Event

[a] Date




Findings



Source(s)

4.6

Disposition Hearing NOTE: Record any additional hearings on extra form

1st scheduled date to begin ___/___/___ hearing begins ___/___/___



Others Present: o DYFS o DAG o Foster Parent/ Caretaker o Other o Attendees not found in file







from home __________________ o ICWA Inquiry o No o Yes If yes, ICWA applies o No o Yes



o Judge o Not found in file





Event

[a] Date




Findings



Source(s)

4.7 Permanen-cy Hearing NOTE: Record additional hearings on extra form

1st scheduled date to begin ___/___/__ hearing held ___/___/___

o Father o Child o Other










o Yes








Event

[a] Date




Findings



Source(s)

4.8 Summary Hearing NOTE: Record additional hearings on extra form

1st scheduled date to begin ___/___/__ hearing held ___/___/___

o Father o Child o Other







Section V: CPRB Review Events

CPRB Event Date

ASFA Findings Permanency Goals

o 45-Day (Initial) Review o Special Review o Six Month Review o Status Review o 11th Month Permanency Review

o Permanency Review (generally post litigation)

___/___/___







from home

Permanency Goals Identified (check all that apply) o Reunification o TPR/Guardianship o Adoption o Kinship Legal Guardianship o Independent Living o Other o Not found in file

o 45-Day (Initial) Review o Special Review o Six Month Review o Status Review o 11th Month Permanency Review

o Permanency Review (generally post litigation)

___/___/___

[1] Contrary to the Welfare Finding o No o Yes o Not found





from home

Permanency Goals Identified (check all that apply) o Reunification o TPR/Guardianship o Adoption o Kinship Legal Guardianship o Independent Living o Other o Not found in file




Section VI: Appointment of Counsel FC FN FG FL

o Mother ___/___/___ o Father ___/___/___ o Child ___/___/___




Section VII: Notice FC FN FG FL

o Mother ___/___/___ o Father ___/___/___ o Not Applicable ___/___/___




Section VII: Post Disposition Events and Case Outcome

Indicate Outcomes of This Case Event Date Source(s)

o Child ordered returned to parents ___/___/___ o Adoption Finalized ___/___/___ o Termination Finalized ___/___/___ o Custody Finalized ___/___/___ o Kinship Legal Guardianship ___/___/___ o Child Reached Age of Majority ___/___/___ o Dismissed: Conditions Ameliorated ___/___/___ o Dismissed: DAG Unable to Prove

Case ___/___/___

o Other ______________________ ___/___/___ o Unable to Determine




Reviewer Comments

NCSC NJ CIP Reassessment Project 2005 CPR Board Meeting Observation Form

Observation ID# ________________Page 1 of 4

Instrument adapted from Court Observation Forms, Packard Dependency Court Performance Project Toolkit ©2004 ABA, NCJFCJ, NCSC Appendix B – Court Collection Instruments – CPR Board Observation

Section 1 – BASIC CASE INFORMATION

1.1 Jurisdiction: _________________________ 1.2 Coders: ______________________________

1.3 Board # : ______________ 1.4 Date of Meeting: ____/____/____

1.5 Docket #: _________________________

1.6 Scheduled Start Time______ am/pm

1.7 Actual Start Time ______ am/pm 1.8 End Time ______ am/pm [Note: If delay(s) of hearing, record all start and stop times]

Section 2 - TYPE OF MEETING/HEARING [STAGE OF CASE]

2.1 Identify the type of hearing(s) (more than 1 hearing type may apply):

1. o 45-Day (Initial) Hearing 2. o Special Hearing 3. o Six Month Review 4. o Status (Compliance Review) Hearing 5. o Court Permanency Hearing 6. o Other: __________________________

2.2 Is there more than one child involved in this case? 1. o Yes

5. o No (skip to Section 3) 3. o Unclear (skip to Section 3)

2.3 If yes, how many? ____________

Section 3 – PERSONS PRESENT

3.1 Indicate all persons attending hearing (If more than 1 of any type is in attendance, indicate how many):

1. o CPR Board Members #____ of # _____ (full membership) 2. o CIC Coordinator 3. o CIC Staff (Administrative Specialist or other) 4. o Biological parent 5. o Resource parent (foster parent) 6. o Other Relative 7. o DYFS Worker 8. o Other: __________________________



Appendix B – Data Collection Instruments – CPR Board Observation

Section 4 - ENGAGEMENT OF PARTIES and CONDUCT OF MEETING 4.1 Did the Board explain to the child(en), parent(s), other caretaker(s), and relative(s)

the reason for today’s meeting? 1. o Yes 5. o No 3. o Unclear 4. o These persons were not present

4.2 Did the Board make an effort to ensure that the child(ren), parent(s), other caretaker(s), and relative(s) understood

the proceedings? 1.o Yes 5.o No 3. o These persons were not present 4.3 Did the Board provide the child(ren), parent(s), other caretaker(s), and relative(s) with an opportunity to speak or ask

questions? 1.o Yes 5.o No 3. o These persons were not present 4.4 Was there discussion with the parent(s), other caretaker(s), and relative(s) about the importance of achieving

reunification within deadlines established by law? 1.o Yes 5.o No 3. o These persons were not present 4.5 What type of information was presented in the meeting? (check all that apply) 1. o Sworn testimony of a case worker and/or other witness(es) 2. o Affidavit or written report of a case worker or other professional 3. o Verbal statements of a case worker or other professional 4. o Verbal statements of child, parent, resource parent, relative, etc. 5. o Verbal statements of DAG or other attorney(s) 6. o CPR Board report 7. o Other: _______________________________ 8. o Unable to determine




Section 5 – WHAT DID THE BOARD DISCUSS 5.1 Did the Board review and discuss the child(ren)’s placement?

1. o Yes 5. o No 3. o Unclear 5.2 Was there discussion of services to children ?

1. o Yes 5. o No 3. o Unclear If yes, specify services: ______________________________________________________________ 5.3 Was there discussion of the child(ren)’s permanency goal(s)?

1. o Yes 5. o No 3. o Unclear 5.4 If the child(ren) are in out-of-home care, was there discussion about parent-child visitation? 1. o Yes 5. o No 3. o Unclear . 5.5 If the sibling child(ren) are in different homes, was there discussion about sibling visitation? 1. o Yes 5. o No 3. o Unclear . 5.6 Was there discussion of services to parents?

1. o Yes 5. o No 3. o Unclear If yes, specify services: ______________________________________________________________ 5.7 Was there discussion of parents’ compliance with case plan?

1. o Yes 5. o No 3. o Unclear 5.8 Was there discussion of DYFS compliance with case plan?

1. o Yes 5. o No 3. o Unclear 5.9 Did the Board review and discuss ICWA compliance?

1. o Yes 5. o No 3. o Unclear 5.10 Other issues? If yes, specify: ______________________________________________________________




Section 6 - REASONABLE EFFORTS FINDINGS 6.1 Did the Board make a verbal finding regarding “reasonable efforts”? 1. o Yes 5. o No (skip to Section 10) 3. o Unclear (skip to Section 10) 6.2 If you answered “yes,” what was the finding regarding “reasonable efforts”?

1. o Reasonable Efforts were made to prevent removal from or reunify the family

4. o Court finds No Reasonable Efforts were necessary

2. o Reasonable Efforts were made to finalize the permanency goal and/or plan

5. o Reasonable Efforts NOT FOUND (Court specifically finds that reasonable efforts not made)

3. o Reasonable Efforts found but type not specified 6. o Unclear 6.3 Were reasons given for the “reasonable efforts” finding? 1. o Yes 2. o No 3. o Unclear Section 7 – BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 What did the Board Recommend?

1. o Obtain additional information from DYFS 2. o Request appointment of CASA volunteer 3. o Other: ____________________________________________________________________________

Observer Comments:

APPENDIX C

Legal Analysis Flow Charts

Appendix C – Legal Analysis Flow Charts – Child Abuse and Neglect

ABUSE AND NEGLECT ACTIONS

Child's health is of paramount concern 42 U.S.C. 671(a)(15)(A)

Adjustment Adjustments Fail

Within 2 days of Removal N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.30

Hearing within 2 days of removal N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.30

Hearing 3 days After Complaint N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.35

Complaint is filed N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.33

Report of Abuse and Neglect

Make Adjustments N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.35 Not to exceed 30 days-Court may extend for additional 30 days-Reasonable efforts to maintain family42 U.S.C. 671(a)(15)(B)

Service-w/in 2 court days of filing-at least 24 hrs prior to hearingN.J.S.A. 9:6-8.38

No complaint

filed

Fact Finding Hearing N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.44

Copy to Prosecutor

Appoint Law GuardianN.J.S.A. 9:6-8.23

Emergency Removal N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.29

No imminent physical harmNo actual harm

Imminent physical harmActual physical harm

Preliminary HearingN.J.S.A. 9:6-8.31

Medical Exam N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.30

Removal continues

Medical treatment ordered

Child returned to guardians

ProtectionOrder

Appoint Law GuardianN.J.S.A. 9:6-8.23


Fact Finding Hearing N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.44

Unsubstantiated Substantiated Adjourned

DismissedN.J.S.A. 9:6-8.50

ExpungedN.J.S.A. 9:6-8.40a

Dispositional HearingN.J.S.A. 9:6-8.45,47,51

-As short as possible-Not to exceed 30 daysN.J.S.A. 9:6-8.48

1 Year Suspended Judgment9:6-8.52

Custody to guardian - conditions < 1yr9:6-8.53

Protection order9:6-8.55

Probation9:6-8.56

TherapyServices9:6-8.58

Placement of Child9:6-8.54

Kinship Guardianship30:4C-87


PLACEMENT OF A CHILD

Court determines placement is appropriate 9:6-8.54-placement < 12 months-placement reviewed at end of term and may be extended

Voluntary Agreement Placement Court Ordered Placement Repeated Placement

DYFS must file petition with court < 5 days after placementCourt must determine from petition and affidavits whether reasonable efforts were made w/in 15 days of notice ORRequest additional information or schedule a summary hearingIf hearing, written notice to parties < 5 days prior to hearingPlacement plan preparedN.J.S.A. 30:4C-54

Not an initial placementPrepare and file revised placement plan < 30 days after placementValid for 12 monthsA permanency plan if reasonable efforts exception OR the child has been in any placements for a total of 12 months during a 22 consecutive month period.N.J.S.A. 30:4C-53.3U.S.C.A. 671(a)(15)

Permanency Hearing< 30 days after determination of an exception to the reasonable effort requirement< 12 months after placementWritten notice < 15 days priorIf permanency plan approved, court makes specific findings of reasonable effortsN.J.S.A. 30:4C-61.2 N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.54 42 U.S.C. 671(a)(15)(E)42 U.S.C. 675(5)(c)

Termination of parental rights

Child placed for adoption

When child will return home

Legal guardianship

Visitation by parents

Transition to independent living

Other placement


DYFS determines TPR is in best interest of child N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15 42 U.S.C. 671(a)(15)(A)Reasonable efforts to maintain family structure were unsuccessful N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1 42 U.S.C. 671(a)(15)(B)Reasonable efforts requirement exception invoked N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.3 42 U.S.C. 671(a)(15)(D)Child in placement 15 of last 22 months N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15 42 U.S.C. 675(E)

GAL appointed

Petition filed N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1

If child voluntarily delivered to appropriate agency and < 30 days old, petition must be file w/in 21 days of date DYFS assumed custodyNJ.S.A. 30:4C-15.1Final guardianship hearing

- < 3 months from petition dateN.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.2

PLACEMENT REVIEW


PLACEMENT REVIEWProposal to return child home No proposal to return child to home

Review Board- Reviews every child placed outside the home- Initiate review w/in 45 days of initial or repeated placement- Written notice to parties > 15 days prior to review- Complete review w/in 15 days of initiation- Submit report to the court and parties w/in 10 days of completing review- Periodic review every 12 months (42U.S.C. 675(5) requires review every 6 months)N.J.S.A. 30:4C-58, 58.1, 5942 U.S.C. 675(5)(c)

Court- Reviews Board's report and issues order w/in 21 calendar days; OR- Schedule a summary hearing - If hearing, must be held w/in 60 days of receipt of Board's report - If hearing, 30 days advance notice unless immediate hearing required - Issue order w/in 15 days of hearingN.J.S.A. 30:4C-60, 61

If DYFS proposes to return child to the home and it is not in plan or approved by court: -Notify Board and court in writing -Board conducts special review w/in 15 days of notice -No 15 day notice -Submit report to the court w/in 5 days of completing the reviewCourt shall review w/in 10 days and issue order w/in 5 days OR - Conduct summary hearing w/in 15 days of receipt of report- Issue order w/in 5 days of hearingEmergency Situation-Court can waive special review process on DYFS request-If request granted -Board reviews change of placement w/in 15 days of child's return -DYFS conducts 2 site visits w/in 10 days of return-Court retains jurisdiction for 6 monthsN.J.S.A. 30:4C-61.1


Re-Review by BoardIf placement plan is not being implemented, Board may petition court for Show Cause OrderN.J.S.A. 30:4C-61.1

Proposal to change placement plan by DYFS:-Notify Board and court in writing w/in 15 days-Continue old plan until court orders new or modified planN.J.S.A. 30:4C-61.1

Permanency Hearing< 30 days after determination of an exception to the reasonable effort requirement< 12 months after placementWritten notice < 15 days priorIf permanency plan approved, court makes specific findings of reasonable effortsN.J.S.A. 30:4C-61.2 N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.54 42 U.S.C. 671(a)(15)(E)42 U.S.C. 675(5)(c)

Terminationof parental rights

Child placed for adoption

When child will return home

Legal guardianship

Visitation by parents

Transition to independent living

Other placement

PLACEMENT REVIEW

Appendix C – Legal Analysis Flow Charts – Termination of Parental Rights


Child was Abandon

Parent convicted of Abuse,

abandonment, neglect, cruelty

Parent Convicted of Crime Against Sibling

Reasonable Efforts Unsuccessful After

One Year

Best Interest of Child


PetitionN.J.S.A. 30:4C-15

If child voluntarily delivered to appropriate agency and < 30 days old, petition must be file w/in 21 days of date DYFS assumed custodyNJ.S.A. 30:4C-15.1

Final guardianship hearing < 3 months from petition dateN.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.2

PLACEMENT REVIEW

Petition for TPR shall be filed as soon as any of the events are established, but no later than when the child has been in placement for 15 of the most recent 22 months.N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15

Appendix C – Legal Analysis Flow Charts – Adoption

ADOPTIONN.J.S.A. 9:3-37 et seq

Child placed for adoption: - by parent or guardian - by approved agency - by approved intermediary - with relativeN.J.S.A. 9:3-39.1

Surrender of child: - signed instrument - terminates parental rights - surrender to approved agencyN.J.S.A. 9:3-40

Complaint filed< 45 days if not from approved agencyChild becomes ward of courtAppoint agency to investigateEvaluate child and prospective parentN.J.S.A. 9:3-44

Notice of complaintObjections - < 20 days for residents - < 35 days to nonresidentsN.J.S.A. 9:3-45

Adoption hearing10 > 30 days from complaintReport from agency > 5 days prior to hearingHeld in cameraN.J.S.A. 9:3-47

Complaint filed< 6 months if from approved agency (cannot be finalized until in adoptive home for 6 months)N.J.S.A. 9:3-47

Preliminary Hearing2 < 3 months from complaintInvestigative report >10 days prior to hearingHeld in cameraN.J.S.A. 9:3-48

Final Hearing

Adoption Finalized N.J.S.A. 9:3-47

Adoption deniedN.J.S.A. 9:3-47

Appendix C – Legal Analysis Flow Charts – Adoption

Final HearingInvestigative report based on home visits filed > 15 days prior to hearingHeld in cameraN.J.S.A. 9:3-48

Adoption FinalizedN.J.S.A. 9:3-48

Adoption deniedN.J.S.A. 9:3-48

APPENDIX D

FC and FN Timeline Compliance

Appendix D – FC and FN Timeline Compliance – FC Compliance

Percentage of Atlantic County Active Pending FC Cases Not in Compliance, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f Act

ive

Pen

din

g F

C C

ases

No

t In

Co

mp

lian

ce


Percentage of Bergen County Active Pending FC Cases Not in Compliance, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

20.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f Act

ive

Pen

din

g F

C C

ases

No

t In

Co

mp

lian

ce


Percentage of Burlington County Active Pending FC Cases Not in Compliance, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f A

ctiv

e P

end

ing

FC

Cas

es N

ot

In C

om

plia

nce


Percentage of Camden County Active Pending FC Cases Not in Compliance, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

20.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f A

ctiv

e P

end

ing

FC

Cas

es N

ot

In C

om

plia

nce


Percentage of Cape May County Active Pending FC Cases Not in Compliance, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f A

ctiv

e P

end

ing

FC

Cas

es N

ot

In C

om

plia

nce


Percentage of Cumberland County Active Pending FC Cases Not in Compliance, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f A

ctiv

e P

end

ing

FC

Cas

es N

ot

In C

om

plia

nce


Percentage of Essex County Active Pending FC Cases Not in Compliance, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f A

ctiv

e P

end

ing

FC

Cas

es N

ot

In C

om

plia

nce


Percentage of Gloucester County Active Pending FC Cases Not in Compliance, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f A

ctiv

e P

end

ing

FC

Cas

es N

ot

In C

om

plia

nce


Percentage of Hudson County Active Pending FC Cases Not in Compliance, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f A

ctiv

e P

end

ing

FC

Cas

es N

ot

In C

om

plia

nce


Percentage of Hunterdon County Active Pending FC Cases Not in Compliance, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f A

ctiv

e P

end

ing

FC

Cas

es N

ot

In C

om

plia

nce


Percentage of Mercer County Active Pending FC Cases Not in Compliance, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f A

ctiv

e P

end

ing

FC

Cas

es N

ot

In C

om

plia

nce


Percentage of Middlesex County Active Pending FC Cases Not in Compliance, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f A

ctiv

e P

end

ing

FC

Cas

es N

ot

In C

om

plia

nce


Percentage of Monmouth County Active Pending FC Cases Not in Compliance, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f A

ctiv

e P

end

ing

FC

Cas

es N

ot

In C

om

plia

nce


Percentage of Morris County Active Pending FC Cases Not in Compliance, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f A

ctiv

e P

end

ing

FC

Cas

es N

ot

In C

om

plia

nce


Percentage of Ocean County Active Pending FC Cases Not in Compliance, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f A

ctiv

e P

end

ing

FC

Cas

es N

ot

In C

om

plia

nce


Percentage of Passaic County Active Pending FC Cases Not in Compliance, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f A

ctiv

e P

end

ing

FC

Cas

es N

ot

In C

om

plia

nce


Percentage of Salem County Active Pending FC Cases Not in Compliance, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f A

ctiv

e P

end

ing

FC

Cas

es N

ot

In C

om

plia

nce


Percentage of Sommerset County Active Pending FC Cases Not in Compliance, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f A

ctiv

e P

end

ing

FC

Cas

es N

ot

In C

om

plia

nce


Percentage of Sussex County Active Pending FC Cases Not in Compliance, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f A

ctiv

e P

end

ing

FC

Cas

es N

ot

In C

om

plia

nce


Percentage of Union County Active Pending FC Cases Not in Compliance, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f A

ctiv

e P

end

ing

FC

Cas

es N

ot

In C

om

plia

nce


Percentage of Warren County Active Pending FC Cases Not in Compliance, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f A

ctiv

e P

end

ing

FC

Cas

es N

ot

In C

om

plia

nce

Appendix D – FC and FN Timeline Compliance – FN Compliance

Percentage of Atlantic County Active FN Cases Not in Compliance with Fact-Finding Goal, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f F

N C

ases

Fac

t F

ind

ing

No

t C

om

ple

ted

, Ove

r G

oal


Percentage of Bergen County Active FN Cases Not in Compliance with Fact-Finding Goal, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f F

N C

ases

Fac

t F

ind

ing

No

t C

om

ple

ted

, Ove

r G

oal


Percentage of Burlington County Active FN Cases Not in Compliance with Fact-Finding Goal, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f F

N C

ases

Fac

t F

ind

ing

No

t C

om

ple

ted

, Ove

r G

oal


Percentage of Camden County Active FN Cases Not in Compliance with Fact-Finding Goal, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f F

N C

ases

Fac

t F

ind

ing

No

t C

om

ple

ted

, Ove

r G

oal


Percentage of Cape May County Active FN Cases Not in Compliance with Fact-Finding Goal, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f F

N C

ases

Fac

t F

ind

ing

No

t C

om

ple

ted

, Ove

r G

oal


Percentage of Cumberland County Active FN Cases Not in Compliance with Fact-Finding Goal, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f F

N C

ases

Fac

t F

ind

ing

No

t C

om

ple

ted

, Ove

r G

oal


Percentage of Essex County Active FN Cases Not in Compliance with Fact-Finding Goal, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f F

N C

ases

Fac

t F

ind

ing

No

t C

om

ple

ted

, Ove

r G

oal


Percentage of Gloucester County Active FN Cases Not in Compliance with Fact-Finding Goal, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f F

N C

ases

Fac

t F

ind

ing

No

t C

om

ple

ted

, Ove

r G

oal


Percentage of Hudson County Active FN Cases Not in Compliance with Fact-Finding Goal, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f F

N C

ases

Fac

t F

ind

ing

No

t C

om

ple

ted

, Ove

r G

oal


Percentage of Hunterdon County Active FN Cases Not in Compliance with Fact-Finding Goal, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f F

N C

ases

Fac

t F

ind

ing

No

t C

om

ple

ted

, Ove

r G

oal


Percentage of Mercer County Active FN Cases Not in Compliance with Fact-Finding Goal, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f F

N C

ases

Fac

t F

ind

ing

No

t C

om

ple

ted

, Ove

r G

oal


Percentage of Middlesex County Active FN Cases Not in Compliance with Fact-Finding Goal, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f F

N C

ases

Fac

t F

ind

ing

No

t C

om

ple

ted

, Ove

r G

oal


Percentage of Monmouth County Active FN Cases Not in Compliance with Fact-Finding Goal, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f F

N C

ases

Fac

t F

ind

ing

No

t C

om

ple

ted

, Ove

r G

oal


Percentage of Morris County Active FN Cases Not in Compliance with Fact-Finding Goal, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f F

N C

ases

Fac

t F

ind

ing

No

t C

om

ple

ted

, Ove

r G

oal


Percentage of Ocean County Active FN Cases Not in Compliance with Fact-Finding Goal, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f F

N C

ases

Fac

t F

ind

ing

No

t C

om

ple

ted

, Ove

r G

oal


Percentage of Ocean County Active FN Cases Not in Compliance with Fact-Finding Goal, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f F

N C

ases

Fac

t F

ind

ing

No

t C

om

ple

ted

, Ove

r G

oal


Percentage of Salem County Active FN Cases Not in Compliance with Fact-Finding Goal, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f F

N C

ases

Fac

t F

ind

ing

No

t C

om

ple

ted

, Ove

r G

oal


Percentage of Somerset County Active FN Cases Not in Compliance with Fact-Finding Goal, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f F

N C

ases

Fac

t F

ind

ing

No

t C

om

ple

ted

, Ove

r G

oal


Percentage of Sussex County Active FN Cases Not in Compliance with Fact-Finding Goal, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f F

N C

ases

Fac

t F

ind

ing

No

t C

om

ple

ted

, Ove

r G

oal


Percentage of Union County Active FN Cases Not in Compliance with Fact-Finding Goal, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f F

N C

ases

Fac

t F

ind

ing

No

t C

om

ple

ted

, Ove

r G

oal


Percentage of Warren County Active FN Cases Not in Compliance with Fact-Finding Goal, January 2002 - February 2005

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Jan0

2Mar0

2May

02Ju

l02Se

p02

Nov02

Jan0

3Mar0

3May

03Ju

l03Se

p03

Nov03

Jan0

4Mar0

4May

04Ju

l04Se

p04

Nov04

Jan0

5

MonthYear

Per

cen

tag

e o

f F

N C

ases

Fac

t F

ind

ing

No

t C

om

ple

ted

, Ove

r G

oal

new jersey court improvement program … of whom was critical to the success of this effort: carl...

Documents