right from the start - judicial decision-making in foster care, 2011

7/31/2019 Right From the Start - Judicial Decision-Making in Foster Care, 2011

1/36

The CCC Preliminary Protective Hearing Benchcard Study Report |

Ntn Cnc f Jvn nd Fmy Ct JdPmnncy Pnnn f Chdn Dptmnt

Right fRom the StaRt:

t CCC Prlnry Prcv hrnBnccrd Sudy Rpr

TesTiNg a Tool For JuDiCial DeCisioN-MakiNg


2/36

2 | The CCC Preliminary Protective Hearing Benchcard Study Report

Te National Council o Juvenile and Family Court Judges, headquartered on the University o Nevada campus in

Reno since 1969, provides cutting-edge training, wide-ranging technical assistance, and research to help the nations

juvenile and amily courts, judges, and sta in their important work. Since its ounding in 1937 by a group o judges

dedicated to improving the eectiveness o the nations juvenile courts, the National Council o Juvenile and Family

Court Judges has pursued a mission to improve courts and system practice and to raise awareness o the core issues

that touch the lives o many o our nations children and amilies.

Tis echnical Report is a publication o the Permanency Planning or Children Department o the National

Council o Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Te National Council o Juvenile and Family Court Judges wishes

to acknowledge that this material is made possible by Cooperative Agreement No. 2009-MU-MU-K001 rom the

Ofce o Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Ofce o Justice Programs, U.S. Department o Justice and a

partnership agreement with Casey Family Programs. Points o view or opinions are those o the authors and do not

necessarily represent the ofcial position or policies o the U.S. Department o Justice, Casey Family Programs, or the

National Council o Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

For more inormation about the NCJFCJ or this report, please contact:

National Council o Juvenile and Family Court Judges

Permanency Planning or Children Department

University o Nevada

P.O. Box 8970

Reno, NV 89507

(775) 327-5300

www.ncjcj.org

[email protected]

2011, Permanency Planning or Children Department

Mari Kay Bickett, J.D.

Executive Director


Nancy B. Miller

Director

Permanency Planning or Children Department



3/36

The CCC Preliminary Protective Hearing Benchcard Study Report | 3

Courts Catalyzing Change Preliminary ProteCtive hearing

BenChCard study: exeCutive summary

Tis report presents ndings rom the Courts Catalyzing Change: Achieving Equity and Fairness in Foster Care

(CCC) Preliminary Protective Hearing (PPH) Benchcard Study. Te CCC initiative, supported by Casey Family

Programs and the Oce o Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, was created and launched through the

National Council o Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) Model Courts project.

In the all o 2009, the Permanency Planning or Children Department (PPCD) o NCJFCJ began a study to

examine the efects associated with judges use o the PPH Benchcard, which had been developed as part o the CCC

agenda. Tree sites agreed to participate in a pilot and assessment o the Benchcard. For the assessment study, data

were collected on more than 500 children in Los Angeles, Caliornia; Omaha, Nebraska; and Portland, Oregon. Data

were gathered rom case le inormation (both court and agency les) and rom courtroom observations. Researchers

collected data at several junctures, rom placement to establishment o jurisdiction and disposition.

o explore Benchcard implementation efects, the study was designed to a llow or several diferent comparisons.

Researchers collected inormation on numerous data points, including demographic details, inormation about theamilies involved, hearing participants, dates o case events, and details on allegations, services, and placement. Data

rom a baseline sample were collected at each o the three sites, and judicial ocers at each site were randomly assigned

to either a Benchcard implementation group or a control group.

Judicial ocers in the Benchcard group were trained on its use, including receipt o a drat echnical Assistance

Bulletin explaining the development o the Benchcard (Right from the Start: A Judicial Tool for Critical Analysis &

Decision-Making at the PPH Hearing). Tey began implementation o the Benchcard in their preliminary protective

hearings. Each randomly assigned judicial ocer heard 10 preliminary protective hearings using the Benchcard, while

the control group o judicial ocers in each o the sites heard 10 preliminary protective hearings without Benchcard

implementation. Te Benchcard was not shared with stakeholders during the research project in order to isolate the

judicial intervention.

Based upon systematic courtroom observation and a standardized count methodology, the data indicate that those

judicial ocers who used the Benchcard discussed more key topics during the preliminary protective hearings than did

the control group. Benchcard implementation appears to be associated with substantially higher quantities and quality

o discussion o key dependency topics identied in both the RESOURCE GUIDELINESand the CCC initiative

when compared to the control group. Benchcard implementation also corresponds to an increased thoroughness o

discussion and judicial inquiry, as demonstrated by the number o topics and how thoroughly they were discussed.

ests indicate that these diferences are statistically signicant. Tese process ndings indicate that Benchcard

implementation is associated with substantial increases in the quantity and quality o discussion in PPH hearings.

Benchcard use also was associated with more amily placementsplacement with a charged parent, with a non-

charged parent, or with a relativeat the initial hearing and even more again at adjudication when comparing the same

judges beore and ater Benchcard implementation. (Reciprocally, Benchcard use was also associated with ewer children

placed in non-relative oster care at the initial hearing and even ewer again at adjudication.) Statistical tests show these

ndings to be signicant. Similarly, the percentage o children who were reunied with the charged parent at the initial

hearing and at the adjudication hearing increased ater Benchcard implementation. Diferences did exist across the three

sites, but the ndings remained signicant when the three sites were accounted or in the statistical analysis.

Te study ound race diferences in ling trends. White mothers (in comparison to Arican American and Hispanic

mothers) tended to enter court with a higher number o allegations. White mothers also had more allegations o

substance abuse, homelessness, and mental health issues (each o these represent statistically signicant diferences).


4/36


Overall, Arican American mothers came into court with ewer allegations and were more likely to have their case

dismissed by the time o the adjudication hearing.

Allegations o substance abuse show a dierent pattern. White amilies in the sample were much more likely

than other amilies to ace allegations o ailure to supervise or parent adequately due to substance abuse (drugs or

alcohol) than were amilies o other racial groups (statistical tests show these dierences to be statistically signifcant).

Dierences among racial groups are also apparent in allegations involving poor parenting due, in major part, to poor

mental health unctioning. As with substance abuse allegations, White amilies were much more likely to be brought

to court with allegations relating to mental health. White amilies were almost three times as likely to ace a mental

health allegation as amilies rom other racial groups (again statistically signifcant).

Looking at placement dierences by race in the baseline sample, children with White mothers were the most likely

to be placed in oster care at the initial hearing, and children with Arican American mothers were the least likely

to be placed in oster care. However, when allegations are taken into account, race does not appear to be related to

placements at all. Statistical tests show that there may be dierences in placement by racial group, but children with

similar case allegations tend to be equally likely to be placed in oster care regardless o race.

While allegation dierences could explain apparent dierences by race in placement trends, by the permanencyhearing these dierences were more substantial. At the permanency hearing, Arican American children were more

likely to be currently placed in oster care than children rom White or Hispanic amilies. Also, Arican American

children were less likely to be currently placed with a parent or with relatives at the permanency hearing than children

rom Hispanic or White amilies.

Tese fndings represent an initial analysis o the study data. Additional analysis o these and many other topics is

orthcoming. Additional reports will be available in the weeks and months to come relating to:

Afurtherinvestigationofplacementsateachcaseevent,withafocusonidentifyinghowplacementtrendsmay

vary across racial groups;

AnanalysisoftheeectofBenchcarduseoncourtprocesses,especiallyintermsofthetimelinessofcaseevents;

Anexplorationofhowservicesareoeredandorderedforchildrenandfamiliesaccordingtocasecharacteristics,

amily needs, cultural appropriateness, and race;

Astatisticalinvestigationintothebaseline(pre-implementation)datatoidentifywhichofthevariables(amongthe

hundreds collected or this study) are the best predictors o case outcomes.


5/36


taBle of Contents

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

II. Courts Catalyzing Change: Achieving Equity and Fairness in Foster Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

III. Te Benchcard Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

IV. Study Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

V. Study Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

VI. Findings: Improved Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

VII. Findings: Child and Family Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

VIII. Findings: Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

IX. Findings: Racial Diferences in the Cases Brought to Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

X. Findings: Racial Disparities in Placements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

XI. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

XII. Reerences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

XIII. Appendix A: Research eams and Advisors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33


6/36


introduCtion

Tis report presents fndings rom the Courts Catalyzing Change: Achieving Equity and Fairness in Foster Care

preliminary Protective Hearing (PPH) Benchcard Study. Te National Council o Juvenile and Family Court Judges

(NCJFCJ) is providing this report to assist courts in building the necessary support or successul implementation o

both the Benchcard and the CCC National Agenda or Reducing Racial Disproportionality and Disparities in the

Dependency Court System as a whole. Te goal o the agenda is to reduce disproportionality and disparate treatment,

ultimately improving outcomes or all children in care. Included in the report are a description o the study, research

inorming the development o the Benchcard, and highlighted fndings with regard to improved court practices and

related outcomes.

the CCC nl age f recg rcl dpply

dpe he depeecy C syem

they key cmpe f he ge e :1. Engage national, state, local, and tribal stakeholders, community partners, and children and amilies

2. ransorm judicial practice rom the bench

3. Participate in policy and law advocacy

4. Examine and employ research, data, and promising practices

5. Impact service array and delivery


7/36

Th CCC Prliiry Prtctiv Hrig Bchcr Stuy Rprt | 7

Courts Catalyzing Change: aChieving equity and airness in oster Care

Te CCC initiative, supported by Casey Family Programs and the Oce o Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, was created and launched through the NCJFCJ Model Courts project. CCC is a multidisciplinary

collaborative eort to develop and implement a national agenda to reduce the disproportionate representation o children

o color and to reduce the disparate treatment they and their amilies can experience in the child welare system. Te

national agenda was developed by a Call to Action Work Group in April 2008. In January 2009, a Preliminary Protective

Hearing Benchcard was developed with input rom the CCC Steering Committee, the NCJFCJs Permanency Planning

or Children Advisory Committee, and the lead judges o the NCJFCJs Model Courts project. Benchcard development

is also aligned with NCJFCJs current eorts to update and enhance the Resource Guidelines: Improving Court Practice

in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases(NCJFCJ, 1995). Intended or use during the hearing, the PPH Benchcard asks judges

to both refect on the decision-making process in order to protect against institutional bias and to consider some key

inquiries, analyses, and decisions relating to removal, placement, and services.

Beore implementing the PPH Benchcard, each study site was required to develop or enhance an existing multi-

system collaborative group to guide local implementation o CCC. Te courts were then required to participate intraining about institutional and structural racism and unconscious bias in order to better understand the history and

complexity o these important issues. Te courts also developed strategic plans or CCC implementation. (See Model

Courts National Agenda Implementation Guide at www.ncjcj.org.)

FRom THe BenCHCaRd

rfc dc-mk Pc Pc i B

ak J:

Whatismyunderstandingofthisfamilysuniquecultureandcircumstances?

Howhasthecourtspastcontactandinvolvementwiththisfamilyinuencedmydecision-makingprocess

andndings?

HowhaveIintegratedtheparents,children,andfamilymembersintothehearingprocessinawaythat

ensurestheyhavehadtheopportunitytobeheard,respected.andvalued?HaveIoeredthefamilyand

childrenthechancetorespondtoeachofthequestionsfromtheirperspective?

FRom THe BenCHCaRd

exp K i, a, dc

Reasonableeortstopreventremoval:Whatactionsdidthesocialserviceagencytaketocreateasafety

plan to allow the child to remain at home or in the home o another relative or amily riend without court

involvement?

WhatispreventingthechildfromreturninghomeTODAY?Whattypeofsafetyplancouldbedeveloped

andimplementedinorderforthechildtoreturnhometoday?

Appropriatenessofplacement:Howdoestheplacementsupportthefamily/childscultureandtheirin-

volvementintheinitialplan?


8/36


the BenChCard study

In the all o 2009, the Permanency Planning or Children Department (PPCD) o NCJFCJ began a study to

examine the eects associated with judges use o the PPH Benchcard. Tree sites that had already begun to engage in

the initial CCC implementation process described above agreed to participate in the study.

Te rst phase o the study included data collection on more than 500 children in Los Angeles, Caliornia; Omaha,

Nebraska; and Portland, Oregon. Data were gathered rom case le inormation (both court and agency les) and

rom courtroom observations. A longitudinal study was designed to ollow these children throughout the course o

their involvement in the juvenile dependency system. Researchers collected data at several junctures, rom placement to

establishment o jurisdiction and disposition, completing the bulk o data entry in March 2010. o explore Benchcard

implementation eects, the study was designed to allow or several dierent comparisons. Researchers collected

inormation on numerous data points, including demographic details (including race), inormation about the amilies

involved, hearing participants, dates o case events, as well as details on allegations, services, and placement. Data rom

a baseline sample were collected at each o the three sites, and judicial ofcers at each site were randomly assigned to

either a Benchcard group or a control group.For data collected by courtroom observation, a standardized court observation instrument was constructed or the

study. Te instrument included items related to the content and level o discussion in the hearing, the length o the

hearing, parties present, and parent engagement. Researchers were trained on the instrument during a 2-day training

session (which also included training on the case le review instrument). During the training, all researchers discussed

the instrument and considered any potential or coding discrepancies. Researchers visited each o the three study sites

during the rst week o Benchcard implementation. In Portland and Omaha, researchers attended every Preliminary

Protective Hearing that was held during a our-day site visit. Due to dierences in caseload volume, in Los Angeles

each researcher was assigned to a block o courtrooms or one day. Researchers then coded the rst three hearings

they observed in pairs. Coding was then compared to check-code and to generate inter-rater reliability scores (which

indicated no signicant or substantive dierences). Aterwards, researchers attended hearings individually or the

remainder o the day.


9/36


Pit Jurisdictin Prfes

ls angees: Te Los Angeles Superior Court, Juvenile Division serves a general population o approximately

10 million across Los Angeles County. Te majority o dependency cases are heard at the Edmund D. Edelman

Childrens Court, the nations rst dependency courthouse designed as a child-sensitive acility. Judge MichaelNash has served as the lead judge o the Los Angeles Model Court since its inception in September 1999, and

he is currently the presiding judge o the Los Angeles Juvenile Court. He has presided over a steady decrease

in the number o children under the Courts jurisdiction as a result o continued best-practice implementation

and successul reorm initiatives. Currently, 21 judicial ofcers serve on the juvenile bench, with approximately

24,700 children under the Courts jurisdiction.

omh: Te Separate Juvenile Court o Douglas County is the largest o three Separate Juvenile Courts in the

state o Nebraska. Under the leadership o Judge Douglas Johnson, Omaha joined the Model Courts project

in December 2002. Five juvenile court judges preside over juvenile dependency and delinquency, as well as

domestic relations cases. Tere are approximately 1,800 children in oster care in Douglas County. Former

Model Court Lead Judge Wadie Tomas, Jr. has taken a leadership role in implementing CCC in Omaha.

Prtnd: In October 1998, with the Honorable Stephen Herrell presiding as the lead judge, the Multnomah

County Juvenile Court joined the Model Court project. Judge Paula Kurshner is presently the lead judge o

the Portland Model Court, and Judge Nan Waller is the chie amily court judge on the Multnomah County

Circuit Court. ogether, they work collaboratively with nine other juvenile court judges and our reerees to

serve the more than 710,000 residents o Multnomah County. Currently, Portland has 2,758 children under the

courts jurisdiction, o whom 1,633 are in out-o-home care. Te Portland Model Court continues to develop

and implement innovative court practices to reduce saely the number o children in care.


10/36


Judicial ocers in the Benchcard group were trained on its use, including receipt o a drat echnical Assistance

Bulletin explaining the development o the Benchcard (Right from the Start: A Judicial Tool for Critical Analysis &

Decision-Making at the PPH Hearing). Tey began implementing the Benchcard in their preliminary protective hearings.1

Each randomly assigned judicial ocer heard 10 preliminary protective hearings using the Benchcard, while the control

group o judicial ocers in each o the sites heard 10 preliminary protective hearings without Benchcard implementation.

Te Benchcard was not shared with stakeholders during the research project in order to isolate the judicial intervention.

Had the Benchcard been shared with others, it would have been dicult to measure whether judges or others were raising

key issues associated with Benchcard use. For more on this issue, see the Study Method on page 10.

reseach Backgound

About 3.3 million reerrals or alleged maltreatment, involving approximately 6 million children, were reported to U.S.

child protection agencies in 2009. Over 2 million children are investigated or child abuse and neglect each year in the

United States, and nearly 600,000 removals (with some children removed more than once) (U.S. Department o Health

& Human Services, 2010). Every year in the United States, about 772,000 children are conrmed as victims o child

maltreatment.2

Within this context, prior research has demonstrated that racial disparities exist within the juvenile dependency system

concerning the reported allegations, specically against Arican Americans (Hill, 2004; U.S. Government Accountability

Oce, 2007). Beore a case reaches court, Arican American children are more likely than other children to be reerred

to protective services (Gryzlak, Wells, & Johnson, 2005; Magruder & Shaw, 2008; Sabol, Coulton, & Polousky, 2004)

andtohaveallegationsofabuseandneglectsubstantiated(Ards,Myers,Malkis,Sugrue,&Zhou,2003;Fluke,Yuan,

Hedderson, & Curtis, 2003). Further, Arican American children are more likely to be removed rom their homes than

children o other racial or ethnic backgrounds (Lu et al., 2004; Magruder & Shaw, 2008; Rivaux et al., 2008).

While children are in the juvenile dependency court system, these disparities continue to occur. Specically, Arican

American children are more likely to be placed in oster care than other children are (Lu et al., 2004; Needell, Brookhart,

& Lee, 2003). Arican -American children also are more likely to stay longer in oster care (Courtney et al, 1996; Denby,

Curtis, & Alord, 1998; Garland et al., 2000; Noonan & Burke, 2005); receive ewer services while in care (Courtney et

al, 1996; Garland et al., 2000; Rivaux et al., 2008); and are less likely to be reunied with their amily than children rom

other racial and ethnic groups (Barth, 1997; Harris & Courtney, 2003).

Based on interpretation o ndings rom the National Incidence Studies (NIS) II and III, child welare advocates and

researchers assumed that childrens representation at each child welare decision point should mirror their proportionate

composition o the child population. Te NIS IV challenged this assumption by concluding that Arican American

children were at greater risk o maltreatment. Due to higher odds o poverty and other related stresses, higher rates

o oster care placements or dierent groups may refect amily and community need. Tus, child welare and other

stakeholders should be concerned about the youth placed who should not have been, as well as youth not served who

should have been served (Barth, 2011; Drake & Jonson-Reid, 2011).

In addition, community characteristics matter. Wulczyn (2011) and his colleagues have ound that there are substantial

ethnic group dierences across multiple states, all o which are part o the Chapin Hall Multistate Data Archive. For

example, at least one-third o Arican American children in the Chapin Hall study actually reunied or adopted more

quickly than their White counterparts. Data need to be analyzed at the county and state level, not at the level o national

aggregation.

1 For this study, the Benchcard implementation intervention included participating in the Benchcard training, receiving the echnica l Assistance Bul-letin, and using the Benchcard in practice. Both the Benchcard group and the control group participated in the CCC racial equity and implicit biastraining, which is a required component o Benchcard implementation.

2 A national estimate o 772,000 child victims in 2008 was calculated by multiplying the victimizat ion rate (10.3) by the national population(74,924,121), dividing by 1,000, and rounding to the nearest 1,000.


11/36

The CCC Preliminary Protect ive Hearing Benchcard Study Report | 1

Pible rean racial dipaitie3

Empirical evidence suggests that racial dierences can exist or at least three reasons:

1. geate nee evice: Children o color may have greater service needs due to higher poverty and other

riskfactors(Drake&Jonson-Reid,2011;Putnam-Hornstein&Needell,2011;Wulczyn,Barth,Yuen,Jones

Harden, & Landsverk, 1995). Families o color as a whole are more likely to come to the attention o the child wel-

are system because they are impacted more prooundly by outside actors that can increase the risk o child neglect,

such as poverty, joblessness, substance abuse, and mental illness. For example, amilies o color are more likely to

live in communities that are more impacted by poverty, homelessness, crime, and violence, which are less than ideal

conditions in which to saely raise a child.

2. stuctual an intitutinal acim: Tere may be racial bias in the child welare systems or other ecologies

(Hill, 2004; Johnson, 2007; McCrory, Ayers-Lopez, & Green, 2006). Some child welare systems have biased or

culturally insensitive practices and policies that can lead to inequitable decision-making processes (Bent-Goodley,

2003; McRoy, 2004; Morton, 1999; Roberts, 2007). Tese biases and insensitivities may be systemic or individual

by worker, and they may be intentional or unintentional.

3. Cmmunity cnitin an uppt may be inaequate: Geographic contexts and variability maythereore have a disparate impact on communities and amilies o color in terms o service availability and access

(Roberts, 2007; Wulczyn, 2011). Child welare systems and processes may disparately involve amilies o color

(Courtney, Barth, Berrick, Brooks, Needell, & Park, 1996; Fluke, Jones-Harden, Jenkins, & Ruehrdanz, 2010;

exas Health and Human Services Commission and Department o Family and Protective Services, 2006).

fte Cae outcme

Te discussion o disparities in the juvenile dependency system concerns a deeper understanding o the critical issues

acing children who are removed rom their homes and placed in oster care. Over the past decade, there have consistently

been more than 500,000 children in oster care in the United States at any given time (Child Welare Inormation

Gateway, 2009). Only recently has the number o children in care dropped to 423,773 at the end o the 2009 Federal

fscal year, with 48 percent o these children in non-relative oster care homes (U.S. Department o Health and Human

Services, 2010).

Recent research has highlighted a number o troubles acing children in oster care. Tese include greater incidence

o drug and alcohol use (Tompson & Auslander, 2007); signifcantly higher levels o unemployment (Macomber et al.,

2008);higherlikelihoodsofhomelessness(Yen,Hammond&Kushel,2009;Zlotnick,2009);higherincidencesofteen

pregnancy (Dworsky & DeCoursey, 2009); worse educational outcomes (rout et al., 2008); and more experiences with

depression (Blome, Shields, & Verdieck, 2009).

Further studies have investigated the experiences o oster care alumni later in lie. Tese fndings suggest that youth

who were placed in oster care as children are signifcantly more likely to commit crimes, drop out o school, receive

welare benefts, have substance abuse problems, and be homeless than children who were not placed in oster care

(Clausen, Landsverk, Ganger, Chadwick, & Litrownik, 1998; Courtney, Dworsky, Lee, & Raap, 2010; Courtney &

Piliavin, Grogan Kaylor & Nesmith, 2001; Pecora et al., 2010; Vinnerljung et al., 2006). In addition, nearly 20 percent o

young prison inmates and 28 percent o people who are homeless had spent some time in oster care as a youth (Burt et

al., 1999).

Additionally, evidence shows that children in out-o-home care are clearly at greater risk or short- and long-term

school ailure than are other children (Pecora et al., 2006). Research has shown that disruptions relating to oster care

can lead to a lack o continuity in schooling (Courtney, Roderick, Smithgall, Gladden, & Nagaok, 2004; Malmgren &

3 Abstracted with permission rom Casey Family Programs (2011).


12/36


Meisel, 2002) such as truancy, grade retentions, and multiple placements (rout et al., 2008). Further, disruptions relating

to oster care are related to slow academic achievement (Courtney et al., 2004), negative educational outcomes, and

elevated rates o disability (rout et al., 2008).

Aside rom the aorementioned outcomes, children in the juvenile dependency system are also at risk or serious

physical injury. Being in the juvenile dependency system does not always oer immediate protection, as children who had

been previously reported to a child abuse registry were ound to be three times more likely than other children to die in

childhood (Sabotta & Davis, 1992).

Finally, research has demonstrated that oster care itsel can have negative eects or some children. Te evidence

suggests that children on the margin o placementwhen stakeholders disagree i the child should be placed in out-

o-home caretend to have better outcomes when they remain at home, especially older children (Doyle, 2007). Tis

research concludes that though abusive and neglectul amily environments are undoubtedly harmul to children,

removing a child rom home may be traumatic as well (see also Lawrence, Carlson, and Egeland, 2006).

Given the myriad o potential problems outlined above, coupled with the racial disparities observed throughout the

juvenile dependency continuum in many communities, the purpose o this study is to assess the Benchcard as a tool

to ameliorating the potential or disparities and negative outcomes at one step in the case. Tis intervention does notpurport to address every potential source o disparity; rather it ocuses on the role o judicial decision-making in lessening

heightening, or maintaining any disparities that have occurred earlier in the process. Te fndings presented below show

that the Benchcard appears to have a clear positive eect on overall placement rates, but its eect on disparities is more

complex.


13/36


Juici feebck e PPh Beccr

Juge Kerie tey

mu Cuy fiy Cur, Pr, oreg

.[I]t is the strong eeling in our jurisdiction, among judges, lawyers and child welare workers alike, thatconsistent use o the Benchcard is raising the standard o practice or everyone. Everyone is now looking at

the Benchcard to see how to develop court practice training or their particular disciplines so that lawyers,

child welare workers, service providers and others, can be prepared to answer the courts questions the

moment they walk in or the rst appearance, and to know that a second shelter hearing will ollow closely i

the court needs more. We believe that use o the Benchcard is strongly encouraging serious consideration o

all the placement alternatives beore the court hears the recommendation.

Juge Wie t, Jr.

sepre Juveie Cur dug Cuy, o, nebrk

Since the start o the Benchcard, I have ound that considerable discussion is being had at the initial hearing

in regards to services that enable the children to return home. More relatives are being explored, even when

the rst relative option turns out not to be viable.

Tepartiesseemtohavemorediscussionsinregardstothechildrengoinghomesoonerand/orvisitsbeing

liberalized sooner. It also appears that these concepts work well or all children in our child welare system,

including Caucasian children.

As an aside, I actually enjoy ollowing the Benchcard.

Juge d. zeke zeierl agee Juveie Cur, l agee, Ciri

Te CCC Benchcard served as a concrete reminder to consider and verbalize required ndings, such as

the services available to leave the child in the home without risk and eforts made to place the child with

relatives. It also provided valuable prompts to solicit the input o those amily members present in court and

to ascertain at the end o the hearing that the parents understood what happened in the hearing. It has the

potential to equalize treatment o parties o diverse backgrounds by ensuring that the same considerations are

made in every case and by making sure that all participants have an understanding o the court process.


14/36


study method

exprina din an Cparin grp

Te design o the CCC Benchcard research included both a quasi-experimental and an experimental design. Te

quasi-experimentaldesignconsistedofapre/posttestcomparingthedecisionsofBenchcarduserspriortoandafter

implementing the CCC Benchcard. In the experimental design, judges rom each site were randomly assigned to

implement the Benchcard or not (as a control group). Since all participants were aware o the study, any observer

eects would have been equal or both groups, thus mitigating any eects on comparative fndings.

s liiain

Te major limitation o this analysis was that there were spillover eects. Once judges began asking questions o

social workers and attorneys, attorneys and social workers began preparing these answers or court, regardless o the

judge. Tat means that many o the Benchcard question responses were being given to control group judges. Some

jurisdictions use teams per courtroom or per judge, which may reduce this eect. o reduce the potential or spillover

eects urther, the research team used only the frst 10 new cases rom each judge, thus reducing the amount ospillover due to the decreased time or the spillover to occur. In addition, there was a decrease in sample size or the

post-implementation cases, thereby reducing the likelihood o fnding statistically signifcant dierences. (See the next

section.)


15/36


study PartiCiPants

Overall, this study relied on a review of over 500 cases (n=555), and the number of observations varied by

point of comparison. Of the 555 cases, 336 were from the pre-implementation baseline, and 219 were from post-

implementation. Also, of the 555 cases, 277 were from Benchcard users (both pre- and post-implementation) and 278

were from the control group (both pre- and post-implementation). Of the 219 post-implementation cases, 119 were

Benchcard users and 100 were in the control group.

tble 1: s Pcp

Phase Treatment Group Control Group Total

Pre-Implementation 158 178 336

Post-Implementation 119 100 219

Total 277 278 555

tble 2: Chcec of he smple (Total number of observations = 555)

Control Group Benchcard GroupPrimary Race or Ethnicity of ChildWhite/Caucasian 35% 35%Black/AfricanAmerican 22% 24%Latino/Hispanic 29% 29%NativeAmerican/Indian 0% 2%Asian/PacicIslander 3% 1%Otherraceorethnicity 4% 4%Unabletodetermine 7% 7%

JurisdictionOmaha 24% 30%LosAngeles 45% 39%Portland 30% 31%GenderMale 41% 39%Female 54% 54%UnabletoDetermine 5% 7%

Age

3orunder 36% 38%3.1thru9 28% 23%9.1thru13 11% 9%13.1thru18 18% 18%UnabletoDetermine 8% 12%Parent StatusMotherissingle 50% 54%Motherisnotsingle 32% 29%Fatherissingle 1% 0%Unabletodetermine 17% 17%


16/36

16 | Th CCC Prliiry Protctiv Hrig Bchcr Stuy Rport

-tests were run or dierences in each o the above actors between the control group and the Benchcard group.

Te tests showed these dierences to statistically insignifcant at the 0.05 level or each o the above actors with the

exceptionofAsian/PacicIslander.However,thescaleofthedierencebetweenthecontrolgroupandBenchcard

group on this actor is too small to be substantive.

figure 1: frequencies o allegions by type o Child mlreen(Totl = 265.5% u to ultipl llgtios or so css)

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

Substc abus

Filur to Protct

Uft Ho

dostic Violc

mtl Hlth

Physicl abus

Criil activity

abot

Grl nglct

Usuitbl Suprvisio

Sxul abus

micl nglct

Holss

euctiol nglct

eotiol abus


17/36

The CCC Preliminary Protect ive Hearing Benchcard Study Report | 1

site difference

Because o the complex nature o child abuse and neglect hearings, dierences in practice, policy, and

statutes may occur across jurisdictions. Te three project sites were selected in part because they do exhibit

some diversity in their approaches. While they are similar in many regards, there were some notabledierences among the three jurisdictions. Some o these dierences are explained below.

InOmaha,allnewcasescometoapre-hearingconference.Tefocusisonalternativedisputeresolution,

during which all parties (except the judge) meet and discuss issues that are pertinent to the preliminary

protective hearing. Following this pre-hearing conerence, the judge holds a preliminary protective hearing.

Further, in Omaha, the permanency planning hearings oten occur in conjunction with review hearings.

InLosAngeles,judgesroutinelyhavehighercaseloadsthanjudgesdointheothertwosites.California

also routinely appoints counsel or all parties at the frst hearing and has an expedited review process or

special cases (e.g., children under the age o 3 years).

InPortland,aninitialhearingisheldimmediatelyfollowingthepetitionling,andasecondexpanded

preliminary hearing is held within 30 days. Also in Portland, counsel is appointed to parents at the frst

hearing i they are present in court.

Despite these dierences, these sites are similar in the way that they handle child abuse and neglect cases.

Te sites not only ollow the ederal mandates or child abuse and neglect case processing (e.g., ASFA), but

they also are all Victims Act Model Court sites, dedicated to systems change and implementation o best or

promising practices. Tereore, we expect that the above dierences had a nominal eect on study fndings.


18/36

18 | Th CCC Prliminary Protctiv Haring Bnchcar Stuy Rport

findings: imProved ProCess

Based upon systematic courtroom observations and a standardized count methodology, the data indicate that those judicial

ocers who used the Benchcard discussed more key topics during the preliminary protective hearings than did the control group.

As depicted in Figures 2 and 3, Benchcard implementation appears to be associated with substantially higher quantities and quality

o discussion o key dependency topics identied in both the RESOURCE GUIDELINESand the CCC initiative when compared

to the control group. In addition, t-tests indicate that these dierences are statistically signicant at 0.05 (n=29). Te ollowing gure

illustrates the average number o items discussed or raised by judges or both RESOURCE GUIDELINESand CCC topics.

fu 2: nub tpc dcu ha

Benchcard implementation also corresponds to an increased thoroughness o discussion and judicial inquiry. While Figure

2 represents how manytopics parties discussed, Figure 3 shows how thorough that discussion was. Figure 3 shows discussion

thoroughness (based on number o topics covered and thoroughness o discussion into each o those topics) in terms o

RESOURCE GUIDELINESand CCC topics.

41

Toroughnesswas rated on a metric o the amount and breadth o discussion oneach topic (ranging rom not discussed at all, mentioned but not discussed, discussed briefy, to substantively discussed).

fu 3: tu ha dcu

Rating scale: These ratings are presented on a scale of 0 (not discussed) to 1 (substantively discussed).

4 Te RESOURCE GUIDELINEStopics include discussion o the petition, parties who should be present, services oered and their appropriateness,

placement o the child, whether the child can go home today, and reasonable eorts. Te CCC topics include discussion o the allegations and parties,any paternity issues, probable cause or removal, cultural and linguistic issues relating to removal and placement, oering services that might allow thechild to go home, saety planning, engaging parents in developing services, and ocusing on strengths

RG Topics CCC Topics

5

4

3

2

1

0

Control Group

Bnchcar Implmntation Group

KeY

Thoroughnss of Thoroughnss ofdiscussion RG discussion CCC

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

Control Group

Bnchcar Implmntation Group

KeY


19/36

Th CCC Prliminry Protctiv Hring Bnchcr Stuy Rport | 1

Similarly, Figures 4 and 5 demonstrate how much the judicial ocer inquired into the topics and how directly

the judicial ocer engaged the parents in the discussion. Judicial inquiry was coded on a scale rom 0 to 1 (with

gradations in between) or each topic. Figure 4 shows the sum o the weighted amounts o each topic that was

discussed. Figure 5 shows parental engagement or each group coded on a scale rom 0 (representing no engagement)

to 1 (equaling substantial engagement), with all gradations in between (based on a direct judicial inquiry,

opportunities to speak, to ask questions, or to indicate understanding). Weighted scores were created by multiplying

the number o items discussed with the thoroughness o the discussion. Again, t-tests indicated that these dierences

between the Benchcard implementation group and the control groups were statistically signifcant at the 0.05 level.

fgur 4: amount o Judcl inqury

Rating scale: These ratings represent the thoroughness ratings (on a scale of 0 to 1) times the number oftopics discussed.

fgur 5: Prntl enggmnt

Rating scale: These ratings are presented on a scale of 0 (no engagement) to 1 (substantively engaged).

Tese process fndings indicate that Benchcard implementation is associated with substantial increases in the

quantity and quality o discussion in PPH hearings in comparison to the control group. A t-test indicated that these

amount of Juicil amount of JuicilInquiry into RG Topics Inquiry into CCC Topics

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Control Group

Bnchcr Implmnttion Group

KeY

dgr of Prntl enggmnt

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.40.3

0.2

0.1

0

Control Group

Bnchcr Implmnttion Group

KeY


20/36

20 | Th CCC Prliminry Prtctiv Hring Bnchcrd Study Rprt

dierences were statistically signifcant at the 0.05 level. However, there is room or improvement. As an example, the

percentage oRESOURCE GUIDELINEStopics discussed by Benchcard users in all three sites is 90 percent compared

to 32 percent or non-Benchcard users. Te percentage o CCC topics discussed by Benchcard users in all was 69

percent, while non-Benchcard users discussed only 37 percent o the CCC topics.

Tese results were similarly true when looking only at judges in the Benchcard group beore and ater

implementation. Across the three sites, the percentage oRESOURCE GUIDELINEStopics discussed by Benchcard

users pre-implementation was 37 percent compared to 76 percent post-implementation. Also, the percentage o CCC

topics discussed by Benchcard users pre-implementation was 32 percent, compared to 56 percent post-implementation

At-testindicatesthatthesepre/postdierencesarestatisticallysignifcantatthe0.05level.

Te process fndings vary substantially across the three study sites. As can be seen in Figures 6 through 8, control

group levels and Benchcard implementation levels varied greatly across the sites. In terms o the percentage o

RESOURCE GUIDELINEStopics discussed at the initial hearing, Portland was the lowest o the three sites in the

control group, but it reached 100 percent o topics discussed in the Benchcard implementation group. Omaha was

higher in the control group, and the Benchcard implementation group was not much higher. For the percentage o

CCC topics discussed, Portland was at the highest level o the three sites in the control group, and it was also at thehighest level o the three sites in the Benchcard implementation group. Los Angeles control group was at the lowest

level o the three, and though it was increased in the Benchcard implementation group, it was at the lowest o the three

in terms o CCC topics discussed during the initial hearing. With parental engagement, Portlands control group was

at the lowest level o the three, and it was also at the lowest level o the three in the Benchcard implementation group,

but the dierence there was markedly greater than in the other two sites. Parental engagement in Omaha was at a high

level in the control group, and it actually was ound to be lower in the Benchcard implementation group (though the

dierence was minor and may be due to sample dierences).

Overall, these fgures show that experiences with Benchcard implementation can vary greatly. Baseline levels

oRESOURCE GUIDELINESand CCC practice can be widely dierent. Moreover, fdelity to Benchcard

implementation can dier notably across sites.

fiue 6: Pecenae o resouce guielines topics discusse

Ls angls omh Prtlnd

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0

Cntrl Grup

Bnchcrd Implmnttin Grup

KeY


21/36

Th CCC Prliminry Prtctiv Hring Bnchcrd Study Rprt | 2

figu 7: Pcnag o CCC topics discuss

figu 8: Panal engagmn raings

Rating scale: These ratings are presented on a scale of 0 (no engagement) to 1 (substantively engaged).

Te eects on the length o a hearing are somewhat ambiguous. Te study ound that or individual judges,

hearings did tend to be longer when there was more discussion oRESOURCE GUIDELINEStopics and CCC topics.

Across the three study sites, judges who implemented the Benchcard did tend to have longer hearings. However, there

was no statistically signifcant eect on hearing lengths among the three sites on average: o the three sites, one had

shorter hearings on average, one had longer hearings, and one had roughly the same hearing lengths. Tere may be

some shortening eect i the Benchcard helps ocus the discussion on key items. Tis variance across sites may also be

due to dierences in pre-implementation practice across the sites and dierences in the thoroughness o Benchcardimplementation.

Ls angls omh Prtlnd

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0

Cntrl Grup


KeY

Ls angls omh Prtlnd

1.000.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0

Cntrl Grup


KeY


22/36

22 | Th CCC Prliminry Prtctiv Hring Bnchcrd Study Rprt

findings: Child and family outComes

I we compare the same judges beore and ater their Benchcard implementation, a higher percentage o children

were returned home ater the initial hearing with Benchcard implementation. As illustrated in Figure 9, prior to

Benchcard implementation, Los Angeles hearings were associated with more children returning home ater the initial

hearing than were hearings in Portland and Omaha. With Benchcard implementation, Portland and Los Angeles

increased the number o children returned home ater the initial hearing, with Portland increasing more. In Omaha,

on the other hand, the number o children returning home decreased. Te dierences or each site reect these trends.

For Los Angeles and Omaha, the dierences between the likelihood o a child returning home beore and ater

Benchcard implementation do not appear to be statistically signifcant (based on a logistic regression).

For Portland, the eect was much greater and was statistically signifcant at the 0.05 level (again based on a

logistic regression). Tis relates directly to both the level o baseline RESOURCE GUIDELINESdiscussion and the

thoroughness o Benchcard implementation at each site. As can be seen in Figures 6, 7, and 8 above, Portland had the

largest increases in hearing thoroughness and had the highest level o thoroughness with Benchcard implementation. 51

f 9: Pc C r h i h

Benchcard use was related to more amily placementsplacement with a charged parent, a non-charged parent,

or with a relativeat the initial hearing and even more placements again at adjudication when comparing the same

judges beore and ater Benchcard implementation. (Reciprocally, Benchcard use was also associated with ewer

children placed in non-relative oster care at the initial hearing and even ewer again at adjudication.) Tis fnding

is displayed in Figure 10. A logistic regression comparing the likelihood o a amily placement versus non-amily

placement beore and ater Benchcard implementation shows these fndings to be statistically signifcant at the 0.05

level. Substantial dierences did exist across the three sites, but the fnding remained signifcant when the three sites

were accounted or in the statistical model.

Similarly, Figure 11 shows that the percentage o children who were reunifed with the charged parent at the initial

hearing and at the adjudication hearing increased ater Benchcard implementation. A logistic regression shows the

likelihood o reunifcation to be dierent at a statistically signifcant (0.05) level between beore and ater Benchcard

implementation. Again, substantial dierences did exist across the three sites, but the results were signifcant when

sites were accounted or in the statistical model. Many actors could have inuenced these fndings (such as changes in

5 A logistic regression was used to analyze how Benchcard implementation related to the dichotomous outcome o the child returning home ater theinitial hearing versus the child not returning home ater the initial hearing or each ca se.

Ls angls omh Prtlnd ovrlll

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0

Pr-BnchcrdImplmnttin

Pst-BnchcrdImplmnttin

KeY


23/36

Th CCC Prliminry Protctiv Hring Bnchcrd Study Rport | 23

agency practice), but the consistency o the ndings across the three sites and across issue areas suggests that adequacy

o Benchcard implementation is a major actor afecting the ndings.

igue 10: Pecetage o Childe i no-relative oste Cae

igue 11: Pecetage o Childe reuifed with the Chaged Paet

Initil Hring adjudiction Hring

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0

Pr-BnchcrdImplmnttion

Post-BnchcrdImplmnttion

KeY

Initil Hring adjudiction Hring

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0

Pr-BnchcrdImplmnttion

Post-BnchcrdImplmnttion

KeY


24/36


findings: serviCes

Te study also examined how well services related to allegations in terms o adequacy o number o services and the

relationship o those services to the allegations beore the court. Overall, the study ound that approximately 90

percent o services ordered were directly related to an initial petition allegation ater the Benchcard was implemented.

Tis matching was slightly decreased when examining only ounded allegations: 16 percent o services did not appear

to be related to any ounded allegation. Tere were no statistically signicant diferences in the trends between the

Benchcard and control groups, or in the Benchcard group pre- and post-implementation or initial and ounded

allegations.

Te study explored whether there was a service ordered or each allegation made and or each ounded allegation,

and 92 percent o all allegations did have at least one corresponding service ordered. Again, there were no statistically

signicant diferences between the Benchcard and control groups, or in the Benchcard group pre- and post-

implementation on this measure.


25/36

The CCC Preliminry Protective Hering Benchcrd Study Report | 25

findings: raCial differenCes in the Cases Brought to Court

Te study ound clear race dierences in fling trends. White mothers (in comparison to Arican American and

Hispanic mothers) entered court with a higher number o allegations, averaging 3.3 allegations compared to 2.4 or

others (ANOVA analysis shows this dierence to be statistically signifcant at the 0.05 level). White mothers also

had more allegations o substance abuse, homelessness, and mental health issues (each o these represent statistically

signifcant dierences at the 0.05 level). Overall, Arican American mothers came into court with ewer allegations

and were more likely to have their case dismissed. Arican American mothers tended to be brought to court with less

serious allegations. Hispanic mothers were brought to court with the ewest number o allegations on average, and

they had the least serious allegations. Judges may be reversing this trend to some degree by dismissing many o these

less serious cases or Arican American and Hispanic mothers. Signifcant research has been done on dierences in

reporting rates across racial groups (c. Drake, Lee, & Johnson-Reid, 2009), and it is not the purpose o this report to

explain these dierence. Rather, or this report it is important to note that there are substantial dierences across racial

groups in the types o cases that come into court.

Below, Figure 12 shows dierences by racial group in ailure to protect allegations, which can mean that nomaltreatment has yet occurred but the risk o maltreatment was present. Tis type o allegation is oten seen in

conjunction with other allegations o neglect or abuse or in domestic violence cases in which the mother is the victim o

the violence. As shown in Figure 12, White amilies were substantially less likely to ace this allegation than amilies o

other racial groups. Conversely, Hispanic amilies were substantially more likely to ace an allegation o ailure to protect.

f 12: dc by rc: Cmm f Pc a

Allegations o substance abuse show a dierent pattern. White amilies in the sample were much more likely

to ace allegations o ailure to supervise or parent adequately due to substance abuse (drugs or alcohol) than were

amilies o other racial groups (again an ANOVA shows these dierences to be statistically signifcant at the 0.05

level). Allegations o substance abuse or Arican American and Hispanic amilies were somewhat less common. Tis

comparison is shown in Figure 13.

Dierences among racial groups are also apparent in allegations involving poor parenting due, in major part, to

poor mental health unctioning. As with substance abuse allegations, White amilies were much more likely to be

brought to court with allegations relating to mental health. White amilies were almost three times as likely to ace

a mental health allegation as amilies rom other racial groups (again statistically signifcant at the 0.05 level). Tis is

shown in Figure 14.

White africn americn Hispnic

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0


26/36

26 | The CCC Preliminry Protective Hering Benchcrd Study Report

fgue 13: deence by rce: Pecentge o Ce wt allegton o Cl mltetent wt

Pentl involveent n subtnce abue

fgue 14: deence by rce: Pecentge o Ce wt allegton o Cl mltetent wt Poo

Pentl mentl helt functonng

Ater entering the court system, more total services were ordered or White mothers than or others (approximately

our services ordered or White mothers compared to two or three or other mothers).

Tese fndings represent a frst look at an extensive set o study data. Most o what is presented in this report

are simple descriptions o a ew actors, without exhaustive analysis o causality or consequence. As we begin

to address the research questions below, we expect our understanding o the issues surrounding disparities to

grow, improve, and gain nuance.

Canweidentifyanyjudicialdecisionpointsacrossthethreestudysiteswhereoutcomesaredierentacross

racialgroups?

Ifso,towhatdothesedierencesrelatecasefactors,familycharacteristics,judicialprocesses?

Aretheresignicantdierencesamongthethreestudysitesinjudicialdecisionmaking?Whatwould

accountforthesedierences?


30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0


60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0


27/36


findings: raCial disParities in PlaCements

A primary goal o the CCC implementation in the Model Courts and the development o the Benchcard was to

identiy implicit and systemic biases that might inuence judicial decision making. Some dierences did appear in

the sample. In the baseline sample, children with White mothers were the most likely to be placed in oster care at the

initial hearing, and children with Arican American mothers were the least likely to be placed in oster care. Tese

trends can be seen below in Figure 15. It may appear that there was disparate treatment toward White amilies or there

may be valid dierences in the type or amount o amily needs. In act, when dierences in allegations are taken into

account, race does not appear to be related to placements at all. When using a set o logistic regressions to estimate the

relationships that includes numbers o allegations, race is not ound to be a statistically signifcant predictor o oster

care placements at the initial hearing. Tat is, there may be dierences in placement by racial group, but children with

similar case allegations tend to be equally likely to be placed in oster care regardless o race. As White mothers ace

greater allegations on average, their children tended to be in oster care more. Tis is an important area or urther

analysis as many other actors may be related to placements at the initial hearing.

While dierences by race in placement trends at the preliminary protective hearing could be explained by allegationdierences, by the time o the permanency hearing these dierences were more substantial. Tis change can be seen by

comparing Figures 15 and 16. As Figure 15 shows, the dierences in oster care placement among racial groups at the

initial hearing are not large and are not statistically signifcant (based on logistic regression analysis). Similarly, relative

and group home dierences are not statistically signifcant. In the placement with a parent category, it is clear that

Hispanic children are placed with a parent more oten than White or Arican American amilies. But by the time o

the permanency hearing, trends have clearly shited.

As is shown in Figure 16, at the permanency hearing, Arican American children were more likely to be currently

placed in oster care than children rom White or Hispanic amilies. Using a logistic regression to compare oster care

placements with other placements, this fnding was statistically signifcant at the 0.05 level. Also, Arican American

children were less likely to be currently placed with a parent at the permanency hearing than children rom Hispanic

or White amilies. Tis is similarly true or relative placements. Note that not all children who had an initial hearing

(and are represented in Figure 15) also had a permanency hearing (and are represented in Figure 16). Because some

cases do not ever have permanency hearings, the populations o these two fgures are not the same.

Overall, the dierences in the distributions shown in Figures 15 and 16 may suggest that placement dierences may

not always be ound at the initial hearing but instead may develop over the course o the case. Further analysis in this

area will be orthcoming in a more specialized report on how race might relate to long-term outcomes and well-being.


28/36

28 | Th CCC Prliiry Protctiv Hrig Bchcrd Study Rport

fgue 15: dbuon o Placemen sau a tme o inal heang

by race, Pe-Bencca implemenaon

fgue 16: dbuon o Placemen sau a tme o Pemanency heang

by race, Pe-Bencca implemenaon

Prt Rltiv Fostr Cr Group Ho

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0

PeRmanenCY HeaRInG

Whit afric aric

KeY

Hispic

Prt Rltiv Fostr Cr Group Ho

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0

PeRmanenCY HeaRInG

Whit afric aric

KeY

Hispic


29/36


disCussion

As with all experimental research, the present study is limited. All three study sites were Model Courts as part o

NCJFCJs Model Court Project, and thus it may be inappropriate to generalize beyond that. Further testing o the

Benchcard is expected to include other court jurisdictions. Also, given the design o this study, we could assess only

what occurred once a case was brought to court, not what occurred prior. For example, the study did not collect

inormation on decisions around which cases were reported to child protective services, were investigated, or were

substantiated.

Te act there may have been observational eects should also be considered. Te judges were inormed when the

research began and may have modifed their behavior because they were being watched. However, we believe any

observational eects have been mitigated. First, all three sites are Model Court sites, which are regularly observed

by NCJFCJ sta. Second, though some o the participating judges were observed in court, many were not. Also

participating judges were not reminded o the study and, as is oten the case with observation, may have quickly

returned to typical practice.

Some o the empirical fndings presented in this report do not have obvious causal explanations. Te fnding that

White mothers ace more allegations and more serious allegations than Arican American mothers, or example, maybe because White mothers have a higher threshold to cross in terms o case allegations beore being brought to court.

Tis hypothesis, however, is not testable with the data rom this study. Similarly, the fnding that more services are

ordered or White mothers than or other mothers may simply represent a greater tendency to oer services to White

mothers but may also be indicative o the dierences in the seriousness or number o allegations by the time White

mothers cases are brought to court. Again, urther research would be needed to explore these ideas.

Additional analysis o these and many other topics is orthcoming. Additional fndings will be available in the

weeks and months to come relating to:

Multivariatestatisticalanalysistounderstandhowcasefactorsmightinteract;

Afurtherinvestigationofplacementsateachcaseevent,withafocusonidentifyinghowplacementtrendsmay

vary across racial groups;

AnanalysisoftheeectofBenchcarduseoncourtprocesses,especiallyintermsofthetimelinessofcaseevents

Anexplorationofhowservicesareoeredandorderedforchildrenandfamiliesaccordingtocasecharacteristics,

amily needs, cultural appropriateness, and race;

Astatisticalinvestigationintothebaseline(pre-implementation)datatoidentifywhichofthevariables(amongthe

hundreds collected or this study) are the best predictors o case outcomes.


30/36


referenCes

Ards, S. D., Myers, S. L., Malkis, A., Sugrue, E., & Zhou, L. (2003). Racial disproportionality in reported andsubstantiated child abuse and neglect: An examination o systematic bias. Children and Youth Services Review, 25,375-392.

Barth. R. (2011). Risks o serious maltreatment without additional child welare services. Presentation or the Race

andChildWelfareWorkingConferenceatHarvardLawSchool,January29,2011.Retrievedfromhttp://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/about/cap/cap-conferences/rd-conference/rd.conference.papers.html

Bent-Goodley, . (Ed.) (2003).African-American social workers and social policy.NewYork:eHaworthPress.Blome, W., Shields, J., & Verdieck, M. (2009). Te association between oster care and substance abuse risk actors

and treatment outcomes: An exploratory secondary analysis.Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 18, 257-273.

Burt, M., Aron, L., Douglas, ., Valente, J., Lee, E., & Iwen, B. (1999). Homelessness: Programs and the people theyserve: Findings of the National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

ChildWelfareInformationGateway,availableathttp://www.childwelfare.gov/Clausen, J., Landsverk, J., Ganger, W., Chadwick, D., & Litrownik, A. (1998). Mental health problems o children in

oster care.Journal of Child and Family Studies, 7, 283296.Courtney, M. E., Barth, R. P., Berrick, J. D., Brooks, D., Needell, B., & Park, L. (1996). Race and child welare

services: Past research and uture directions. Child Welfare, 75(2), 99-137Courtney, M., Piliavin, I., Grogan Kaylor, A. & Nesmith, A. (2001). Foster youth transitions to adulthood: A

longitudinal view o youth leaving care, Child Welfare, 80(6), 685-717.Courtney, M., Dworsky, A., Lee, J., & Raap, M. (2009) Midwest evaluation o the adult unctioning o ormer oster

youth: Outcomes at age 23 and 24. Chicago: Chapin Hall at the University o Chicago.Courtney, M., Roderick, M., Smithgall, C., Gladden, R., & Nagaok, J. (2004). Te educational status of foster children.

Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall Center or Children.Denby, R. W., Curtis, C. M., & Alord, K. A. (1998). Family preservation and special populations: Te invisible

target. Families in Society, 79, 3-14.Doyle, J. (2007). Child protection and child outcomes: Measuring the eects o oster care. Te American Economic

Review, 97, 1583-1610.

Drake, B., Lee, S. M., & Johnson-Reid, M. (2009). Race and child maltreatment reporting: Are Blacksoverrepresented?Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 309-316.Drake, B., & Jonson-Reid, M. (2011). Front-end disproportionality in CA/N: Some things we know for certain.

Presentation or the Race and Child Welare Working Conerence at Harvard Law School. January 28-29, 2011.Retrievedfromhttp://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/about/cap/cap-conferences/rd-conference/rd.conference.papers.html

Dworsky, A., & DeCoursey, J. (2009). Pregnant and parenting foster youth: Teir needs, their experiences. Chicago:Chapin Hall at the University o Chicago.

Fluke, J., Jones-Harden, B., Jenkins, M., & Ruehrdanz , A. (2010). Research synthesis on child welfare disproportionalityand disparities. Denver, CO: American Humane Association.

Fluke,J.D.,Yuan,Y-Y.T.,Hedderson,J.,&Curtis,P.A.(2003).Disproportionaterepresentationofraceandethnicity in child maltreatment: Investigation and victimization. Children and Youth Services Review, 25, 359-373.

Garland,A.F.,Hough,R.L.,Landsverk,J.A.,McCabe,K.M.,Yeh,M.,Ganger,W.C.,&Reynolds,B.J.(2000).Racialand ethnic variations in mental health care utilization among children in oster care. Childrens Services: Social Policy,Research, and Practice, 3(3), 133-146.

Gryzlak, B., Wells, S., & Johnson, M. (2005). Ethnicity, culture, and child maltreatment.Journal of Social Issues, 62, 787-809.Harris, M. S., & Courtney, M. E. (2003). Te interaction o race, ethnicity, and amily structure with respect to the

timing o amily reunifcation. Children and Youth Services Review, 25, 409-429.Hill, R. B. (2004) Institutional racism in child welfare. Synthesis of research on disproportionality in child welfare: An

update. Washington, DC: Casey-CSSP Alliance or Racial Equity in the Child Welare System.Johnson, E. P. (2007). Racial disparity in Minnesotas child protection system. Child Welfare, 86(4), 5-20.Lawrence, C., Carlson, E., & Egeland, B. (2006). Te impact o oster care on development. Development and

Psychopathology, 18, 57-76.


31/36


Lu,Y.E.,Landsverk,J.,Ellis-MacLeod,E.,Newton,R.,Ganger,W.,&Johnson,I.(2004).Race,ethnicity,andcaseoutcomes in child protective services. Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 447-461.

Macomber, J., Kuehn, D., McDaniel, M., Vericker, ., Pergamit, M., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Barth, R. P. (2008).Coming o age: Employment outcomes or youth who age out o oster care through their middle twenties. U.S.Department o Health and Human Services, Oce o the Assistant Secretary or Planning and Evaluation.

Magruder, J., & Shaw, . V. (2008). Children ever in care: An examination o cumulative disproportionality. Child

Welare, 87, 169-188Malmgren, K., & Meisel, S. (2002). Characteristics and service trajectories o youth with serious emotional

disturbance in multiple service systems. Journal o Child and Family Studies, 11, 217229.McRoy, R. (2004). Te color o child welare. In K. Davis & . Bent-Goodley (Eds.) Te color o social policy(pp. 37-

63). Alexandria, VA: Council on Socia l Work Education.McCrory, J., Ayers-Lopez, S., & Green, D. (2006). Disproportionality in child welare. Protection Connection, 12, 1-16.Morton, . (1999). Te increasing colorization o Americas child welare system: Te overrepresentation o Arican

American children. Policy and Practice, 57(4), 23-30.Needell, B., Brookhart, A., & Lee, S. (2003). Black children and oster care placement in Caliornia. Children and

Youth Services Review, 25, 393-408.Noonan,K.,&Burke,K.(2005).Terminationofparentalrights:Whichfostercarechildrenareaected?Te Social

Science Journal, 42, 241-256.Pecora, P. J., Kessler, R. C., OBrien, K., White, C. R., Williams, J., Hiripi, E., Herrick, M. A. (2006). Educational

and employment outcomes o adults ormerly were placed in oster care: Results rom the Northwest Foster CareAlumni Study. Child and Youth Services Review, 28, 1459-1481.

Pecora, P. J., Kessler, R. C., Williams, J., Downs, A. C., English, D.J., White, J., & OBrien, K. (2010). What works inamily oster care? Key components o success rom the Northwest oster care alumni study.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Putnam-Hornstein, E., & Needell, B. (2011). Predictors o child protective service contact between birth and age fve: Anexamination o Caliornias 2002 Birth Cohort, Child and Youth Services Review, publication pending.

Roberts, D. E. (2002). Shattered bonds: Te color o child welare.NewYork,NY:CivitasBooksRoberts, D. E. (2007). oward a community-based approach to racial disproportionality. Protecting Children, 22(1),

4-9.

Sabol, W., Coulton, C., & Polousky, E. (2004). Measuring child maltreatment risk in communities: A lie tableapproach. Child Abuse and Neglect, 28, 967-983.Sabotta, E., & Davis, R. (1992). Fatality ater report to a child abuse registry in Washington State, 1973-1986. Child

Abuse and Neglect, 16, 627635.exas Health and Human Services Commission and Department o Family and Protective Services. (2006).

Disproportionality in child protective services statewide reorm efort begins with examination o the problem.Austin: Author.

Tompson, R., & Auslander, W. (2007). Risk actors or alcohol and marijuana use among adolescents in oster care.Journal o Substance Abuse reatment, 32, 6169.

rout, A., Hagaman, J., Casey, K., Reid, R., & Epstein, M. (2008). Te academic status o children and youth in out-o-home care: A review o the literature. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 979994.

U.S. Department o Health and Human Services, Administration or Children and Families, Childrens Bureau.

(2010). Te AFCARS Report - Preliminary FY 2009 Estimates as o July 2010 (17). Washington DC: Author.Retrievedfromhttp://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report17.htm

U.S. Government Accountability Oce. (2007). Arican American children in oster care: Additional HHS assistanceneededtohelpstatesreducetheproportionincare.(GAO07-816).Washington,DC:Author.Retrievedfromhttp://www.gao.gov/new.items/d081064t.pdf

Vinnerljung, B., Sundell, K., Loholm, C., & Humlesjo, E. (2006). Former Stockholm child protection cases as youngadults:Dooutcomesdierbetweenthosethatreceivedservicesandthosethatdidnot?Children and Youth ServicesReview, 28, 59-77.

Wulczyn, F. (2011). Permanency, disparity and social context. Presentation or the Race and Child Welare WorkingConferenceatHarvardLawSchool.January28-29,2011.Retrievedfromhttp://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/about/cap/cap-conferences/rd-conference/rd.conference.papers.html


32/36


Wulczyn,F.,Barth,R.,Yuan,Y.T.JonesHarden,B.,&Landsverk,J.(1995).Beyond common sense: Child welfare,child well-being, and the evidence of policy reform. Piscataway, NJ: ransaction Publishers.

Yen,I.,Hammond,W.,&Kushel,M.(2009).Fromhomelesstohopelessandhealthless?ehealthimpactsof

housing challenges among former foster care youth transitioning to adulthood in California. Issues in ComprehensivePediatric Nursing, 32, 77-93.

Zlotnick, C. (2009). What research tells us about the intersecting streams of homelessness and foster care. American

Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 79, 319-325.

additionl resouces

Adelman, L. (2003). Race: the Power of Illusion., DVD.Gatowski, S. I., Maze, C. L., & Miller, N. B. (2008). Courts catalyzing change: Achieving equity and fairness in foster

care: ransforming examination into action.Juvenile and Family Justice oday, Summer 2009, 16-20.Marsh, S. C. (2009). Te lens of implicit bias.Juvenile and Family Justice oday, 18, 16-19.Miller, N., & Maze, C., (2010). Right from the start: A judicial tool for critical analysis & decision-making at the PPH

hearing. Reno, NV: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (2007). Disproportionate Representation of Children of Color

National Working Group Progress Report. Reno, NV: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (2008). Courts catalyzing change: Achieving equity and fairnessin foster care: National agenda for reducing racial disproportionality and disparities in the dependency court system . RenoNV: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (2009). Courts catalyzing change: Achieving equity and fairnessin foster care: July 2007 to Date. Reno, NV: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (1995). Resource Guidelines. Reno, NV: National Council ofJuvenile and Family Court Judges.

Summers, A., Dobbin, S. A., & Gatowski, S. I. (2008). Te state of juvenile dependency court research: Implications forpractice and policy. Reno, NV: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.


33/36


researCh teams and advisors

Project Director for Courts Catalyzing ChangeNancy B. Miller, Director, Permanency Planning for Children Department, National Council of Juvenile and FamilyCourt Judges

Principal Investigators for Courts Catalyzing Change Benchcard StudyPrincipal Investigator: Jesse Russell, Ph.D., Senior Research Associate, Permanency Planning for ChildrenDepartment, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

Co-Principal Investigator: Alicia Summers, Ph.D., Research Associate, Permanency Planning for ChildrenDepartment, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

Study ContributorsElizabeth Whitney Barnes, J.D., Assistant Director, Permanency Planning for Children Department, NationalCouncil of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

Jenna Perkins, University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Jennifer McClellan, Administrative Assistant, Permanency Planning for Children Department, National Council ofJuvenile and Family Court Judges

Josh Padilla, M.A., Research Associate, Permanency Planning for Children Department, National Council of Juvenileand Family Court Judges

Julianna Ormsby, MSW, Senior Program Manager, Training and Technical Assistance, Permanency Planning forChildren Department, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

Khatib Waheed, former Senior Fellow at the Center for the Study of Social Policy

Megan Beringer Jones, M.A., M.L.S., University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Melissa Bahmer, M.A., Model Courts Manager, Permanency Planning for Children Department, National Council ofJuvenile and Family Court Judges

Richard Wiener, Ph.D., Charles Bessey Professor of Law and Psychology, Director, Law and Psychology Program,University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Rita Cameron Wedding, Ph.D., Chair of the Department of Womens Studies, Sacramento State University

Shirley Dobbin, Ph.D., Director of Systems Change Solutions, Inc.

Sophia Gatowski, Ph.D., Director of Systems Change Solutions, Inc.

Steve Wood, M.S., Research Associate, Permanency Planning for Children Department, National Council of Juvenileand Family Court Judges

Tracy Cooper, former Senior Information Specialist, Permanency Planning for Children Department, NationalCouncil of Juvenile and Family Court Judges


34/36


Casey Family ProgramsSusan A. Weiss, J.D., Director, Child Welare Policy

Peter J. Pecora, Ph.D., Managing Director o Research Services

Ralph Bayard, E.D., Senior Director or Systems ImprovementDisproportionality

Oronde Miller, MSW, ormer Senior Director o Strategic Consulting

Ofce o Juvenile Justice and Delinquency PreventionCecilia Duquela-Fuentes, J.D., Program Manager, Child Protection Division

AcknowledgmentsTis work would not be possible without support rom the lead judges o the 37 Model Court Jurisdictions. Tanksare also due to the members o the Courts Catalyzing Change Steering Committee: the Honorable Karen Ashby,Honorable Katherine Delgado, Honorable Ernestine Gray, Honorable Katherine Lucero, Honorable Patricia A.Macas, Honorable Patricia M. Martin, Honorable Joe E. Smith, Honorable Wadie Tomas, Jr., Honorable WilliamTorne, Jr., and Honorable Louis A. rosch, Jr.

Tank you also to Peter Pecora, Barbara Needell, Dennette Derezotes, Andy Barclay, and Katharine Cahn or theirgenerous eedback and guidance.

Special thanks to the tireless and dedicated eforts o Dr. Rita Cameron Wedding, Khatib Waheed, and Dr. ShawnMarsh who traveled across the country and back to train the Model Court Lead Judges and their collaborative teams.


35/36


36/36

right from the start - judicial decision-making in foster care, 2011

Documents