wyoming children’s justice project - ncjj.org county_cjp final report_2011-04-27.pdf · wyoming...

© National Center for Juvenile Justice 3700 South Water Street, Suite 200

Pittsburgh, PA 15203

Wyoming Children’s Justice Project:

Third District Court (Sweetwater County) Children’s Justice Project: Three Years Later

Final Report

by

Gregory J. Halemba

April 27, 2011

This report was prepared by the National Center for Juvenile Justice, the research division of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, for the Wyoming Supreme Court, Children’s Justice Project. Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

i


Table of Contents

Page

Introduction and Background .............................................................................................. 1

Sweetwater County Children’s Justice Project .................................................................... 4

CPS Case Manager: Role and Responsibilities ................................................................... 8

Analysis of Abuse/Neglect Case Processing Data ............................................................... 11

Neglect/Abuse Cases Active with the 3rd District Court ............................................... 12 Time to Resolution of Petition Charges ......................................................................... 13 Use of Consent Decrees ................................................................................................. 14 Resolution of Petition Allegations ................................................................................. 15 Reduction in Hearing Continuances .............................................................................. 17 Timing of Shelter Hearing in Emergency Removal Cases ............................................ 19 Timing of Six-Month Review Hearings ........................................................................ 19 Timing of 12-Month Permanency Hearings .................................................................. 20 Addressing Backlog of Termination of Parental Rights Cases ...................................... 21

Sample of Pre and Post CJP Cases – Time to Case Closure and Time in Placement .......... 23

Timing and Types of Case Closures .............................................................................. 24 Time Spent in Out-of-Home Placements ....................................................................... 25

Estimated Cost Savings: Reduced Placement Stays & Fewer Hearing Continuances ........ 25

Concluding Remarks ........................................................................................................... 28


Introduction and Background

The Sweetwater Children’s Justice Project (CJP) began in the latter half of 2007 and has since

been the catalyst for a number of local court and child welfare system reforms.1 These reforms

have substantially increased judicial oversight, expedited the processing of abuse/neglect cases,

and reduced the length of time cases remain open.

Funding for this effort has been (and continues to be) provided by the Wyoming Supreme Court

through its statewide Children’s Justice Project (CJP). Wyoming CJP funds were used to hire a

half-time local CPS case manager who has assumed primary responsibility for the scheduling

and coordination of court proceedings of abuse/neglect matters. The expansion of local in-

service training opportunities for attorneys, caseworkers and service providers were also, in large

part, supported using statewide CJP resources.

Additionally, the Wyoming Supreme Court has worked with the National Center for Juvenile

Justice (NCJJ) to install an automated abuse/neglect case tracking system (JcatsWyoming). This

system has been operational in Sweetwater County since September 20072 and is serving as a

prototype for a statewide web-based application currently being developed that will eventually

be operational in all Wyoming counties.3

1 The CPS case manager was hired in August 2007 and the first meeting of the Sweetwater County CJP Task Force

took place approximately two months later – in mid-October of the same year. 2 NCJJ subcontracted with Canyon Solutions, Inc. (a software development firm located in Chandler, AZ) to

modify a pre-existing version of its Jcats court management application and install this system for use in the Sweetwater County District Court. Canyon Solutions has extensive experience in the development of automated solutions to support juvenile court, probation, prosecutorial and public defender operations on abuse/neglect, delinquency, and CHINS matters and has collaborated with NCJJ on a number of such efforts since the early 1990’s.

3 The JcatsWyoming database currently contains approximately five years of detailed, case-level abuse/neglect case processing data. The database tracks all petitions and the cases of all individual children named on these petitions since the start of the 2006 calendar year. This includes filing information, data on all scheduled hearings and MDT meetings, permanency goal determinations and all placement episodes/changes tied to these petitions.

Sweetwater County Children’s Justice Project: Three Years Later, page 2

As part of the Sweetwater County CJP start-up efforts, the Wyoming Supreme Court contracted

with NCJJ to conduct an initial examination of the Third District Court’s processing of

abuse/neglect cases and to offer some recommendations to enhance the timeliness and

effectiveness of court proceedings in these matters. A three-day site visit was conducted in

December 2007 to interview key system stakeholders and to observe abuse/neglect court

hearings. This effort also included a review of abuse/neglect caseload data that had been posted

in the court’s pilot JcatsWyoming automated case tracking system.4

A report was provided the Sweetwater County CJP Task Force in April 2008. This report

highlighted a number of system strengths that were already in place – strengths that could serve

as a solid foundation for further improvements in the timeliness and breadth of court proceedings

in abuse/neglect matters. Potential areas were also identified in which some improvements were

warranted.5 Site observations found that:

• Key stakeholders (including the judge, prosecutor, attorneys, caseworkers, foster parents, service providers, etc.) were very dedicated, knowledgeable and committed to continued improvements in how abuse/neglect cases proceeded through the court process.

• Hearings were thoughtful, substantive and respectful. It appeared that the court took the time to engage all parties – particularly parents – and to address any critical issues that were raised.

• Abuse/neglect hearings were generally scheduled for specific time slots and with ample time allotted – generally 30 minutes (and up to an hour if needed). However, hearing continuances were commonplace.

• Guardians ad litem were routinely appointed at the time the abuse/neglect petition was filed and consistently participated in shelter care proceedings. Parent’s attorneys were typically not appointed until a formal request was made at the shelter hearing.

• The majority of abuse/neglect cases were closed within one year but some difficult cases lingered for extended periods of time. This was most likely the case in matters in which alternative permanency options were under consideration (that is, issues related to guardianship or termination of parental rights and adoption).

4 As part of the JcatsWyoming start-up, the newly hired CPS case manager manually reviewed the legal (Clerk of

the Court) files of all active abuse/neglect cases as well of previously-closed abuse/neglect petitions filed since January 2005. Information culled from this review was posted in the JcatsWyoming database. The database tracks all petitions and the cases of all individual children named on these petitions since the start of the 2005 calendar year. (see footnote #2)

5 Please see, Gregory J. Halemba, “Wyoming Children’s Justice Project: Third District Court (Sweetwater County) On-site Recommendations and Report,” NCJJ, Pittsburgh, PA (2008).


• The court frequently used consent decrees as an alternative to formal adjudication of petition allegations including in cases in which a child was removed from the home.

• It routinely took three to four months (and, in some instances, longer) for consent decrees to be set in place or for the court to adjudicate or otherwise formally address petition charges.

The 2008 report also contained recommendations consistent with “best practices” principles

discussed in two monographs developed by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court

Judges6 – the Resource Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases

and a companion document – the Adoption and Permanency Guidelines.7 These

recommendations provided examples of how the calendaring of court hearings could be

improved and how proactive monitoring of abuse/neglect cases could be strengthened. The

report also encouraged the court and system stakeholders to limit the use of consent decrees to

instances in which cases can be resolved in short periods of time;8 to continue in its efforts to

address the backlog of cases in which alternative permanency options were necessary; and to

streamline the attorney appointment process so that counsel for parents were appointed by the

time of the first hearing or shortly thereafter.

Two plus years into this local reform effort, the Wyoming Supreme Court requested that NCJJ

conduct a follow-up re-assessment to examine the extent of system improvements. A site visit

was conducted in October 2010 to again interview key system stakeholders.9 A select number of

abuse/neglect hearings and Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) meetings were observed.10 Lastly,

five years of automated case processing data maintained in JcatsWyoming were analyzed to

6 NCJJ is the Research Division of the National Council Juvenile and Family Court Judges. 7 The Resource Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases were developed by the

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) in 1995 and provide a description of a fair, thorough and expedited court process in dependency cases. The Adoptions and Permanency Guidelines were published by NCJFCJ in 2000 as a companion and follow-up guide to the Resource Guidelines.

8 That is, in three months or less, especially in cases in which a child was removed from the home. 9 Individuals interviewed included the District Court judge who presides over the vast majority of abuse/neglect

cases; the Assistant County Attorney responsible for prosecuting these matters; the Clerk of the Court, court-appointed attorneys who serve as legal counsel for parents and guardians ad litem for children; local DFS administrators, supervisors and case managers; foster parents, a key service provider; and the CPS case manager responsible for calendaring and overall coordination of court proceedings in abuse/neglect matters.

10 In all, three MDT meetings and three hearings on abuse/neglect matters were scheduled during the time of the October 2010 site visit.


examine caseload trends, the timing of key events court events,11 the frequency of hearing

continuances, and the length of time children remained in placement.

What follows is a summary of our most recent findings based on the October site visit

(interviews and hearings/MDT meeting observations), the analysis of JcatsWyoming case

processing data (current through early January 2011), and the review of Sweetwater County CJP

Strategic Plan documents and CJP Task Force meeting notes (2008-2010).

Sweetwater County Children’s Justice Project

The Sweetwater County Children’s Justice Project Task Force’s first meeting was in October

200712 and work on a strategic plan was initiated shortly thereafter. The first Sweetwater County

CJP Strategic Plan was completed and submitted to the Wyoming Supreme Court in December

2008. This plan guides the work of the task force and is updated twice annually with the latest

update occurring in December 2010. The plan contains a mission statement,13 overall outcome

goals, and objectives/activities identified as critical to implementation of specific system

reforms. The three overall outcomes that guide the work of the task force include:

Outcome 1: Ensuring that practices and court processes are implemented for children in State care and custody in a timely and efficient manner.

Outcome 2: Enhancement of local treatment and placement facilities with programs to provide the best service possible.14

Outcome 3: Creation of opportunities for ongoing and meaningful collaboration between agencies and increased training opportunities for personnel able to transform the juvenile justice system.

Overall, Sweetwater County has made considerable progress in strengthening how the court and

its partners address the needs of victimized children experiencing levels of abuse and/or neglect 11 This included the timing of key court hearings (including the shelter, six-month review and 12-month

permanency hearings), resolution of petition allegations, and case closure. 12 The Sweetwater County CJP Task Force routinely meets on a monthly basis. Meetings are typically over lunch

on the first Monday of each month. Since 2009, the task force alternates agenda items so that the agenda one month focuses specifically on CJP Strategic Plan topics and on CJP training items the following month.

13 The Sweetwater County CJP Task Force Mission Statement is “to gather representatives of those agencies able to transform the juvenile justice system and hold each agency accountable for doing so. The [Sweetwater County Children’s Justice Project] envision a system where all stakeholders are equally accountable for the best possible outcomes for children and families; unacceptable behavior is changed, children are protected and given permanency and quality services are provided locally.”

14 This outcome includes a goal to work towards creating additional facilities that provide for in-house treatment for juveniles and families.


sufficiently severe enough to require formal court intervention. Since the onset of the local CJP

reform effort in mid-2007, the District Court and its partners have implemented a number of

notable reforms resulting in more substantive hearings, reductions in the court’s active

abuse/neglect caseload and more timely decision-making/case processing.

Procedural Changes – Case Initiation

• DFS is submitting preliminary case plans in conjunction with abuse/neglect petitions filed by the County Attorney’s Office. While these plans are preliminary, they provide parents and others the basic groundwork to start working toward reunification.

• The CPS case manager typically prepares a scheduling order that is distributed to all parties at the conclusion of the first hearing at which counsel is present (if a denial is entered) that includes the date of the pre-trial MDT meeting, the trial date, and the dates by which the MDT report and Pre-Disposition Report (PDR) need to be submitted to the court.

This has resulted in improved notification and scheduling of MDT meetings, completion of PDR’s, and firmer trial dates.

• Guardians ad litem are appointed at the time of petition filings and close monitoring of timeframes for the submission of court-appointed counsel financial affidavits by the CPS case manager has resulted in more timely appointment of parent’s counsel.15

Scheduling of Contested Trials

• Trials on abuse/neglect matters are no longer stacked. Each case has a separate time allotted. This has increased expectations that all parties are ready on the date scheduled with the court less likely to grant continuances unless extenuating circumstances can be clearly demonstrated.

• The court calendar has been restructured to allow for a second day of trials on juvenile matters including abuse/neglect cases.

Court Orders

• Court orders have become more specific as to what is required of parents, DFS and service providers. Reasonable efforts findings have also become more detailed.

15 The judge will routinely inform parents of their right to counsel at the shelter hearing and will give parents a

couple of days to complete and submit the necessary paperwork to determine if they are eligible for court-appointed counsel. If after a couple of days, the eligibility application has not been submitted, the CPS case manager contacts the DFS caseworker for the parent(s) phone number so she can personally follow-up. Similar monitoring occurs of parents who have indicated that they will retain private counsel. It is estimated that in about a third of all new cases, at least one parent is slow in submitting the requisite paperwork or in obtaining their own private counsel.


• The length of time needed to create, approve and distribute these orders has been shortened and much of this can be attributed to the diligence of the County Attorney’s Office. The CPS case manager also reviews all orders prepared by the County Attorney’s Office prior to judicial review and signature.

MDT Reforms

• The MDT process has been revamped consistent with state guidelines and best practices identified in other Wyoming counties.16 A coordinator was hired by DFS in 2008 to schedule and facilitate MDT meetings. This individual is now also responsible for developing summaries of these meetings and submitting these to the court in a timely fashion.17

• An early, pre-trial MDT meeting is scheduled to encourage earlier resolution of case plan objectives and related plea agreements. A scheduling order to that effect is distributed to all parties at the shelter or initial hearing once counsel has been appointed and a denial has been entered.

• The timing of MDT meetings are now more closely aligned with review and permanency hearings.18 This permits the court to better examine issues addressed at these multi-disciplinary staffings and to take into account recommendations reflected in MDT reports in its court orders.

Monitoring/Scheduling of Court Proceedings and Timelines

• The CPS case manager uses JcatsWyoming to proactively track the length of time between hearings and, on a monthly basis, prepares a list of cases approaching statutory time limits so that the County Attorney’s Office can submit motions/orders for various types of abuse/neglect hearings (including, adjudication, disposition review and permanency hearings).

• The CPS case manager has also begun generating a similar list to forward to the County Attorney’s Office in cases in which consent decrees are set to expire.

• In general, hearings are scheduled consistent with statutory time lines and the appointment calendars of attorneys are referenced to reduce the likelihood of continuances due to scheduling conflicts.

16 MDT meeting procedures in Sweetwater County have been updated and an agenda template is used to ensure that

all necessary topics are covered. 17 The CPS case manager assumed the MDT Coordinator position on an interim basis for approximately one year

after the first coordinator resigned. Interviews indicate that it was during this period of time that the MDT scheduling and facilitation protocols were strengthened.

18 MDT are currently scheduled three months in advance with notice provided at the conclusion of the meeting. Scheduling orders for future MDT meetings are also distributed to all parties in the courtroom at the conclusion of abuse/neglect hearings.


Permanency Hearing Changes

• Permanency hearings are now more focused on issues related to finalization of a child’s permanent plan and less on case plan progress – progress that would be re-considered again at a future review hearing.

• Permanency review order protocols were revised to better reflect court findings made with respect to permanency determinations.

• The CPS case manager also informally tracks trial home placements so that cases do not remain open longer than needed if reunification efforts prove to be successful.19

Parallel Criminal Proceedings

• The District Court and County Attorney’s Office have taken steps to minimize potential delays due to any parallel criminal charges filed against parents related to the child maltreatment case in juvenile court.20

• Currently, the court record includes a statement that any plea in an abuse/neglect case will not be used in any parallel criminal matters.

• There have been some preliminary discussions to also have this reflected in the actual court order.

Expansion of In-Service Training Opportunities

• Local in-service training opportunities have been improved/expanded and DFS case managers and supervisors as well as local attorneys and mental health providers are encouraged to attend.

Expansion of Educational and Assessment Services

• Alternative education services have been expanded in Green River (Expedition Academy).

• A full-time teacher was hired to provide educational services in the Sweetwater County Detention Center.

• The CJP Resource Committee has worked to expand local service provider funding for mental health evaluations and related services.

19 Typically, two to three months after the court approves a trial home placement, the CPS case manager will

follow-up with the County Attorney’s Office to see if an expedited review hearing should be scheduled or if a dismissal order should be prepared for the judge’s signature. While this tracking is currently done informally via had-written notes and memory, the process can be more routinized using the hearing notes and follow-up notification functionalities built into JcatsWyoming.

20 Wyoming Supreme Court rules also address this concern and state “that proceedings in Juvenile Court shall not be delayed nor stayed pending criminal proceedings in District or Circuit Court” but provides little guidance regarding how this should be accomplish. These rules can be downloaded from the Wyoming Supreme Court website at: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/CourtRules_Entities.aspx?RulesPage=JuvenileCourtsProcedure.xml

http://www.courts.state.wy.us/CourtRules_Entities.aspx?RulesPage=JuvenileCourtsProcedure.xml


CPS Case Manager: Role and Responsibilities

There is a clear consensus among all system stakeholders interviewed that much of what has

been accomplished to-date would not have been possible without the hiring of the CPS case

manager. The district judge stated that reductions in abuse/neglect caseloads, the length of time

cases remain open, and hearing continuances are largely attributable to the CPS case manager’s

diligence in monitoring case flow and in her efforts to improve communication and coordination

among all key parties to these proceedings.

The local DFS administrator referred to the CPS case manager as the communications “hub” for

court operations in abuse/neglect matters. The legal assistant in the County Attorney’s office

responsible for abuse/neglect matters has “seen a tremendous positive change” in court

operations since the CPS case manager came on board.21

• The CPS case manager schedules all abuse/neglect hearings. She personally contacts all attorneys on a case and does all that she can to minimize scheduling conflicts.

• As necessary, she follows-up with parties to remind them of upcoming proceedings and to ensure that all parties are ready to proceed.

• The CPS case manager proactively contacts parties to ensure that reports, case plans and other relevant documents are ready and distributed by the time of a hearing.

• The CPS case manager also attends the vast majority of abuse/neglect hearings, takes hearing notes, and logs these notes into the JactsWyoming database for future reference.

• Additionally, she use these notes to review the accuracy of court orders prepared by the County Attorney’s Office before these draft orders are distributed to the attorneys for their review and approval. This reduces the likelihood of multiple revisions and ultimately the amount of time needed for orders to be finalized and distributed to all parties to the case.

21 This individual indicated that her job has been made easier since the CPS case manager assumed responsibility

for scheduling court hearings. There is more consistency than in the past in this regards with no cases falling through the cracks. Time to disposition has also improved.


While the JactsWyoming automated case tracking system is generally considered a valuable

resource, to most system stakeholders, it is essentially seen as an invisible component of the

local CJP reform effort. Abuse/neglect caseload and case processing summaries are periodically

provided at CJP Task Force meetings that highlight system improvements. Everyone is aware of

the fact that the CPS case manager is posting various types of case processing information in the

automated database but are probably not sure to what extent the system is being utilized to

improve case flow management.

The CPS case manager routinely relies on the JactsWyoming automated case tracking system to

keep track of the court’s abuse/neglect caseload, to ensure that court events are scheduled in a

timely fashion and to proactively monitor case processing timelines. There are a number of

automated reports that are readily available on a real-time basis that she uses on a regular basis to

monitor the following:

• The “Attorney Appointments Active as of a Specific Date” and “Attorney Appointments Made During Period” reports are used to balance new appointments made to the five to six attorneys who consistently represent parties in the abuse/neglect matters.

• On a monthly basis, the CPS case manager uses the “No Future Hearing Scheduled” and the “No Hearing in the Last Five Months” case listings to proactively identify cases in need of six-month review and twelve-month permanency hearings. Hearing motions are requested from the County Attorney’s Office on cases in which hearing timelines are approaching.22

• A report that lists all active consent decree cases, how long they have been open, and the number of days till their expiration is used to proactively identify cases in which the County Attorney’s Office needs to request a dismissal order on the case or, in the alternative, request an extension of the consent decree.

• The “Cases Pending Adjudication and Disposition” report is used as a check and balance to monitor her database postings to ensure these court events are completed and properly recorded.

• The frequency of hearing continuances are monitored using a report that examines hearings results (completed, partially completed, continued, removed/withdrawn) by hearing type during any given time period.

22 These hearings are generally scheduled six to eight weeks in advance. All attorneys are individually contacted by

phone to address any potential scheduling conflicts and to ensure that the court events are logged on their personal appointment calendars.


• A tickler functionality built into the hearing notes module allows the CPS case manager to mark something as in need of follow-up by a certain date. The CPS case manager occasionally used this functionality to pro-actively follow-up on cases.

• There are also other quality assurance (QA) reports that are used periodically to ensure that case events are properly recorded; that information on parents, case plan goal and placement episodes are accurate; and (most importantly) to ensure that no cases fall through the cracks.23

In all, there are approximately 45 different types of case listings, summary reports and QA

reports available on the JactsWyoming system. These reports are not only designed to monitor

performance (e.g., percent of hearings continued and time to key court events such as

adjudication, disposition, the filing of supplemental matters such as guardianship, TPR and

adoption, among others) but also to provide the court the ability to actively examine case

progress on various types of cases.

In addition, JactsWyoming generates court history summaries on all families involved with the

court on abuse/neglect matters. These summary profiles include demographic data on each

child, parent/guardian information, historical data on all current and prior abuse/neglect petitions,

court hearings, permanency determinations, placements, and any supplemental filings required to

initiate alternative permanency actions (such as termination of parental rights, relinquishments,

adoptions and guardianships).24 Lastly, the system can track addresses and contact information

on parents and guardians, attorney appointments and allows for the storing and easy retrieval of

detailed hearing notes.

Potential JcatsWyoming system enhancements currently under discussion include tracking of

when court orders are completed/distributed as well as eventual automated generation and

storage of court orders. The latter may ultimately facilitate the generation of orders in the court

courtroom and to allow these to be distributed to all parties at the conclusion of the hearing.

23 These include reports that identify active cases of children with no case plan goal or placement data. 24 These summary profiles also include a count of the total time each child has spent in out-of-home placements, the

number of placements changes, the amount of time spent living with relatives, and the number of months in out-of-home care in the last 22 months (so as to quickly monitor the 15 of 22 months federal and Wyoming initiation of TPR proceedings requirement).


Analysis of Abuse/Neglect Case Processing Data

As discussed earlier, the Wyoming Supreme Court has worked with the National Center for

Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) to install an automated neglect/abuse case tracking system

(JcatsWyoming) which has been operational since September 2007. The JcatsWyoming database

currently contains more than five years of detailed, case-level abuse/neglect case processing data.

The database tracks all petitions and the cases of all individual children named on these petitions

since the start of the 2006 calendar year. This includes filing information, data on all scheduled

hearings and MDT meetings, permanency goal determinations and all placement episodes tied to

these petitions.

Primarily using various types of case listings and aggregate statistical reports that can be readily

generated via the JcatsWyoming system, the following data tables/charts were developed that

examine abuse/neglect case processing trends over the five-year period (2006 through 2010).

Most of the data presented below will be based on counts of children – not on abuse/neglect

petitions.25 Multiple children are often named on a single abuse/neglect petition. However,

multiple siblings included in a single abuse/neglect action do not necessarily progress uniformly

through the court process.26 Thus, examining how individual children progress through the court

tends to more accurately reflect court performance in this regards.

Overall, the analysis that follows highlights the substantial progress made by the Sweetwater

County District Court and its stakeholders in improving how legal proceedings in abuse/neglect

matters are conducted and in shortening the length of time maltreated children remain court-

involved before reunification occurs or alternative permanency placements (e.g., guardianship,

adoption, etc.) are finalized. 25 The only exception to this are data on the frequency of hearing continuances. 26 Charges alleged and adjudicated can vary by child. More importantly, dispositions and custody statuses may

vary. One child may be placed in temporary custody of the court and placed in foster care; a second may remain with the custodial parent with continuing court and agency supervision; and custody of a third may be granted to a relative and the case closed with no continuing court involvement. Lastly, modifications to the original disposition and the length of time the court remains involved can vary by child. Please see Gregory J. Halemba, Automated Case Tracking of Dependency Matters, Children, Families and the Courts: An Ohio Bulletin, Summer 2004. (http://www.ncjjservehttp.org/NCJJWebsite/pdf/cfcsummer2004.pdf)

http://www.ncjjservehttp.org/NCJJWebsite/pdf/cfcsummer2004.pdf


Progress is consistently reflected on measures examined in this analysis beginning in 2008 (the

first full year of the local CJP effort), gained further momentum in 2009, and have been largely

sustained through the past year (2010). These improvements include:

• Reductions in the court’s active abuse/neglect caseloads even though new case filings spiked in 2008 and 2009;

• An increase in the percentage of cases in which petition allegations were resolved within 90 days;

• A decrease in the court’s reliance on consent decrees;

• An increase in the percentage of cases closed within one year of petition filing;

• Reductions in the percentage of court hearings that are continued annually – particularly initial hearings and trials;

• Close to universal compliance with six-month review and 12-month permanency hearing statutory timelines; and

• Reductions in the substantial backlog of termination of parental rights (TPR) and adoption actions.

Neglect/Abuse Cases Active with the 3rd District Court:

• The number of children with active neglect/abuse petitions started to decrease in early 2009 – slightly more than one year into the CJP reform effort (Figure 1).

• The court’s active abuse/neglect caseload decreased by more than 30% during that year, from a high of 115 children in December 2008 to 79 by the end of 2009.

• The court’s active abuse/neglect caseload essentially remained steady in 2010. At the close of this past year, 83 children had open abuse/neglect cases with the Sweetwater County District Court.

Figure 1: Number of Children with Active Abuse-Neglect Cases as of:

108

83

9991

96

107115

79

81

60

80

100

120

12/31/06 6/30/07 12/31/07 6/30/08 12/31/08 6/30/09 12/31/09 6/30/2010 12/31/10


• The court was able to reduce its active caseload even though the number of children with new abuse/neglect petition filing was substantially higher in 2008 and 2009 than in the two earlier years.

• This was due to the fact that the court closed a considerably higher number of cases than were opened. That is, abuse/neglect cases of 140 children were closed in 2009 – by far the most since 2006 and 57% increase from 2008 (Figure 2).

• Overall, the court closed 36 more cases than it opened in 2009. This is in sharp contrast to 2006 in which the reserve was true – 35 more cases were opened than closed.

• In 2010, the number of cases open and closed were relatively equal with 85 cases of children opened and 80 cases closed.

Figure 2: Cases Filed and Closed Annually: 2006 - 2010 (Count of Children)

50

108

80

104 8585

80

83

140

89

25

50

75

100

125

150

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

new filings cases closed

Time to Resolution of Petition Charges:

• The percent of neglect and abuse cases in which petition charges were resolved within 90 days (via plea/adjudication, consent decree or dismissal) has increased from 43% in 2008 to 64% in 2009 and 67% in 2010 (Figure 3).

• These percentages are approximately three times higher than the 22% in 2006.


• While considerable progress has been made in this regards, Wyoming statutes require that the court conduct an adjudicatory hearing on petition allegations no more than 90 days after the date that the petition is filed.27

Figure 3: Percent of Cases in which Petition Charges

were Resolved within 90 days

43%

67%

46%

64%

22%20%

40%

60%

80%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Use of Consent Decrees

• The number consent decrees issued annually decreased steadily from 2006 through 2009 but increased again in 2010 (Figure 4).

• However, the 28 consent decrees issued in 2010 is still 26% less than the 38 issued in 2007 and 57% lower than the 65 consent decrees issued in 2006.

Figure 4: Consent Decrees Issued: 2006 - 2010

65

24

38

1928

0

15

30

45

60

75

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

27 Please see Wyoming Statute 14-3-426(b).


• The number of children with active consent decrees open at any one time also decreased steadily through the end of 2009 – at which point only three children had consent decrees active (Figure 5).

• However, the number of children with active consent decrees increased substantially to 23 by December 2010. At the same time, this was still lower than the number of consent decrees open at the end of 2006 and 2007.28

Figure 5: Number of Consent Decree Cases Active as of:

23

3

13

3135

0

10

20

30

40

31-Dec-06 31-Dec-07 31-Dec-08 31-Dec-09 31-Dec-10

Resolution of Petition Allegations

• Over the past five years, the court’s reliance on consent decrees has decreased – substantially in 2008 and 2009, and somewhat less so in 2010 (Figure 6).

• In 2006 and 2007, petition allegations were typically addressed through the issuance of a consent decree – 68% of the time in 2006 and 54% percent of the time in 2007. Formal adjudication on petition charges were relatively infrequent.29

• In 2008 and 2009, this trend reversed. In the majority of instances, petition allegations were addressed via formal adjudication. Consent decrees were infrequently utilized – only 15% of the time in 2009.

• In 2010, the frequency was essentially the same – 33% of petition allegations were resolved via formal adjudication and 32% through the issuance of a consent decree.

28 A review of JcatsWyoming data revealed that 11 of the 23 consent decree cases active at the end of 2010 had been

open for six or more months and all but one had expired. In December 2010, the CPS case manager sent the County Attorney’s Office a list of the expired consent decree cases so that decisions could be made regarding appropriate follow-up (case closure, consent decree extension, or to re-initiate formal adjudicatory proceedings).

29 This included court acceptance of plea stipulations. Instances in which petition charges were either dismissed or withdrawn are not included in Figure 6.


Figure 6: Percent of Cases in which Resolution of Petition Allegations

Occurred via Adudication and Consent Decree

24%32%

15%

54%

68%

33%

45%

52%

11%19%

0%

25%

50%

75%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Consent Decree Adjudicated

Percent of Cases Closed Within One Year of Petition Filing

• The percentage of cases closed within one year of petition filing has increased steadily and substantially since 2006 (Figure 7).

• 45% of abuse/neglect cases filed in 2006 were closed within one year in 2006. The percentage of cases closed within one year increased to 72% for cases filed in 2008 and this percentage remained essentially unchanged for cases filed in 2009 (70%).

• By early January 2011, nearly half of all cases opened in during the 1st six months of 2010 had been closed (49%). This suggests that – in all likelihood – this pattern of approximately seven in 10 cases closing within a year of filing will continue for the cohort of abuse/neglect cases filed in 2010.


Figure 7:Percent of Neglect/Abuse Cases Closed Within One Year of

Petition Filing (Cases opened in 2006 - 2009)

45%

61%

72% 70%

30%

45%

60%

75%

90%

2006 2007 2008 2009

Reduction in Hearing Continuances

• There has been a steady reduction in the percent of neglect/abuse hearings (all types) that have been continued. In 2009, 12% of all scheduled neglect/abuse hearings were continued – an almost three-fold decrease from 2006 (Figure 8).

• In 2010, these improvements were pretty much maintained – 15% of all abuse/neglect hearings scheduled that year were continued.

Figure 8: Percent of Hearing Continued During Year (2006-10)

32% 31%

23%

12%15%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


• The percentage of neglect/abuse trials (including jury trials) has also continued to decrease in recent years – from 66% in 2007 to a low of 30% in 2009. In 2010, the trial continuance rate edged back up to 44% - which is similar to the rate in 2008 (Figure 9).

Figure 9: Pct. of Neglect/Abuse Trials (all types) Continued (2006-2010)

44%

30%

48%

66%

58%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

• The most dramatic reductions in hearing continuances have been made at the front-end of the court process. The percentage of initial hearings continued has dropped substantially – from 51% in 2006 to 7% in 2009 and 4% in 2010 (Figure 10).

Figure 10: Percent of Initial Hearings Continued (2006-2010)

51%48%

20%

7% 4%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


Timing of Shelter Hearing in Emergency Removal Cases

• The court has consistently conducted shelter hearings within timeframes established in statute – 48 hours of removal excluding weekends and holidays (five days maximum). This has been consistent throughout the five year period under review (Figure 11).

• In 2010, there were no instances in which a shelter hearing was not scheduled within five days of a child’s removal from the home.30

Figure 11:Percent of Shelter Hearings Conducted

Within 5 Days of Removal

99%

97% 97%

99%100%

90%

92%

94%

96%

98%

100%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Timing of Six-Month Review Hearings

• State statutes require that a review hearing be conducted within six months of a child’s removal from the home (including in cases in which a consent decree is issued).

• The frequency with which such reviews were conducted has increased steadily since the inception of the Children’s Justice Project to the point that general statutory compliance31 is now almost 100% (Figure 12).

30 All cases in which it took three or more days to conduct the shelter hearing included (at minimum) weekend days

and possibly court holidays. 31 NCJJ closely reviewed the data in JCATS on cases in which there was some issue regarding compliance with the

statutory review requirements. There were approximately 15 such cases in which petitions were filed in 2008-09. This manual review of hearing, placement and supplemental filing data revealed that in all but one instance a review hearing was started and only partially completed (parents didn’t appear) or was conducted (but called something else – typically a placement hearing). There was one case in which a review hearing was conducted about 45 days late but even in that instance there were some mitigating factors present. Instances in which the review hearing was conducted within 30 days of the statutory time limit were considered in general compliance with this statutory requirement and are reflected as such in the above chart.


Figure 12: Compliance: 6-Month Review Hearings

(Cases of Children Opened between 2006-10)

81%85%

97%98%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

2006 2007 2008 2009-10

Timing of 12-Month Permanency Hearings

• State statutes also require that a permanency hearing be conducted within twelve months of a child’s removal from the home.32

• The frequency with which permanency hearings were conducted with the statutory time frames has also increased substantially since the inception of the Sweetwater County CJP effort to the point that general statutory compliance33 was 100% for cases filed in 2009 (Figure 13).

32 A permanency hearing is not required in instances in which a child is returned home prior to this 12-month time

frame even if the case remains open with the court. 33 Instances in which the permanency hearing process was started within 30 days of the statutory time limit but

continued were considered in general compliance with this statutory requirement and are reflected as such in the above chart. In 2009, the permanency hearings of two siblings were initiated within the general time statutory frames but the hearing was continued for a approximately a month due to notice issues related to the MDT process. Data on permanency hearing compliance is 2006 are incomplete and are not presented in the chart.


Figure 13: Compliance: 12-Month Permanency Hearings(Cases of Children Opened between 2007-10)

57%

88%100%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

2007 2008 2009

Addressing Backlog of Termination of Parental Rights Cases

• Interviews conducted during the first site visit in December 2007 revealed considerable frustration by various stakeholders as to the backlog of termination of parental rights (TPR) cases.34

• In 2008, the District Court and the County Attorney’s Office took measures to address this backlog (Figure 14). TPR proceedings were initiated on parent(s) of 22 children, most of whom had been in court-supervised foster care for two or more years.

• Also in 2008, the court completed TPR proceedings in matters involving 25 children.

Figure 14: TPR Filings and Completions (2006 - 2010)

8

67

1422

26

710

25

0

10

20

30

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

TPR Filings TPR Determinations

34 Foster parents, in particular, were very discouraged regarding the length of time needed to initiate and complete

TPR proceedings.


• In most instances, parents ultimately relinquished their parental rights without the need for a formal court ruling on the TRP petition (64%).

• However, the court was cautious in its rulings in this regards. In 2008, more than a third (36%)of all TPR actions resulted in either a dismissal or a denial of the TPR petition (Figure 15).

Figure 15: Results of TPR Actions Completed in 2008

36%

18%

46%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Dismissed/Denied TPR Granted Parent Relinquished

• By the end of 2010, only one TPR action was pending as contrasted with 13 that were pending at the end December 2007 (Figure 16).35

Figure 16: TPR Filings Pending at End of Calendar Year (2006-10)

13

5

1

66

0

5

10

15

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

• Both the court and other various stakeholders interviewed acknowledge that additional work is needed to reduce the length of time needed to complete proceedings on TPR matters. JcatsWyoming data reveals that it is not uncommon for court proceedings to take six months or longer in this regards.

35 Which coincided with the time of the original site visit.


Sample of Pre and Post CJP Cases – Time to Case Closure and Time in Placement

In this final section of the report, case closure and placement data extracted from the

JcatsWyoming database are examined. This analysis takes a more detailed look at how the cases

of children named on abuse/neglect petitions filed prior to, and after the start of, the CJP effort

progressed through the system.36

• The pre-CJP sample of cases include children named on abuse/neglect petitions between April 2006 through September 2007 – a total of 102 children.37

• The post-CJP sample of cases include children named on abuse/neglect petitions between January 2008 and June 2009 – a total of 139 children.38

Both the pre- and post-CJP cohorts span an equivalent 18-month period. The timeframes

selected also give post-CJP cases a minimum follow-up period of 18 months (through December

2010). During that period, 96% of all post-CJP cases in the study cohort were closed.

To adjust for the fact that pre-CJP cases had more time to close than post-CJP cases, we only

examined the length of time cases remained open and the length of time children remain in

temporary placements for 96% of the pre-CJP cases.39 That is, the 4% of pre-CJP cases taking

the longest time to close were taken out of the comparison sample and excluded from the

subsequent analyses.40

36 A case is defined in this analysis as a child named on a abuse/neglect petition filed during the requisite pre- and

post-CJP time periods. 37 The pre-CJP cohort is limited to the cases of children named on abuse/neglect petitions filed prior to the first

meeting of the Sweetwater County CJP Task Force in October 2007. 38 There is a three-month gap (October – December 2007) in eligibility criteria between the pre- and post-CJP

cohorts. By January 2008, the CPS case manager had been in her position for approximately five months, the JcatsWyoming system had been in use for approximately three months, and the local CJP committee had begun meeting and setting reform priorities.

39 That is, a percentage of cases that parallels the percentage of cases closed in the post-CJP cohort. There were a total of 106 children named on abuse/neglect petitions filed in the pre-CJP period. However, the cases of four children that took the longest to close were excluded from the analysis. This resulted in a pre-CJP sample of 102 children.

40 By excluding the pre-CJP cases that took the longest to close (regardless of when the abuse/neglect petition was field), the analysis is designed to be as conservative as possible in examining case closure and time in placement patterns across the two cohorts.


Timing and Types of Case Closures

• The cases of children named on pre-CJP abuse/neglect petitions were open for an average of 386 days compared to 269 days for children named on post-CJP petitions (Figure 17).

• This represents a 30% reduction in the amount of time needed to close cases in the post-CJP cohort compared to pre-CJP cases (117 days).

Figure 17: Average Number of Days to Case Closure

386 Days

269 Days

0

125

250

375

500

Pre-CJP Cohort Post-CJP Cohort

• Overall, there were few differences in how Pre-CJP and Post-CJP cases were closed. In most instances, cases were closed because children were returned to their parents (70% for the Pre-CJP cohort and 63% for post-CJP cases).41

• An essentially identical percentage of Pre-CJP and Post-CJP cases were closed via guardianship or adoption – 17%.

Figure 18: Reasons for Case Closure

2%

17%

70%

11%

1%

17%

63%

19%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Other

Adoption/Guardianship

Returned to Parents

Case Dismissed

Pre-CJP Cohort Post-CJP Cohort

41 If one also take into account cases dismissed pre-adjudication – the overall percentage of children returned to

their parents (or guardians) are essentially identical – 81% for the pre-CJP cohort and 82% for the post-CJP cohort.

30% decrease


Time Spent in Out-of-Home Placements

• On average, children in, both, the Pre-CJP and Post-CJP cohorts spent the majority of the their time in temporary out-of-home placements (Figure 19).

• That is, children named on Pre-CJP petitions spent an average of 254 days in out-of-home placements – 66% of the overall 386 days their cases were open.

• Children named on Post-CJP petitions spent an average of 197 days in out-of-home placements – 73% of the overall 269 days their cases were open.

• However, children in the Post-CJP cohort spent an average of 57 days less time in out-of-home placements than children in the Pre-CJP cohort – 197 days compared to 254 days, respectively.

Figure 19: Average Days Cases Remained Open and

Average Days Spent in Out-of-Home (OOH) Placements

71

269

132

254

386

197

0 125 250 375 500

Avg. Days Spent Living withParent(s)

Avg. Days Spent in OOHPlacements

Avg. Days Case Open withthe District Court

Post-CJP Cohort Pre-CJP Cohort

Estimated Cost Savings: Reduced Placement Stays and Fewer Hearing Continuances

The above findings suggest that system reforms initiated since the start of the Sweetwater

County CJP effort contributed to reductions in the length of time children remained in out-of-

home placements. That is, the total length of time in out-of-home placements for children named

on abuse/neglect petitions filed with the court post-CJP were an average of 57 days shorter than

for children named on abuse/neglect petitions prior to the start of the CJP effort.42

42 While this analysis cannot fully control for others factors that may have impacted the length of time in placement

for children in the pre- and post-CJP periods, the demographics of the children are generally similar. Also, it

57 days difference


For Wyoming Fiscal Year 2010, DFS estimated the average daily cost of a Child Protective

Services (CPS) placement in Sweetwater County at $23.19. This average cost takes into account

the fact that a small percentage of children (approximately 5%) are placed annually in congregate

care environments (specifically, group home, residential treatment centers).

Using this FY2010 daily CPS rate, it is estimated that reforms initiated since the start of

Sweetwater County CJP initiative have contributed to reduced placement costs averaging $1,322

per child.43 This is probably a conservative estimate in that average number of days post-CJP

children spent in congregate care has been reduced by 75% (from sixteen days for the pre-CJP

cohort to four days for children in the post-CJP cohort).

Over the three years since the onset of the CJP effort, abuse/neglect petitions were filed on

approximately 95 children annually. If placement trends remain consistent and average

caseloads remain relatively stable,44 it is estimated that the Wyoming DFS will realize slightly

more than $125,000 in placement cost savings annually.45

The substantial decrease in hearing continuances should also result in cost savings to Sweetwater

County in court-appointed attorney expenses. An estimate of these savings is based on the

following:

• Court-appointed attorneys are reimbursed for their services at a rate of $100/hour.

• At minimum, in abuse/neglect cases, attorneys are appointed as Guardians ad Litem (GALs) for the children. In almost all instances, one GAL is appointed to represent all of the children on a case. As of early January 2011, the JcatsWyoming database indicated that six attorneys had a total of 44 active GAL appointments.

• Typically, at least one parent is appointed an attorney and it is not uncommon for multiple parents to request court-appointed counsel. As of January 2011, an analysis of the JcatsWyoming database revealed that nine attorneys were actively representing 58 parents in abuse/neglect proceedings in Sweetwater County. Almost all of these attorneys were court-appointed. It is relatively rare for parents to retain private counsel.

appears that no other major events occurred during the early months of the CJP effort to impact the types of children named on these petitions and how these matters were handled by the District Court, DFS, the District Attorney’s Office and attorneys appointed to represent children and parents in these proceedings. The methodology for selecting Pre-CJP and Post-CJP cases is described on page 23.

43 That is, 57 days x $23.19 = $1322. 44 That is, that the number of cases filed and closed annually remain relatively equal. 45 The State of Wyoming will not realize all of these savings in that the federal government reimburses the state for

a portion of the placements costs of children deemed to be Title IV-E-eligible.


• Extrapolating from the above, it is estimated that that an average of 2.25 attorneys are serving either as GALs or representing one or more parents in abuse/neglect cases active with the court as of early January 2011.46

• Hearings typically are scheduled for 30 minutes but taking into account preparation, travel and pre-hearing conferencing time, a very conservative time estimate would be that each attorney invoices the county for an average of 1.5 hours per hearing.

• This translates into an estimated average cost of $337.50 in court-appointed attorney costs per hearing (2.25 attorneys x 1.5 hour x $100).

• Data presented earlier indicates that the frequency of hearing continuances has decreased by more than half – from somewhat more than 30% in 2006-07 to between 12-15% in 2009-10.47

• While advance notice is provided if a hearing is to be continued, this is not always the case. Court-appointed attorneys are eligible to bill for any time spent preparing for, traveling to, and/or in participating in hearings that are ultimately continued to another day.

• Interviews indicate that last-minute continuances were more commonplace in years prior to the start of the CJP initiative than is currently the case.

• JcatsWyoming data reveals that an average of approximately 14 abuse/neglect hearings were continued each month between April 2006 and September 2007– an 18-month period just prior to the start of the CJP initiative.

• For the most recent 18-month time period (July 2009 through December 2010), an average of eight abuse/neglect hearings were continued each month.

• This represents a decrease of six continued hearings monthly. If three of these continued hearings each month in pre-CJP years were last-minute continuances, it is estimated that the county would have been billed for slightly more than $1000 per month in attorney expenses directly related to these continued hearings.

• Again conservatively, it is estimated that the county is saving approximately $12,000 annually in court-appointed attorney costs that can be directly attributed to reductions hearing continuances.

46 The 2.25 attorneys per case estimate is slightly lower than the average based on data reflected in the

JcatsWyoming tracking system. The estimate was lowered to at least partially account for the few instances in parents retain private counsel.

47 Please see data charts on pages 17-18.


Concluding Remarks

Interviews, site observations and a close review of JcatsWyoming case processing data reveals

that the District Court and its partners have implemented a number of notable reforms since the

onset of the local CJP initiative in late 2007/early2008. These reforms have resulted in more

substantive hearings, fewer hearing continuances, more timely decision-making/case processing

as well as substantial reductions in the length of time cases remain active with the court and

children remain in temporary out-of-home placements.

Stakeholders interviewed during the most recent site visit (October 2010) uniformly felt that

much of what has been accomplished would not have been possible without the hiring of the

CPS case manager. She has become the communications “hub” for court operations in

abuse/neglect matters and her diligence in monitoring case flow and in nurturing improved

communication and coordination among all key parties is central to what has been accomplished

since the local CJP effort began.

The analysis also suggests that the Wyoming DFS and Sweetwater County have experienced

upwards of $137,000 of combined savings annually related to reduced placement costs and

court-appointed attorney expenses (the latter resulting from fewer hearing continuances).

Considerable progress has been made in the three years that the local CJP effort has been in

existence. However, the data presented herein suggests some areas where system reform may be

warranted. These include:

• Continuing efforts to shorten the time needed to complete adjudicatory proceedings. That is, so that resolution of petition allegations occurs within 90 days in all but very extenuating circumstances.

• That the court and its partners renew their efforts to limit the use of consent decrees especially in cases in which children remain in out-of-home placements and that the length of time consent decrees remain open are closely monitored.

• That the court and its partners continue to examine ways to reduce the length of time needed to complete TPR proceedings. TPR trial continuances remain commonplace and most TPR matters take six months or longer to complete.

• That the court and the CJP Task Force continue to work closely with the CPS case manager to identify ways in which to further enhance the coordination and monitoring of case progress in abuse/neglect proceedings.


The most recent site visit to Sweetwater County revealed a robust court process that reflects

many of the best practice principles that the Wyoming Supreme Court Children’s Justice Project

encourages local courts to embrace. Most noteworthy is the enhanced level of cooperation and

coordination that currently exists. The court and its partners are to be commended on the

considerable progress made in the past three years.

wyoming children’s justice project - ncjj.org county_cjp final report_2011-04-27.pdf · wyoming...

Documents