1. SPARC Webinar
September 5, 2012
Family Wellness Court
Judge Erica Yew
California Superior Court
Santa Clara County
1

2. Trauma-Informed Court
Extension of Problem-Solving Courts
 What is it and WHY?
 Therapeutic alliance
 Vivian Brown: 50 to 60% of outcome rests
upon a positive therapeutic alliance
 Only 1 to 2% is related to the treatment
model or methodology used
 20 years of adult drug court research
indicates that the #1 incentive for people is
their relationship with their judge or their
probation officer
2

3. Considerations for a Trauma-Informed Court
 Taking your time, even if it is an illusion
 Reduce waiting if possible
 Noise
 Setting
 Listening and validating where possible
 HONESTY
 RESPECT
 HOPE
 TRANSPARENCY: Clear communications and
expectations
3

4. Trauma-Informed Systems
 FWC values statement includes trauma-
informed system
 Commitments by Partner Agencies
 Provider education
 Continual system assessment and
modification – 360 assessment
 Trauma specific services: DADS
Seeking Safety (PTSD and addiction),
Mental Health trauma based cognitive
behavioral therapy
4

5. FWC Overview
 Target population: Pregnant women
and parents, with children 0 to 3,
whose abuse of methamphetamine and
other substances have placed their
children in or at risk of out-of-home
placement.
 Ten year experience, repeated
subsequent pos-tox births
 Started with grant in March 2008
5

6. FWC Primary Partners for Grant
US$ 6.3 million over 5 years
 Superior Court
 Social Services Agency (SSA), SSA’s Department of
Family and Children’s Services (DFCS) and SSA’s
County Counsel
 First 5
 Department of Drug and Alcohol Services (DADS)
 County Mental Health (MH)
 Legal Advocates for Children and Youth (LACY) –
children counsel
 Dependency Advocacy Center (DAC) – parents counsel
6

7. Primary FWC Goals (1)
 Early identification of and intervention
for the needs of pregnant women and
parents with substance use disorders.
 Rapid engagement and successful
retention in treatment and care
 Reduction in subsequent pos-tox births
7

8. Primary FWC Goals (2)
 Early identification and intervention for
developmental delays, disabilities and
concerns for children 0-3 whose parents come
before the FWC
 Creation of a comprehensive System of Care
across all systems serving children in or at risk
of out-of-home placement as a result of
parents’ methamphetamine and other
substance abuse
8

9. FWC Eligibility Criteria
 The parent has given birth to an infant that has
been exposed to methamphetamine or other
substance abuse during the pregnancy; OR
 The parent has a child under the age of three
that was either born drug exposed or has been
raised in a substance abuse afflicted
environment with documented abuse and/or
neglect; AND
 The parent does not demonstrate intractable
mental health issues as presented in the filed
petition; AND
 The parent is not likely to face long term
incarceration
9

10. FWC Customer Characteristics
 Fast-track cases
 History of CWS
involvement as
children
 40% were foster
children themselves
 Prior cases in CWS,
many with prior
termination of
parental rights, 9
prior births, multiple
pos-tox births
10

11. More Customer Characteristics
 Extensive trauma
history (give examples
– multiple deaths,
abandonment,
kidnapping, prostitution
as 8 yo)
 80% cross over with DV
 90% incarceration
history
11

12. More about Customer Characteristics
 Methamphetamine primary drug of choice:
national, state and local data indicate that 75-80% of child welfare
cases are drug and alcohol related. In Santa Clara County the
drug of choice is methamphetamine where preference is around
64-67%.
 Homeless or living in substandard housing, 65% chronic
homelessness
 Extremely low income, 66% have annual income of less than
$10,000
 TWD $ 285,000
 Average California income US$ 61,017
 Average U.S. income US$ 52,029
 Federal Poverty Level for parent and 1 child US$ 14,570
12

13. FWC Services (1)
 Therapeutic court environment, with regular reviews
 Early connection to TANF, food stamps, other programs
 Case management by the court
 Legal representation
 Early drug and alcohol assessment and treatment
 Residential inpatient-treatment for women; and for
women with their children
 Transitional Housing Units (THU) for women, men,
children
 Mentor Parent support
 Domestic violence advocacy and services
 Transportation assistance (bus tokens, bus tokens for
children, bicycles, car seats)
 Linkages to shelter and housing
13

14. FWC Services (2)
 Limited funding to assist with barriers to case plan
completion (books, birth certificates, funeral
transportation)
 Linkages to employment and benefits services, record
clearance
 Coordination with Criminal Court partners, fine
conversion
 Therapeutic services, dyadic and PCIT included
 Pregnancy prevention education
 Comprehensive developmental and behavioral
screening, assessment and interventions for all
children
 Child appointed special advocates (CASA’s) for many
children and parents = an extension of role
14

15. FWC Services (3)
 Linkage to health coverage and primary care
physicians
 Linkage to dental and vision care through charitable
organizations
 Access to a wide array of parenting classes
 Home visitation and Public Health Nurses with regular
reporting – transparency
 Diapers, children’s and adult clothing & shoes,
hygiene products, groceries/meals, milk, books, toys,
strollers
 Early care and education services
 GED assistance
 Language assistance
 Budget and nutrition information and workshops
 Medical and dental health care for children
 Tattoo removal and MORE….
15

16. Children’s Services Overview
 Funded by FIRST 5 Santa Clara County
 Medi-Cal/EPSDT (Early Periodic Screening and
Diagnosis and Treatment) is leveraged
 MHSA (Prop 63: Mental Health Services Act – 1%
income tax on excess of personal income of $1 million),
 County General Fund and reimbursement via public
children’s insurance programs are also utilized for
Mental Health services
 System of Care: Tiered system based on level of need
as determined by screening and assessments utilizing
standardized tools and evidence-based practices
16

17. FWC Multidisciplinary Team/MDT
 Judge  Social Work Liaison
 Court Resource  County Counsel
Manager  Child’s Attorney
 DV/Trauma Therapist  Parent
 Victim Witness  Parent’s Attorney &
Advocate♦ Mentor
 Eligibility Worker  Social Worker
 Child Advocate  Therapist
 Home Visitor
 DADS rehab counselor
 Public Health Nurse
 Adult MH Coordinator♦
 Special Support People
 First 5 Specialist (SARC, parent advocates)
17

18. FWC Hearings
 Hearings may occur daily, weekly, twice a
month or once monthly depending on
parent progress
 Staffings are held with the court team
prior to the hearing to discuss case
progress, concerns and develop joint
recommendations – COMPREHENSIVE
 Incentives or Sanctions may be given
 Resources given
18

19. FWC Data
 Doors Opened March 14, 2008
 As of April 2011, data below:
 1 to 2+ years of services per family (FR → FM)
 290 parents served
 3 re-entries (mental health and housing) in 3 years
 11-12% re-entry rate in California
 1 subsequent pos-tox births in 3 years (despite
many births and population that had repeated prior
pos-tox births, mothers with 8 children previously
removed)
19

20. More about the Results
 Santa Clara County Reunifications Rates
 2009 = 48%, no separate tracking for Fast
Track cases
 2010 = 53%, FWC may be improving general
outcomes
 FWC as of September 2010 for Fast Track cases
= 71%
 350 children served
 100% of children whether parents succeed or
not
20

21. Primary Keys to Success
 Commitment at highest agency administrative
levels
 Shared values
 Passion and commitment of involved staff
 Comprehensive service model
 Service model that evolves as additional client
needs are identified
 Incorporation of the parents’ voices (through
mentors and the actual parents before the
court – surveys, court experience)
 Promoting the parent-baby bond
21

22. Joanne Moore, Director
Washington State Office of Public Defense

23. Why was the Parents
Representation Program Started?
1999 Report for the Legislature:
State of Parents’ Attorneys
 Excessive Caseloads and Low Pay
 Little Time to Communicate with Parents
or Help them Engage
 Frequent Continuances and Case Delays

24. Program Model
 Reasonable Attorney Caseloads
 Program Social Workers
 Funds for Independent Experts
 Frequent Trainings
 Central Support

25. OPD Parents Representation Program
 Pilot 2000‐2005
 Expanded to 2/3 of Washington State
6,700 Open Cases
 Fully Funded by State Funds – Right to Counsel

26. New Practice Standards
 Parents Representation Program Standards Addressed
Substandard Practices
 Standards Lead to Improvements:
 Enhanced Communication
 Early Parent Engagement
 Increased Access to Services and Visitation
 Timely Case Resolution

27. Evaluations and Data
 Four Small Evaluations During the Pilot
 2010 OPD and 2011 Washington State Center for
Court Research
OPD Program Counties Improved Reunification Rates
While Non‐Program Counties Did Not
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
OPD Counties Non OPD Counties
Pre Program Period Post Program Period

29. Child Welfare System Impact
 Before Parents Representation Program, parents and their
attorneys were virtually absent from the statewide policy
decisions
 Policy contributions over the last decade by the Parents
Representation Program include:
 Membership in statewide committees such as the state
Supreme Court Foster Care Commission and Catalyst for
Kids’ Washington State Parent Advocacy Committee
 Collaboration with the department and other stakeholders to
develop Expert and Evaluator Guidelines
 Local projects such as visitation centers and family treatment
court

30. The Permanency Project

31. The Team
Anne Marie Lancour, M.A.T., J.D.
Heidi Redlich Epstein, J.D., M.S.W.
Mimi Laver, J.D.
Kathleen McNaught, J.D.
Elizabeth Thornton, J.D.
Cristina Cooper, J.D.
Jeffrey Adolph, J.D.
Margaret Burt, J.D.
Honorable Stephen Rideout (ret.) , J.D.
Scott Trowbridge, J.D.

32. Goal: Reduce children’s stay in
foster care
• Help children in foster care find safe,
permanent homes, faster
• Identify and break down system
barriers to permanency
• Save scarce state and county dollars
• Train on best practices that promote
permanency

33. •
Our CQI Process
• ABA measures success through Continuous Quality
Improvement (CQI)
• ABA identifies system changes to improve permanency
outcomes
• ABA visits counties monthly during project period and develops
tools and procedures
• ABA develops county network and shares solutions statewide

34. Key Project Components
• Advisory Board
Comprised of family or juvenile court Judges and
Masters, local child welfare agency administrators,
attorneys, key agency staff, and a range of other
stakeholders.
• ABA Project Director
Visits the project county monthly to work with the
Advisory Board
• Permanency Planning Specialist

35. Our Approach
• Develop local action plan
• Recognize small steps add up to change
• Keep permanency planning focus
• Identify children's needs early
• Refine court procedures in permanency areas
• Provide legal analyses and technical assistance

36. Project Tasks
The project undertakes five major tasks:
1. Identifying and analyzing delays;
2. Interactively developing recommendations and
implementing reforms;
3. Establishing written protocols, procedures, and
providing multidisciplinary training;
4. Monitoring reforms and changes; and
5. Sharing project results throughout the state.

37. Overcoming Barriers
• Missing or unidentified parents
• Relatives entering the case late
• Increase in teen population
• Lack of training on permanency planning issues
• Late starts in offering services
• Inadequate concurrent planning
• Difficulty in obtaining evaluations and/or expert
testimony
• Delays in court procedures

38. Case Data Drives Change
• Staff analyze cases, tracking how
long it takes a child to achieve
permanency
• Collect data and detect trends to both
create solutions and measure
outcomes
• Project targets key skills and topics
for improvement based on data
review

39. •
Pennsylvania Results
• Over 20 project counties
• Children in PA project counties have saved an average of 9
months in foster care before finding permanent homes.
• Counties have saved a total of $9,460,000 - and counting - in
foster care costs.
• Better court-agency communication and increased investment
in improved outcomes for children and families.

40. Pennsylvania Results, Cont.
The Project has provided over 35 unique trainings in
Pennsylvania counties
Examples include:
• The relationship between ASFA, permanency, and
substance abuse treatment
• Trial testimony skills for caseworkers and service
providers
• Strategies to meet the education needs of children in
foster care
• Older youth in foster care and APPLA as a permanency
goal as well as alternatives to it

41. PA Results: County Examples
• Blair County develops a Family Treatment Drug Court
• Northampton County develops an Interim Court
Directive/Permanency Plan to eliminate delays in service
referrals
• Lackawanna County introduces a new court procedure, the
Dependency Compliance Conference, to increase accountability
and expedite permanency
• Westmoreland County initiates a 90-day multidisciplinary case
conference process

42. Overall Outcomes
Since 1989, more than 40 counties across four states have
saved time and money with the Permanency Project:
• $25 million total saved in foster care costs
• Over 2200 kids benefitted directly
• Average of one less year waiting in foster care
New York - $15,272,000 saved, 15 month average time reduction
Wyoming - $704,000 saved, 11 month average time reduction
Kentucky - $237,600 saved, 9 month average time reduction

43. Harnessing the Results
1989 – A focus on adoption cases
Termination Barriers Project begins with funding from the New York State
Dept. of Social Services and the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services.
1991 – NYS Office of Children and Family Services continues to fund the
Project for the next 13 years.
2004 – The project is successfully completed in 20 small, medium, and large
counties throughout NYS.
2004 – New focus on all permanency types, emphasizing reunification
Pennsylvania contracts with ABA for largest Permanency
Barriers Project to date. KY and WY also contract with the Project.
2005 – ABA wins Adoption Excellence Award for work on the NY
Permanency Barriers Project

44. Expanding the Program
• Working with former project counties to provide
additional TA and “refresher” trainings
• Engaging new locations
• Increasing the focus on and tracking of child
well-being indicators

45. Questions/Contact Information
Anne Marie Lancour
ABA Center on Children and the Law
740 15th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
(202)662-1756
AnneMarie.Lancour@americanbar.org
www.americanbar.org/child