Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my statement is submitted on behalf of the Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA). I thank you for the opportunity to provide you with information for the record on the reauthorization of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) Program.

The points that I want to make in this testimony are:

• The Conference of State Court Administrators wants to commend Congress for its efforts to improve the protections available to children through the enactment of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program and the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA).
• It is our belief that the state court systems and judges are the key to effective implementation of PSSF and ASFA.
• ASFA significantly increased the responsibilites of the state courts in handling child protection issues, but did not provide the state court systems with additional resources to assist them in meeting the new demands.
• State court systems need additional resources to provide training and technical assistance to the local courts and judges so that they can effectively implement the provisions of PSSF and ASFA.
• Specifically, we are requesting that funding for the Court Improvement Program (CIP), which is a set aside within PSSF, also be maintained in the reauthorization.

I submit this testimony for the record as the current President of the Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA). COSCA was organized in 1953 and is dedicated to the improvement of state court systems. Its membership consists of the principal court administrative officer in each of the fifty states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. COSCA is a nonprofit corporation endeavoring to increase the efficiency and fairness of the nation’s state court systems. As you know, state courts handle 97% of all judicial proceedings in the country. The purposes of COSCA are:

• To encourage the formulation of fundamental policies, principles, and standards for state court administration;
• To facilitate cooperation, consultation, and exchange of information by and among national, state, and local offices and organizations directly concerned with court administration;
• To foster the utilization of the principles and techniques of modern management in the field of judicial administration; and
• To improve administrative practices and procedures and to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of all courts.

COSCA has established the effective implementation of ASFA as one of their highest priorities. The last two pages of this testimony is a copy of a resolution that was adopted by COSCA that supports the reauthorization of CIP.

In 1993, Congress created this grant program to assist state courts in improving their handling of child abuse and neglect cases. Unlike most federal grant programs, Congress explicitly recognized the effect of a federal mandate on the state judicial systems and provided for the funds to go directly to the highest court in each state, instead of funneled through a state executive agency. Congress authorized $10 million annually for three years for federal CIP grants to the highest court in each state for judicial improvement efforts. Congress required that each state use their CIP funds in the first year to conduct an assessment, identify problems in processing child abuse and neglect cases, and develop strategies for addressing those identified problems. Second and third year CIP funds could be used to complete the assessment and/or begin implementation of system improvements. Based on the success of these initial efforts, Congress subsequently extended CIP funding through FY 2001. The 107^th Congress must act this year to reauthorize the CIP program, if it is to continue.

All judicial officers in Arizona who are new to handling abuse and neglect cases are required to attend a Dependency Curriculum Training Program. To assist judges who receive mid-year assignments, a Distance Learning Program has been developed and is available through the State Intranet.

The New York Family Court in Manhattan developed a specialized docket to implement reforms, including extensive use of pre-trial conferencing, creating dispositional orders, outlining appropriate service plans for children and parents, providing automated delivery of court orders to case planners, monitoring and ensuring compliance with court orders, and establishing specific time lines for progress reports and permanency hearings. The model court has a reduced caseload. In addition, one judge hears all abandonment cases to fast track cases for infants and young children who enter foster care and for whom reunification is unlikely.

CASA volunteers serve as guardians ad litem in Delaware. They represent the best interests of foster children and are responsible for advising the court when there is a conflict between a child’s best interests and the child’s wishes. Delaware continues to expand CASA programs in the state.

Minnesota has rewritten its Juvenile Protection Rules, which were last revised in 1982. The revision brought the state into compliance with the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997 (P. L. 105-89). The new rules established a "child protection timeline" for court proceedings, beginning with the child’s removal and ending with permanency for the child.

The use of case managers in the juvenile courts has proven to be an invaluable resource to the Colorado courts. Case management conferences, coordinated and facilitated by case managers, provide a less formal environment than the courtroom in which the case manager can educate parents and their attorneys about the court process, and communicate the court’s expectations. In addition, case managers are responsible for tracking and monitoring child abuse and neglect caseloads to ensure compliance with statutory and "best practice" time frames.

Arkansas developed standards of representation for their attorneys ad litem. The standards require the attorneys ad litem to obtain a training certificate and clinical prerequisites prior to appointment. Thereafter, four additional continuing education credits are required annually. Additionally, the standards establish a maximum caseload level.

To facilitate the timely progression of cases when the identity and/or address of a parent in an abuse and neglect case are not known, Michigan has implemented a protocol. The protocol requires that every petition requesting removal of a child include the name and address of both parents. When a name and/or address is not known, the court is responsible for ensuring that diligent efforts are made to determine the identity and/or locate the parent, so the parent can be given notice of the abuse and neglect proceedings.

Louisiana implemented a facilitation team in Baton Rouge to conduct periodic meetings with decision-makers in the major agencies involved in abuse and neglect cases to troubleshoot and solve problems.

Mississippi is developing an automated tracking system (MYKIDS) for data collection. MYKIDS will be an Internet-based system that permits the courts to access the statewide database for foster children. The system will also assist with scheduling and the electronic issuance of orders.

Florida is developing a judicial bench book for the handling of abuse and neglect cases. The bench book will be available in hard copy and on CD-ROM. The bench book will be distributed statewide to all judges and will be a resource for judicial training programs.

Alaska implemented a pilot mediation program, primarily to handle termination cases and pre-adjudication cases. While mediation services are available at any point in the life of the case, emphasis is on contested cases and early in the process.

As the aforementioned examples indicate, state courts have met the challenge of Congress. They completed comprehensive assessments of how they handled child abuse and neglect cases. They identified not only the problems, but also developed and implemented innovative solutions for improving court processes and procedures. Children across the country have benefited from this funding, as courts have been able to improve and expedite the processing of child abuse and neglect cases with the goal of placing children in permanent and safe homes.

In reality, the amount of CIP funds each state receives is not large. States, however, have combined the CIP funds with state and local dollars to make sweeping changes in the way they handle child abuse and neglect cases. The initiatives described in this testimony provide a very small sampling of how states have been able to leverage the CIP funds. The availability of CIP funds has stimulated a synergy among judicial, executive, and private resources that has resulted in broad changes in how state courts handle child abuse and neglect cases. The process, however, is not over. The CIP funds continue to be a critical factor in improving the attention these children need.

Our interest in this issue grows out of our longstanding involvement with federal efforts to protect children in danger of abuse and neglect. The enactment of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (P. L. 96-272) vested a unique and critical responsibility with the courts to oversee the protection of children in child abuse and neglect situations. For the first time, the 1980 Act required courts to review and evaluate state welfare agencies’ actions. Further, courts were required to make judicial determinations that the state agencies had made "reasonable efforts" to prevent the removal of children from their homes, to reunify children with their families after a foster care placement, and to provide permanent homes for children who cannot be reunited with their families. Congress also required courts to hold dispositional hearings no later than eighteen months after a child’s original placement and hold a hearing every twelve months thereafter to review progress on the permanency plan. States in which the reasonable efforts findings were not made and properly documented and in which the time frames for hearings were not met could be sanctioned with the loss of federal funding.

In 1997, Congress concluded that the promises of the 1980 Act were not realized and passage of ASFA now holds new promises for children who are vulnerable to abuse and neglect. To realize these promises, however, Congress needs to recognize and provide adequate support for the needs of the institutions critical to ASFA implementation: the courts.

The effect of the new mandates on courts has been to increase the workload of the courts because of the added judicial determinations and longer hearings needed to resolve the complex issues required by the Act. The following represents the highlights of the new mandates and their impact on the courts.

• Judges are required to make the child’s health and safety the primary standard for determining a state’s reasonable efforts to keep the child in the home or reunify the child and the parents.
• Judges are required to make judicial determinations of when reasonable efforts to prevent removal and reunify the family are not required because of egregious circumstances.
• Judges are required to make the difficult decisions pertaining to the termination of parental rights in cases where a child has been in foster care for fifteen consecutive or fifteen of the twenty-two most recent months. In the cases where an exception to the fifteen-month rule is requested, judges must determine whether the compelling reasons are sufficient not to file the petition.
• Judges are required to conduct hearings on the permanency plans that have been developed by state child protection agencies no later than twelve months after a child enters care, six months earlier than had been required in the past.
• Judges are required to insure that the procedural rights of foster parents, pre-adoptive parents, and relative caretakers are protected and that they are notified of hearings and have the opportunity to be heard at all hearings.
• Judges are required to review the placement of a foster child every twelve months and to determine when the child will be returned to his or her parents or placed for adoption or with a relative or with a legal guardian.

Additionally, ASFA strengthened the courts’ oversight authority in reviewing the work of the child protection agency staff. The combined result of the ASFA changes is more complex and significantly longer court hearings.

Congress enacted the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997 (P. L. 105-89) in response to the concerns that the child protection system was not adequately addressing the needs of abused and neglected children. The Act was designed to address two major concerns (1) the safety of children in all decisions and (2) the need to find permanent homes in a timely manner for children who have been removed from their homes. The changes brought about by ASFA are positive and will bring about better results for children.

In my state the results of implementing this act has resulted in dramatic improvements:

We support implementation of ASFA. Our concern is with ensuring that courts have the resources necessary to implement the Act, not with its provisions. We believe that these changes are necessary to insure better results for children. We share your belief that the health and safety of our children should be given the highest priority when deciding the difficult issues pertaining to the termination of parental rights and the removal of children from their homes and families.

We encourage you to reauthorize the CIP program. State courts have effectively leveraged these dollars to make systemic improvements to court processes and procedures. These improvements have positively impacted the safety and well being for children in need of protection and who are in state custody. Our work, however, is not completed. The CIP funds are critical to continued improvement and the effective implementation of ASFA.

The amount of CIP funds set aside within the PSSF program has remained at $10 million dollars per year since the initial authorization in 1993, while the funding for PSSF has steadily grown. We are aware that President George W. Bush has proposed an additional $200 million be added to the existing $305 million PSSF program in his FY 2002 budget. We ask your consideration in allocating a portion of President Bush proposed $200 million increase to the PSSF program to increasing the CIP program funding to $20 million per year. We believe that this will be a solid investment that will greatly assist state courts to protect children and expeditiously move them toward safe and permanent homes.

Thank you for giving COSCA, and through it the state judges of our country, an opportunity to be heard on this important issue.

CONFERENCE OF STATE COURT ADMINISTRATORS
Resolution 1
In Support of Reauthorization of the Court Improvement Project

WHEREAS, the Conference of State Court Administrators recognize the importance of moving children in state custody to permanent and safe homes as quickly as possible through the efficient and effective handling of child abuse and neglect cases by the nation’s courts; and

WHEREAS, in 1993, Congress created the Court Improvement Project (CIP), a grant program to assist state courts in improving their handling of child abuse and neglect cases. By passage of this legislation, Congress explicitly recognized the effect of federal mandates on the state judicial systems and provided funds directly to the highest court in each state; and

WHEREAS, Congress required that each state use their CIP funds in the first year to conduct an assessment, identify problems in processing child abuse and neglect cases, and develop strategies for addressing those identified problems. Subsequent year CIP funds have been to implement system improvements and evaluate the effectiveness of the improvements; and

WHEREAS, State courts have met the challenge of Congress. They completed comprehensive and honest assessments and developed and implemented innovative solutions for improving court processes and procedures. Children across the country have benefited by this funding, as courts have been able to improve and expedite the processing of child abuse and neglect cases with the goal of placing children in permanent and safe homes; and

WHEREAS, the amount of CIP funds each state receives is not large. States, however, have combined the CIP funds with state and local dollars to make sweeping changes in the way they handle child abuse and neglect cases. The availability of CIP funds has stimulated a synergy among judicial, executive, and private resources that has resulted in broad changes in how state courts handle child abuse and neglect cases. The process, however, is not over. The CIP funds continue to be a critical factor in improving the attention these cases need;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Conference urges Congress to reauthorize the Court Improvement Project beginning with FY 2002 and consider increasing the level of funding to assist state courts in implementing the provisions of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997 (P. L. 105-89).

Adopted as proposed by the Courts, Children and Family Committees of the Conference of State Court Administrators in Phoenix, AZ at the Midyear Meeting on December 8, 2000.