70 FR 210 pgs. 65902-65904 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request
Type: NOTICEVolume: 70Number: 210Pages: 65902 - 65904
FR document: [FR Doc. 05-21674 Filed 10-31-05; 8:45 am]
Agency: Health and Human Services Department
Sub Agency: Administration for Children and Families
Official PDF Version: PDF Version
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families
Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request
Title: The National Evaluation of the Court Improvement Program.
OMB No.: New Collection.
Description: The National Evaluation of the Court Improvement Program will describe the many paths followed by state courts to improve their oversight of child welfare cases, and will provide the field with information on effective models for juvenile and family court reform. Funded by the Children's Bureau, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 2004, the five-year study is being carried out by a partnership of three organizations consisting of Planning and Learning Technologies (Pal-Tech, Inc.), the Urban Institute and the Center for Policy Research.
The Federal Court Improvement Program (CIP) was established in 1994 as a source of funding for state courts to assess and improve their handling of foster care and adoption proceedings. The funding is codified in title IV-B, subpart 2 of the Social Security Act, Section 438, as part of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program. Although anecdotal information documents the program's success, this is the first national evaluation of CIP. This study builds on the recommendations of a Children's Bureau funded evaluability assessment (EA) of the program completed in 2003 by James Bell Associates, Inc.
The National Evaluation of the Court Improvement Program involves three interrelated components:
1. Reviewing and synthesizing state and local court reform activities: This component will describe the full range of CIP-funded court reforms undertaken by states at the beginning and ending of the study's data collection period. Additionally, it will provide insights into states' reform priorities and how these shift over time. Especially promising models of reform will be highlighted. Finally, this component will provide important contextual information for the study's in-depth evaluation component of select models of reform. Information for this activity will be synthesized from existing reports submitted by states to the Children's Bureau.
2. Reviewing and synthesizing existing court reform evaluations: This component will identify and synthesize findings from research and evaluation conducted on family and juvenile court reforms. It will provide important context for the study's in-depth evaluation component in two ways. Findings on reform activities beyond those captured within the study sites will be provided. It will also help inform evaluation within the study sites by providing information on previously conducted evaluation of similar reform models. Information for this activity will be synthesized from existing evaluations and studies of court reform. Evaluations will be prioritized for synthesis based on their methodological rigor and findings reported in the substantive areas defined by the EA. These are:
• Alternative dispute resolution.
• Training and educational materials.
• Case tracking and management.
• Improvements to the consistency and quality of hearings.
• Parent/caregiver outreach, education, and support.
• Systemic court reforms.
3. Conducting in-depth studies of reform models: In-depth evaluation ofselect models of reform will be undertaken within three, diverse sitesacross the country. The study designs vary among sites, and includequasi-experimental and descriptive outcome methodologies. Reflecting theAdoption and Safe Families Act, the primary outcome areas of interestwill be child safety, the timely achievement of permanency, and childwell-being. Within each site, outcome evaluation will be complemented bya qualitative study of the many factors that impacted reform includingother related reform efforts, the evolution of the target reform overtime, barriers encountered, and methods by which these barriers wereovercome.
The outcome evaluation will utilize information from existing court andchild welfare agency management information systems. Within selectsites, information from these sources will be supplemented withinformation abstracted from existing court and/or child welfare agencycase records. The process evaluation will help inform outcome findingswithin the study sites as well as provide important insights for thereplication of the model within other sites. It will involve thecollection of new information through structured focus groups andinterviews with key individuals, as well as court observations of childdependency hearings. This descriptive information will be collectedtwice during the study.
The three sites selected for in-depth analysis are the following:
• Connecticut's Case Management Protocol: Piloted in December 1997, theprotocol involves a pre-hearing conference of professionals held earlyin the dependency court process coupled with expanded parent representation.
• Delaware's Systemic Reform: Piloted in 2000, the three primarycomponents of the state's comprehensive reform effort are:
• One judge/one case assignment practice where one judge presidesover all legal stages of a dependency case
• Defined sequence of hearings and reviews that significantlyincreases the number of hearings and oversight role of the courts
• Representation for indigent parents in child welfare proceedings
• Texas' Cluster Courts: Piloted in 1997, these courts are located inrural areas of the state. Each court serves a cluster of contiguouscounties, and a specially trained judge is appointed to travel to eachcounty within a cluster on a given day to hear that county's childwelfare cases. The cluster courts were formed to enable rural countiesto meet the state's strict permanency statute guidelines that were enacted January 1, 1998.
Collectively, findings from the three study components will capture theongoing nationwide process of court reform supported by the Court ImprovementProgram. A technical work group comprised of leading researchers, judicialand child welfare agency officials and representatives of public interestgroups has been assembled to provide input at key points during the study.
Respondents: Study respondents include individuals in the following categories among thethree study sites noted above:
• Court Improvement Program (CIP) administrators.
• Judges.
• Attorneys (representing the parent, child, and agency).
• Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs) and Guardians Ad Litem (GALs).
• Child welfare agency administrators.
• Regional child welfare directors and supervisors.
• Child welfare agency caseworkers.
Annual Burden Estimates
| Instrument | Number of respondents | Number of responses per respondent | Average burden hours per response | Total burden hours |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CIP Administrators | 8 | 1 | 2 | 16 |
| Judges | 30 | 1 | 1 | 30 |
| Attorneys (parent and agency) | 95 | 1 | 2 | 190 |
| CASAs and GALs | 55 | 1 | 2 | 110 |
| Child Welfare Agency Administrators | 10 | 1 | 1 | 10 |
| Child Welfare Agency Directors Supervisors | 30 | 1 | 2 | 60 |
| Child Welfare Agency Workers | 120 | 1 | 2 | 240 |
| Total | 656 |
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 656.
Additional Information
Copies of the proposed collection may be obtainedby writing to the Administration for Children and Families,Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACFReports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified bythe title of the information collection. e-mail address: infocollection@acf.hhs.gov .
OMB Comment
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection ofinformation between 30 and 60 days after publication of thisdocument in the Federal Register . Therefore, a comment is bestassured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30days of publication. Written comments and recommendations forthe proposed information collection should be sent directly tothe following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Attn: Desk Officer for ACF, E-mail address: Katherine_T._Astrich@omb.eop.gov .
Dated: October 28, 2005.
Robert Sargis,
Reports Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-21674 Filed 10-31-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-M